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> 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**** > > ew...@richmond.edu**** > > ** ** > > *From:* religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto: > religionlaw-boun...@lists.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> > 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 > 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**** > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > -- 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
_______________________________________________ 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.
