A polling location in Framingham is in a church hall. Robert Meltzer says it offends him to enter someone else's house of worship.

So he has sued.

The Wesley United Methodist Church, just a stone's throw from the retail cathedral of Shoppers World, is a modest brick complex tucked neatly within a tree-lined, residential neighborhood. When Framingham was looking for space in which to conduct elections, the members of the church - good citizens that they are - offered up its hall.

They thought they were being nice. Meltzer was outraged.

Meltzer says that one tenet of his religion - Judaism - prohibits him from entering churches (from Chapter 167 of the Talmud: ``One must keep away from a house of idolatry, and especially from the idol itself, a distance of at least four cubits''). By Meltzer's read, the town is thus putting him in an impossible position: He can't practice his religion and still vote. And absentee voting, he says, is a poor substitute.

His conclusion: Framingham's choice of a polling location is ``a good, clean example'' of a violation of the First Amendment's ``free exercise'' clause.

At first blush this may seem one of those silly, ``get-a-life'' lawsuits. After all, using a church building for a polling location is pretty common; about 60 other cities and towns in the state do it as well. Moreover, Meltzer, a lawyer and weekly columnist for the Metrowest Daily News (which, like the Herald, is owned by Herald Media), has a reputation as a provocateur. Last year, for example, he compared Utah to the ``Italy of Benito Mussolini.'' He loves to argue the cause of the deeply unpopular, rising to the defense of the ``American Taliban'' John Walker Lindh, alleged baby-killers Rebecca and David Corneau, and Branch Davidian cult leader David Koresh. In one column comparing Osama bin Laden to President George W. Bush, he said, ``History, ultimately, will determine which man did more lasting harm to the United States.''

He likes to get people's blood boiling.

On top of that there are questions about his sincerity. To be successful, the suit needs to show that Framingham is infringing on a core part of Meltzer's religious beliefs. Most Jews - by Meltzer's own admission - are puzzled by his slavish adherence to a rule of which they either are unaware or regard as inconsequential. (In fact, the chapter in question seems to refer to paganism, not to any of today's monotheistic religions.)

Finally, there is a factual problem with Meltzer's suit as well. Voting is held in a church hall, not the church itself, a separate (albeit connected) building with its own entrance. It's an important distinction that may undermine the entire lawsuit. For his part, Meltzer emphatically denies the case is any kind of stunt. Neither he nor his wife, he says, ``would go into a church under any (except emergency) circumstances.'' He points to the abuse he has been taking - radio talk show trashing, angry letters to the editor and numerous obnoxious and sometimes anti-Semitic e-mails and voice-mails - as proof his lawsuit is more than a lark. And as for other Jews who question him? Meltzer accuses them of a kind of self-loathing. They don't follow the rules he follows because they fear a full and public expression of their faith; ``they are ashamed of what they are,'' he says.

So, suppose for the moment that Meltzer is sincere, that the church hall really is a church and that the prohibition Meltzer cites is genuinely a meaningful part of his religious beliefs. Does he win?

One would think so. The constitutional rules are pretty clear: Government can't impose burdens on your religion without some pretty good reasons - and the difficulty of finding another polling location probably isn't good enough.

Still, one would hope that in this case, a court would turn Meltzer down.

In describing voting in the church hall, Meltzer several weeks ago said, ``You basically had to bow before the cross. I was sick for a week.'' He says that he is so scrupulous in avoiding other houses of worship that he won't attend funerals or weddings of friends who are non-Jews. In fact, he says, he increasingly associates only with others who are also as observant as he.

Imagine if everyone thought and behaved this way.

Recent years have seen enormous efforts by believers to break down the barriers among religions, to accept - even to celebrate - others' religious traditions and practices. Not Meltzer. He comes across as intolerant. Moreover, he comes across as a man who believes that his religious beliefs require that intolerance.

That's dangerous ground. It amounts to a vision of America not as a melting pot but as a nation fractured along lines of theology and belief. Allowing the First Amendment to be used that way would amount to a sad perversion of American ideals.

Tom Keane can be reached at tomkeane@tomkeane.com.