OK but this case, this ruling, is just an overturn of conviction and granting a new trial based on the fact that it shouldn't be up to a jury whether or not someone is acting in good faith according to their religion. In other words, you can't prove whether or not someone actually believes they talk to Shiva. Or Buddah. Or Satan. The judge said "The religious views espoused by respondents might seem incredible, if not preposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines are subject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truth or falsity, then the same can be done with the religious beliefs of any sect. When the triers of fact undertake that task, they enter a forbidden domain. The First Amendment does not select any one group or any one type of religion for preferred treatment. It puts them all in that position." All this says is that no one can ask the jury to determine whether or not you actually believe what you're saying about your religion.