|
Doug is correct that many different hypos, and
actual denials of accommodations, were invoked. The communion-wine
hypo (and one apparent instance of denial of communion wine in a Colorado
prison) was mentioned by, e.g., Senators Hatch (139 CR S14363, S14368),
Lieberman (S14462), Hatfield (S14466) and Danforth (S14466-14467). This
was all in the context of the Reid Amendment on prisons.
Is it really so controversial that prisons should
be "required" (as a condition on the receipt of federal funds) to allow
religious prisoners to sip small amounts of wine during religious
rituals?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 10:59
AM
Subject: RE: Nullifying RLUIPA
The animating question was that
prisoners file frivolous lawsuits on every possible issue. Many
examples were discussed, but no single example was the animating
question.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law
School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
(phone)
512-471-6988
(fax)
That’s wrong.
Communion wine was the animating question. Form can’t trump
substance.
-----Original
Message-----
From: Douglas
Laycock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 6:25
PM
To: Law & Religion
issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Nullifying
RLUIPA
I think
he is referring to the vote on the Reid Amendment, to exclude prisons from
RFRA. That went down decisively but far from unanimously; 2:1 is a
reasonable estimate. There might have been some discussion of
communion wine; supporters of RFRA were pointing to an unreported Colorado
case where a guy on work release was let out to attend church but forbidden to
take communion. But I am as certain as it is possible to be 12 years
after an event that there was no vote on communion wine.
Douglas
Laycock
University of Texas
Law School
727 E.
Dean Keeton St.
Austin,
TX 78705
512-232-1341 (phone)
512-471-6988 (fax)
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2005 5:09
PM
To:
religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Nullifying
RLUIPA
I'm always learning
something new. The Senate voted separately on communion wine in the
context of debating RFRA? I thought I had read it all, but maybe
not.
In a
message dated 6/2/2005 4:55:14 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If
there is any one dietary demand that cannot be refused, communion wine is
it. The issue came up in the Senate debates on RFRA and by a thumping
two-to-one vote, the Senate agreed with me. If one looks at the
question in historical context, the case against denying communion wine is
overwhelming.
_______________________________________________
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.
|
_______________________________________________
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.
