06-13-2015, 07:37 AM
(06-12-2015, 06:22 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You have to remember that the case wont be about his religious beliefs, it will be about some sort of illegal action involving marijuana. That is their burden. Then he would put on his defense in which he would claim it's a religious belief of his. At that point the jury would decide if first they believe him, and if they do then whether there is a compelling state reason.
You obviously don't understand the fundamental purpose of RFRA laws. The first amendment establishes our freedom of religion. In the case it conflicts with law the government has the burden of proof. They have the burden of showing a compelling interest otherwise their laws would trump and trample on the first amendment, which would render it meaningless.
We don't have to justify our religious beliefs. They have to justify why we shouldn't be able to act on them.
