There are some religions that are OK with violence under certain conditions, and others that reject it totally. Ergo, fighting wars or even having a military is unconsitutional.
Since this line of argument leads to obvious absurdities, it must be rejected as invalid.
That’s an interesting line of argument but I don’t think it quite hits the mark. The equivalent question and answer in that context would be “can you accept war and still believe in religion?” and “yes. The common view that war is inherently antireligious is simply false.” The distinction (which I admit is a fine one) is that the a government’s war policy isn’t saying that those who’re opposed to it on religious grounds are wrong, merely that they’re in the minority.
Actually not despite the histrionics. It is the current jurisprudence as interpreted by the SCOTUS. Such is life.
By this inane "logic", having an army is not neutral because it gives preference to religions that accept that war is sometimes necessary over those that take an absolute pacifist stand.
Your analogy fails miserably since nobody is compelled to join the Army. Students are compelled to listen to state actors, read teachers, make declarative sentences that may be in direct conflict with their religious beliefs. Do you understand the difference?
If not, try this. The state actor teaches that evolution is incompatible with religion. Presumably you would reply "NONSENSE" to any person taking umbrage at that statement. Of course what you think is really neither here nor there, it's what the 9 aristocrats in the robes think and your view is not congruent with theirs.
Regards.