sacrifice was an integral part of their religion was neither bizarre nor incredible), such evidence may be relevant to overcome any claim that the impact of the challenged law is de minimis. Moreover, a rule that bans a practice that is not “central” to an adherent’s religious practice might nonetheless impose a substantial burden, if the practice is important and based on a sincere religious belief. A court may also consider whether the litigants’ beliefs find any support in the religion to which they subscribe, or whether the litigants are merely relying on a self-serving view of religious practice. This inquiry is not a matter of deciding whether appellants’ beliefs accord in every particular with the religious orthodoxy of their church. See Smith, 494 U.S. at 887, 110 S.Ct. at 1604 (<HOLDING>) (citing Hernandez v. Comm’r, 490 U.S. 680,
holding that courts should avoid interpretations of statutes which would produce absurd results holding that federal courts are bound by state interpretations of state law holding that courts should not question the validity of particular litigants interpretations of their creeds holding that an agencys rulings interpretations and opinions of an act administered by the agency while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance holding that the scope and application of state exemptions are defined by the state courts and that we are bound by their interpretations