v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 116 S.Ct. 1620, 134 L.Ed.2d 855 (1996) (“Crime is not the less odious because sanctioned by what any particular sect may designate as ‘religion.’ ”); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 166, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878) (asking rhetorically if “one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship,” whether the government could interfere with a human sacrifice). In that regard, the laws prohibiting kidnapping and conspiracy to commit crimes are laws for which the need for uniform enforcement precludes the recognition of religious exception in this case. Indeed, I have been unable to find a single case where RFRA has been used as a successful defense against prosecution for crimes involving force or violence. Cf. Mullet, 868 F.Supp.2d at 624 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Brock, 863 F.Supp. 851, 866
holding that the freedom of access to clinic entrances law does not violate rfra because face addresses governmental interests in preventing violence holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding rfra does not protect tithing holding that hate crimes prevention act does not violate rfra holding that the act does not violate separation of powers is not void for vagueness and does not violate principles of due process by allowing a victim veto precluding application of the act