[Conscience of a Conservative]

For courts of law to hear such arguments there would have to be clear scriptural references and a long history of religious customs deriving from those references (Scientology doesn’t cut it) for the court to adjudicate whether there was any restriction on the free exercise of religion.

I could not disagree more. The courts should not be in the business of determining whether someone's sincerely-held religious beliefs are sufficiently based in scripture to warrant First Amendment protection.

[Hostage]

> “The courts should not be in the business of determining whether someone’s sincerely-held religious beliefs are sufficiently based in scripture to warrant First Amendment protection”.

The courts weigh whether a person is sincere in their pleading where religion is used as a pretext for their actions.

If one were to take your statement above as a universal constraint, then anyone could make up any religion at all for cover.

For example, tax exemptions based on religious reasons. The so-called ‘religion’ is heavily scrutinized.

I object to income taxes in general and favor a consumption based system but that’s another subject. The point is that people will use religion to evade the law, and they do so often. Judges do not put up with this unless the religion is historically established with clear reference to its foundations.