Idiotic argument. If I start a church that has bank robbing as a sacrament, the law would—and should—intervene. Same with human sacrifice and other illegalities.
I am not in favor of polygamy, never have been. That’s not the point.
Your example is a non sequitur because the law against bank robbery has preceded the establishment of a religion based on bank robbery.
The example of polygamy is the opposite. Polygamy existed in this country for a decade or three before the first anti-polygamy laws were passed. Therefore, the laws really did prohibit the free exercise of polygamy religion.
Even so, that isn’t the point I was making. I was saying that the way the professor wants to interpret the First Amendment has the effect of removing the necessity of the free exercise clause. That’s constitutionally frightening, regardless your religion.
Personally, I think the FLDS is wrong in their private interpretation of religion WRT polygamy and related activities. However, that is irrelevant to the point I was making.