Re: Nullifying RLUIPA

[Hamilton02]

My observation was not intended to raise a straw man and is quite sincere.  Where is the limit for the prisons under RLUIPA when it comes to diet?  Here's the problem -- in this day and age, a prison could easily have a mix of Buddhists, Hindus, Orthodox Jews, Nation of Islam members, and Rastafarians.  Different Buddhists observe different vegetarian requirements, Hindus eat no meat or eggs, Orthodox Jews require kosher, the Nation of Islam observes a "biblically derived diet" which included some breads, some fruits and a long list of prohibitions like cornbread and seafood, while Rastafarians eat an I-tal diet, which consists of fresh, unprocessed fruit, vegetables, fish, juices and grains.  It is a given that the state must provide a nutritious (even if not always delightful) menu.    Given that the Court has given prison authorities great deference and seems to say that only "exceptional" burdens must be accommodated, where is the line now drawn?   This is a legal question, not a political question.   Marci       In a message dated 6/1/2005 2:29:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:       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

_______________________________________________
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.