For number 2: a lot of religious exemption laws specifically require that it be a position or doctrine of an "established" religion. So yes, "proof" that religious leaders said the same thing is actually required much of the time. It's how religious exemption gets quietly denied. It shouldn't be that way, but it often is.
Ah, well that is BS. I'd fight that in court, and I think I'd win. It's in the Bible after all.
We would all win anything in court if the judge was honest and a constitutionalist.
In that world the Judge would render summary judgement against whoever was stupid enough to try and violate your rights by forcing you to get an experimental injection, and that person would see jail time with only the smallest of opportunities to try and defend their heinous actions.
But we don't live in a world with honest constitutionalist judges, that's pretty much the crux of our problems. Legally speaking.
Ah, well that is BS. I'd fight that in court, and I think I'd win. It's in the Bible after all.
We would all win anything in court if the judge was honest and a constitutionalist.
In that world the Judge would render summary judgement against whoever was stupid enough to try and violate your rights by forcing you to get an experimental injection, and that person would see jail time with only the smallest of opportunities to try and defend their heinous actions.
But we don't live in a world with honest constitutionalist judges, that's pretty much the crux of our problems. Legally speaking.