Re: Nullifying RLUIPA

[Steven Jamar]

Without going into it in detail or designing the menu, I respectfully disagree with Marci that compliance with dietary religious requirements is all that burdensome.  Providing a vegetarian option along with a non-pork option plus sides of fruit and vegetables plus kosher, if legitimately demanded, would often be enough.  Not all dietary habits are religiously required -- including almost all dietary limits for most hindus (no beef; vegetarian option) and buddhists (highly individualized -- most eat anything given them in monasteries around the world -- with exceptions, of course. I would expect some rule of reason in these cases.  And I would bet that most prison populations do not have ALL of the multiple permutations possible -- and if a population is like that, the prison is probably large enough that the burden becomes smaller. I don't think we can draw the line on this listserv, but I also do not think that in most cases, indeed nearly all cases, it will be very difficult.  Slightly more costly, perhaps, but not all that difficult or costly. Steve On Jun 1, 2005, at 4:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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   --  Prof. Steven D. Jamar                               vox:  202-806-8017 Howard University School of Law                     fax:  202-806-8567 2900 Van Ness Street NW                   mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Washington, DC  20008   http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/pages/jamar/ "If we are to receive full service from government, the universities must give us trained [people].  That means a constant reorientation of university instruction and research not for the mere purpose of increasing technical proficiency but for the purpose of keeping abreast with social and economic change. . . .  Government is no better than its [people]." William O. Douglas

_______________________________________________
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.