Comment by SilasX
12 years ago
I disagree. They'd probably just find other instances of you lying and say that your religion's prohibition on lying isn't that firm to begin with.
Same as if you claimed that, per your faith, you "have to" wear a yarmulke all the time, but it turns out you only wear it in courthouses that prohibit it.
If it's obviously a sham (like your yarmulke example) then sure - it shouldn't fly. They'd be right to point out "that isn't even your religion, and we have evidence X, Y, Z that proves it."
But if a person practices a religion imperfectly, to propose that their continued attempts to live by it are null and void? That's ludicrous. Moreover, it would also constitute the government telling you specifically how to practice your religion, which is to my mind even worse than forbidding it in the first place.
(EDIT: minor continuity fix)