For me, the interesting part is what the State of Ohio argued in their challenge to the law:The Supreme Court upheld a federal religious freedom law for prisoners and mental patients yesterday, ruling that Congress has the power to require that state institutions accommodate the reasonable religious needs of those under their control.
In a unanimous ruling, the court rejected Ohio's constitutional challenge to the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), enacted by Congress in 2000. RLUIPA says that "no government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution" that receives federal funds, unless the burden is absolutely necessary to meet a "compelling" government purpose.
The motives behind the challenge probably had to do with not wanting to spend the money for such accomodations, but what of this argument?this amounts to unconstitutional official favoritism for religion, because it creates incentives for inmates in its prisons to profess a religious belief so that they may receive special food or other privileges unavailable to other inmates.
Do you think this ruling could lead to abnormally high levels of conversion to different religions?
Do you think this qualifies as special treatment when evaluating the standards of treatment for those who are religious vs. those who are not?
What does this say about how our society views religion that special accomodations must be made for various religious practices, but not for the non-religious?
It should be noted that the original plaintiffs in the case that created the rule in the first place were Wicca, Satanism, and Asatru, as well as the Church of Jesus Christ Christian.
