The judge’s approach to religious sincerity in the Jensen case provides a practical example that aligns with Carse’s understanding of religion.

The Judge’s Determination of Religious Sincerity #

In the court document, the judge states: “At the hearing, Plaintiffs presented the testimony of several witnesses to establish the sincerity of their religion. The court found the witnesses credible and ruled that Plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of success on their claim under the Utah RFRA.”

This seemingly straightforward statement contains several important elements:

Evidence Through Testimony #

The court based its determination on witness testimony rather than doctrinal analysis. This approach acknowledges what Carse would recognize as the living, communal nature of religion rather than focusing solely on written beliefs or doctrines.

Credibility Assessment #

The judge specifically found the witnesses “credible”–suggesting an evaluation not just of the content of their beliefs but of the authentic way they presented their religious experiences. This aligns with Carse’s view that religion is not primarily about holding specific beliefs but about how people engage with mystery and transcendence.

Focus on Sincerity, Not Orthodoxy #

Notably, the judge assessed the “sincerity of their religion” rather than its legitimacy, orthodoxy, or theological coherence. This distinction is crucial and mirrors Carse’s argument that religions are not primarily belief systems that can be evaluated for correctness.

How This Approach Aligns With Carse’s Framework #

Beyond Belief Content #

Carse argues that religions transcend the specific belief systems they generate. The court’s approach demonstrates this principle by focusing on the sincerity of religious practice rather than evaluating the content of specific beliefs about psilocybin or their theological justifications.

Community and Practice #

“[S]atisfying those requests—particularly the ones relating to the identities of Singularism’s affiliates—would also impose additional burdens on Plaintiffs’ free exercise by discouraging association among Singularism’s adherents. See NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460–61 (1958) (’[T]he effect of compelled disclosure of [an organization’s] membership lists will be to abridge the rights of its rank-and-file members to engage in lawful association in support of their common beliefs.’)”

The court recognized potential harm to the religious community as a result of government actions–precisely the kind of tension between civic authority and religious community that Carse analyzes. This recognition closely aligns with Carse’s understanding of religion as a communal phenomenon rather than just an individual belief system:

• Community Formation: Carse emphasizes that religions create communities that transcend time and space. The court’s citation of NAACP v. Alabama directly acknowledges this communal nature.
• Protection from Authority: Carse argues that religious communities need protection from excessive authority to maintain their vitality. The court’s concern about government actions “discouraging association” reflects this principle.
• Religion vs. Belief Systems: The court’s recognition of associational rights suggests an understanding that Singularism is not merely a set of individual beliefs but a community engaged in shared practices.

Practical Engagement With Mystery #

In recognizing Singularism’s sacramental use of psilocybin as religious, the court acknowledges what Carse might call a practical engagement with mystery and transcendence. The document references their use of the substance “to encounter the Divine”–precisely the kind of engagement with mystery that Carse sees as central to religion.

The Legal Context for Religious Sincerity #

The judge’s approach exists within an established legal framework for evaluating religious claims:

• Utah RFRA Standard: The Utah Religious Freedom Restoration Act provides protection for sincere religious practices against government interference unless there is a compelling state interest.

• Sincerity vs. Centrality: Courts generally avoid determining whether a practice is central or essential to a religion (which would involve theological judgment) and instead focus on whether the religious belief is sincerely held.

• Deference to Religious Claims: Courts typically defer to individuals’ characterizations of their beliefs as religious rather than imposing external definitions.

What’s notable is how this legal approach aligns with Carse’s understanding of religion. The law has evolved to recognize that determining what “counts” as religion isn’t about content of beliefs but about sincerity, community, and practice.

What the Court Didn’t Do #

Perhaps as revealing as what the court did is what it didn’t do in evaluating religious sincerity:

• Didn’t Question Legitimacy: The court didn’t question whether Singularism was a “legitimate” religion despite its recent founding (November 2023).

• Didn’t Examine Theology: The court didn’t evaluate the theological rationale for using psilocybin.

• Didn’t Compare to Established Religions: The court didn’t measure Singularism against established religious traditions to determine its validity.

• Didn’t Focus on Membership Size: The court made no mention of how many adherents Singularism has, recognizing that religious legitimacy isn’t a numbers game.

These omissions are consistent with Carse’s understanding that religion transcends specific belief content and institutional structures.

The Government’s Contrast #

In stark contrast, the government’s approach to Singularism illustrates what Carse would identify as belief-system thinking:

• Drawing Boundaries: The government defined Singularism’s practices as outside acceptable boundaries through enforcement actions.

• Discovery Requests: The government sought extensive discovery about “each instance where [Mr.] Jensen consumed drugs prohibited by the Controlled Substances Act between 2015 and the present”–attempting to gather evidence to undermine the religious claims.

• Criminal Prosecution: Following the TRO, the government initiated criminal proceedings–an attempt to enforce boundaries through legal authority.

The court recognized this overreach, noting that the government’s discovery requests were “grossly disproportionate” and suggested “that Defendants’ purpose is to use discovery in this civil lawsuit to investigate Plaintiffs for the pending state criminal case—a patently improper purpose.”

Conclusion #

The judge’s approach to religious sincerity in this case demonstrates a sophisticated understanding that aligns remarkably well with Carse’s insights about religion. By focusing on sincerity rather than content, community rather than dogma, and practice rather than belief, the court effectively recognized the distinction Carse draws between religion and belief systems.

This case shows how the legal system, at its best, can create space for the complexity and mystery that Carse sees as essential to religion while still maintaining appropriate boundaries for public safety. It suggests that Carse’s theoretical framework has practical relevance for navigating the tensions between religious freedom and civic order in contemporary society.