|
In response to Marci's query whethere there is some
limit on what prisons must do, of course there is. No one says the prisoners win every
case; that is her straw man. Some diet claims are
insincere; some demand that the religious requirements be met in a different
way, although the prison has already met them;
some may be too expensive, although I want the court to
seriously look at the evidence on that.
The right to kosher and halel food is so sensible that it has largely
survived the lack of any doctrinal basis after Turner and
Smith. RLUIPA grounds those claims again, and of course it
reaches some of them. Some prisons insisted on pouring pork
drippings over everything until they got sued; objecting to that is a dietary
claim that Marci would apparently reject. Claiming that RLUIPA does
not require the prison to "pay for any dietary request" makes sense
only if one intends to nullify the Act by "interpretation" now that the
Court has refused to nullify it on a constitutional challenge.
Doug
Are you taking the position that RLUIPA places a burden on every prison to
accommodate every religious diet request? I don't see how RLUIPA
creates a requirement that the prison pay for any dietary request. There
are literally hundreds of diet variations among the many
religions. No prison can cover them all, and there has to be
some limit to what prisons must do, right?
Marci
In a message dated 6/1/2005 10:47:25 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The rules of construction in the text of the statute actually address this issue. They say that the act neither creates nor precludes a right to have the state fund a religious organization or pay for a religious activity, but the state does have to pay the costs of removing substantial burdens on religious activity. |
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
