06-12-2015, 04:39 PM
(06-12-2015, 04:29 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I don't know if that's the case. The first amendment sort of guarantees us the right to practice whatever religion we want. The burden isn't on us to prove to the government that our religious beliefs are sincere, otherwise we aren't really free to practice whatever religion we want. Only what the government deems is "sincere".
This case is interesting I believe due to the question of whether or not the government has a compelling reason to disallow adherents from using pot as part of their sacrament. Given the fact that it is already legal in several states for recreational and legal purposes, what good reason does the state have to burden people practicing their faith?
The purpose of RFRA laws is to make it difficult for the government to infringe on first amendment rights. It isn't to make people prove whether their religions are legit or not.
If they don't legally define what a religion is how do you determine if someone is in fact practicing a religion? Without a definition of religion how can one be denied a right to it?
Also as was pointed out they do have to determine if the person sincerely believes he is in fact practicing a religion. See United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944), as they stated the beliefs don't have to be true they jsut have to honestly believe them to be true. So if this guy believes in marijuana,yad, yada,yada he just has to believe it true in his own mind. If it is determined to be a ploy to smoke pot then it in fact can be disregarded.
Also they can outlaw pieces of religions that effect the health, or welfare of the greater good. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 [1878] as they outlawed Polygomy, but obviously did not (and could not) outlaw Mormonism.
It really is a complex case, as is any case that concerns religion.
