re: #212 Targetpractice

Let’s be realistic, his lawyer argued he’s a “shaman” and that he requires a specific diet because a judge would be more sympathetic to a religious pleading than “white guy with a food allergy.”

And that’s a problem with the First Amendment. The government cannot define what a religion is. Whether he truly believes this, or it’s a cynical ploy to gain sympathy or privileges, if a judge starts defining what a religion is, no religion is safe (starting with non-religious people, atheists’ rights would be taken immediately).