In 1998, California banned the sale of horsemeat for human consumption,
based on nonrational aesthetic / moral judgments about the impropriety of
eating horses. Say that a state bans the sale of pork for human consumption,
based on the desire to minimize the risk that people would accidentally eat it
(and thus violate their nonrational religious objections to eating pork), or
that people would be economically pressured by restaurants, food processing
plants, and so on into serving it or even tasting it (as a chef often must when
he's cooking a dish). If the horsemeat ban is constitutional, why wouldn't the
pork ban is constitutional.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-
> boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Douglas Laycock
> Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 2:52 PM
> To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics; West, Ellis
> Subject: Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment Clause
> challenge
>
> By the way, I agree that imposing a religious practice on everyone else is
> deeply
> problematic. Perhaps justifable in the prison context, where many rights have
> been
> forfeited anyway. But a ban on the sale of pork in the civilian economy could
> not
> be justified as a religious exemption.
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:38:41 +0000
> "West, Ellis" <ew...@richmond.edu> wrote:
> >I should have added to the post below that the policy might create as much
> conflict as it eliminates, just as would a vegetarian diet.
> >
> >Ellis M. West
> >Emeritus Professor of Political Science University of Richmond, VA
> >23173
> >804-289-8536
> >ew...@richmond.edu
> >
> >From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
> >[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of West, Ellis
> >Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 5:21 PM
> >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> >Subject: RE: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment
> >Clause challenge
> >
> >Sure avoiding litigation is a secular purpose, but only if one assumes that
> >RFRA
> and RLUIPA, the basis of the litigation, are secular in purpose and effect,
> but that
> is precisely the issue. Suppose these two laws did not exist. Then would the
> prison policy in question be secular in nature? The avoidance of conflict
> might
> also be a secular purpose, but it would justify all kinds of exemptions, not
> just
> religion-based exemptions, because persons object to all kinds of laws for
> all kinds
> of reasons. For example, as Prof Levinson suggested in an earlier post, it
> would
> justify a uniform vegetarian diet for all prisoners.
> >
> >Ellis M. West
> >Emeritus Professor of Political Science University of Richmond, VA
> >23173
> >804-289-8536
> >ew...@richmond.edu<mailto:ew...@richmond.edu>
> >
> >From:
> >religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucl
> >a.edu>
> >[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu]<mailto:[mailto:religionlaw-
> >boun...@lists.ucla.edu]> On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
> >Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 4:36 PM
> >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> >Subject: Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment
> >Clause challenge
> >
> >Avoiding litigation (and there are many, many RLUIPA and free exercise cases
> about prison diets) and other forms of conflict, and having the efficiencies
> of a
> uniform diet for all prisoners, sound like secular purposes to me.
> >On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 3:34 PM, West, Ellis
> <ew...@richmond.edu<mailto:ew...@richmond.edu>> wrote:
> >Although the District Court may be correct in saying that the primary
> >purpose of
> the policy is not "to establish the religion of Islam" or to "promote the
> practice of
> Islam," it does concede that the policy "makes accommodating a multitude of
> religious practices and beliefs easier and more economical." Would someone
> explain to me how that purpose and/or effect is "secular" in nature? Even
> though
> Prof. Lupu may be correct in saying that this particular policy is good way of
> accommodating religious beliefs/practices, his comment simply assumes that a
> policy of accommodating religious beliefs/practices is secular in nature.
> How so?
> >
> >Ellis M. West
> >Emeritus Professor of Political Science University of Richmond, VA
> >23173 804-289-8536<tel:804-289-8536>
> >ew...@richmond.edu<mailto:ew...@richmond.edu>
> >
> >From:
> >religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucl
> >a.edu>
> >[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu<mailto:religionlaw-bounces@l
> >ists.ucla.edu>] On Behalf Of Ira Lupu
> >Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2012 7:32 PM
> >
> >To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
> >Subject: Re: Court upholds prison no-pork policy against Establishment
> >Clause challenge
> >
> >Is this outcome surprising in any way? Does anyone on the list believe that
> >the
> court got this wrong? (I certainly don't).
> >
> >If Congress overrode HHS and eliminated pregnancy prevention services from
> mandatory coverage by employers under the Affordable Care Act, wouldn't the
> analysis be just the same (imposition of a uniform policy to avoid religious
> conflict,
> avoid any need to create controversial exceptions for religious entities,
> avoid
> piece-meal litigation, and ease administration of the overall scheme), even
> though
> the impetus for change derived from a demand by some for religious
> accommodation?
> >On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:48 PM, Volokh, Eugene
> <vol...@law.ucla.edu<mailto:vol...@law.ucla.edu>> wrote:
> >River v. Mohr (N.D. Ohio Apr. 5, 2012), http://volokh.com/wp-
> content/uploads/2012/04/RiversvMohr.pdf .
> >
> >Eugene
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to
> >Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Ira C. Lupu
> >F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University
> >Law School
> >2000 H St., NW
> >Washington, DC 20052
> >(202)994-7053<tel:%28202%29994-7053>
> >My SSRN papers are here:
> >http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to
> >Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu<mailto: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.
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >Ira C. Lupu
> >F. Elwood & Eleanor Davis Professor of Law George Washington University
> >Law School
> >2000 H St., NW
> >Washington, DC 20052
> >(202)994-7053
> >My SSRN papers are here:
> >http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=181272#reg
>
> Douglas Laycock
> Robert E. Scott Distinguished Professor of Law University of Virginia Law
> School
> 580 Massie Road
> Charlottesville, VA 22903
> 434-243-8546
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
