Yeah, to some extent I agree with you... sometimes these discussions can seem a bit "nit-picky"... when I get tired of them, I just stop talking and reading about them for a while -- on the other hand, to just accept what some organizational body says that the law says does a couple of things:
1) Leaves us uneducated -- if we don't understand exactly what the law says, what it doesn't, and why, we are left operating on an explanation that someone else gave about the law and might assume we know what the law means in a slightly different situation and might therefore unwittingly commit a crime (or, unwittingly fail to secure a right we thought we didn't have)
2) Leaves us powerless -- if we merely accept what an organization says that the law says, then we really might as well not have laws and just go off of what different authoritative bodies tell us we have to do. But the fact is that authorities do commit errors all of the time and unwittingly break the law themselves frequently. By them telling us what the law says, and then by us reading the law to understand it and verify it says what they say it says, promotes our system of checks and balances; it keeps us law-abiding, and keeps them honest.
A good example applied to this discussion is that ANY church can apply to BCI under this law and I'm sure BCI doesn't go out to check their church out to make sure it complies with the law -- certainly BCI just lists their name on the site. And if you weren't thinking about the issue yourself and went to one of the community churches that throw regular parties inside the main body of their church you would THINK you couldn't go there armed. If you actually read the law, however, you could approach the religious leader and show him/her that they aren't in compliance with it and try and change things.
