06-12-2015, 05:59 PM
(06-12-2015, 05:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Will you guys please read the law before arguing about it.
It doesn't have to be a defined religion. Nobody is going to judge the religion. They are going to judge the person's sincerity. This law is used as a defense against civil or criminal charges. You will have to convince a jury that you are sincere.
Who dey as to your post about not judging the newness of a religion, that's not the point. The point is that this new religion will be poor evidence of your sincerity.
Au I get precedence, but this guy is claiming he can do this under the new law and that is the context in which I am discussing this.
The burden isn't on citizens to prove their sincerity. The RFRA places the burden on governments to prove they have a compelling interest in infringing on religious rights.
Hence why they are called "Religious Freedom Restorations Acts" and not "Prove your Religious Sincerity Acts".
Governments don't have religious freedoms. Citizens do.
