RLUIPA and Chuck B.

We talked today in property about the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. It is pretty interesting. It was an act passed to protect churches and religious groups from getting treated unfairly as far as zoning laws, and to protect inmates' religious preferences.
Congress passed RLUIPA (ar-LOO-pa) with a unanimous voice vote in both the House and the Senate and got President Clinton's signature on it all within two days.

It is an interesting act because it says that any government land regulation (zoning laws, landmarking laws, and other land use restrictions) do not apply to religious exercise (church, religious charity, essentially any activity directly or indirectly related to a religious cause) unless (1) the government has a very compelling interest in enforcing that law, and (2) restricting the religious use is the least restrictive way of enforcing that interest. And the burden of proof is all on the government entity. It is really cool to see how the tables turn for religious usage, and there are tons of examples of how this ends up working out.

The reason I brought this up is because we had a few students ask about why secular agencies and persons did not get the same privileges as religious organizations. It seems unfair and slanted, and it is. A city can limit the number of people that are allowed to go to a poker game once a week, but they cannot do the same with a prayer group (other than the fire code regulations that apply everywhere because it is a compelling governmental interest). Our professor explained that it all goes back to the way this country was founded, and that the words "one nation under God" have a specific legal meaning to it.

One nation under God means that God is recognized as a legal higher authority. Any religious exercise trumps the limits of the land. Prisoners get special treatment for religious reasons. Different meals, different clothing, different books, different visitors, etc. Religiously based food kitchens and homeless shelters can open up where it would otherwise be prohibited by state or city zoning laws. Religious daycares can be run where a non-religious daycare is not allowed to exist. "God is the General and Caesar is the Captain" is the analogy my professor used. It has some really interesting ramifications, this RLUIPA business. Also, he talked about how it is great because it is usually Pro Bono work, but that only really means you don't get paid if you don't win. If you do win, then you get attorney's fees under one of RLUIPA's sections. Also, RLUIPA has a section that says essentially "If there are two different ways a decision could fall in a case, it ought to be decided in whichever way enhances religious freedoms more."
How cool is that? A clause that says 'if there is any way we can win, then we win, and you pay me for my Pro Bono work. Suckers...'

Ha!

I also ran across this today and I listened to it while I did my work. I didn't watch it because the sound is about 6 seconds off and it kindof drove me crazy, but Charlie Brown is Charlie Brown, right?

Excited to see you in a few days Lisa. We are trying to plan some sweet excursions into wild Lincoln and beyond.