tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post4265969797912517440..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Mayor Barrett, Indiana followed Wisconsin's exampleRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-58792265840137650152015-04-06T10:06:15.910-05:002015-04-06T10:06:15.910-05:00You're confusing different things. It is certa...You're confusing different things. It is certainly possible to show that an objector does not actually hold the belief that they do. But, again, I think that the evidence is going to have to be strong and objective. I would argue that the government has the burden of proof on insincerity although I don't think that's been resolved.<br /><br />The cases that you mentioned involved people who were profiting from the posited religious belief. While I wouldn't say there's a rule against it, in the context of those cases, the court was able to conclude that the defendants didn't really believe what they claimed to believe as demonstrated by their conduct and by objective criteria.<br /><br />What the courts won't do - or at least shouldn't - is "ridicule" a belief or say its fanciful. So, no, they won't- or shouldn't - make a peep if they believe that your religious views are wrong.<br /><br />I think you have the business about protecting "established" religions exactly backwards. RFRA or constitutional protection is not needed to protect politically powerful religious views. Governments won't interfere with them. It is needed to protect minority views.<br /><br />Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-31460857879584122302015-04-06T09:37:35.152-05:002015-04-06T09:37:35.152-05:00RFRA says beliefs need be both sincere and religio...RFRA says beliefs need be both sincere and religious in nature, right? <br /><br />RFRA claims to smoke dope, keep eagle feathers, and import bush meat have been rejected because of the courts deemed the claims insincere.<br /><br />The court can't examine those assertions? They're not going to examine any facts that might show my beliefs are not sincerely held, or that I don't adhere to them consistently? They're not going to question whether my beliefs are fanciful? If I say I'm a Pastafarian, they're not going to ridicule that? If I say my God died and came back to life three days later, or that when I die I get my own planet, they're not going to make a peep, right? <br /><br />The IRS has a 14-point system for determining whether an organization is a church, and these points favor established religions over tiny ones. <br /><br />Certainly the Supreme Court has developed "sincere and meaningful belief" tests when it came to conscientious objectors, and the same questions were examined by local draft boards and the courts above them, and the exemption wasn't given for merely personally believing that you were opposed to war.<br /><br />All these RFRA are all about giving special exemptions because of claimed adherence to established religions.Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-19916757185237965292015-04-05T11:32:09.165-05:002015-04-05T11:32:09.165-05:00That is generally not part of the analysis. Absent...That is generally not part of the analysis. Absent some obvious proof to the contrary, sincerity is assumed. There is a "rule" against courts making religious judgements. (I put it in quotation marks because completely avoiding such judgments is probably impossible.) Some people argue - Justics Scalia is one of them - that this opens the door to too many religious claims because what someone can claim as religion is limited only by the human imagination. However, that simply hasn't happened where this type of protection is extended.<br />Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-37965464901634419602015-04-05T10:37:23.040-05:002015-04-05T10:37:23.040-05:00What could go wrong if the legal system is judging...What could go wrong if the legal system is judging the sincerity and validity of religious beliefs?Display Namehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15842340986220388709noreply@blogger.com