Shortly before the trial of the Kings Bay 7 started, Judge Wood ruled that the RFRA could not be raised by the defense.

I believe that this is reversible error. The RFRA is an unusual type of statute. It does not constrain the actions of the public; it constrains the actions of the judge.

It says if a defense asserts a religious interest, the judge must first clarify what the competing interests are, and, if the religious interest asserted needs to be restricted because of a compelling government interest, then the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest must be chosen.

The judge may not say, without explanation, that the RFRA does not apply to the controversy at hand, since the text of the RFRA makes it clear that it does apply. This is the normal “strict scrutiny” standard in a controversy where the First Amendment is asserted.

The First Amendment plainly is relevant, so its application to the controversy is governed in part by the RFRA.

Martin Gugino

Buffalo, N.Y.

More from this section

Fire gutted a vacant house shortly before 11 a.m. Friday, leaving fire crews working hard through noon to extinguish the flames and make sure they did not spread to nearby trees or the neighboring business.

This past week, I received a telephonic Robo Call from someone stating he represented the Glynn County Republican Party. There surely must be a parallel universe with a similar name since that call was nothing but false accusations and lies about ESPLOST 3.