Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The United States is a secular nation. Period. [View all]pinto
(106,886 posts)37. I'm unfamiliar with RLUIPA, but for background found this via Wikipedia, fwiw -
The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub.L. 106274, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid burdensome zoning law restrictions on their property use.
It was enacted by the United States Congress in 2000 to correct the problems of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The act was passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by unanimous consent in voice votes, meaning that no objection was raised to its passage, so no vote was taken.
Zoning and land use
In religious land use disputes, RLUIPAs general rule is the most commonly cited and challenged section. It provides:
1. General rule. No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government can demonstrate that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution
a. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
b. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
2 .Scope of Application. This subsection applies in any case in which
a. the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
b. the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
c. the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(a).
During these disputes, the correct interpretation of the term land use regulation is almost always an issue. The statute defines land use regulation as a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimants use or development of land (including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest.
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(5).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act
It was enacted by the United States Congress in 2000 to correct the problems of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The act was passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by unanimous consent in voice votes, meaning that no objection was raised to its passage, so no vote was taken.
Zoning and land use
In religious land use disputes, RLUIPAs general rule is the most commonly cited and challenged section. It provides:
1. General rule. No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government can demonstrate that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly or institution
a. is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
b. is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
2 .Scope of Application. This subsection applies in any case in which
a. the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
b. the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability; or
c. the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessments of the proposed uses for the property involved.
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(a).
During these disputes, the correct interpretation of the term land use regulation is almost always an issue. The statute defines land use regulation as a zoning or landmarking law, or the application of such a law, that limits or restricts a claimants use or development of land (including a structure affixed to land), if the claimant has an ownership, leasehold, easement, servitude, or other property interest in the regulated land or a contract or option to acquire such an interest.
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(5).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Land_Use_and_Institutionalized_Persons_Act
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Not to cause a resurgence of the (theoretical) war on Christmas, but . . .
Still Blue in PDX
Feb 2013
#27
Then why are businesses required to accommodate religious objection as practical?
ProgressiveProfessor
Feb 2013
#3
Tax exempt status has nothing to do with "reasonable accommodation to popular feelings"
ProgressiveProfessor
Feb 2013
#16
Further to this I believe the lack of taxation is seen as part of the separation of Church and State
ieoeja
Feb 2013
#39
I generally believe that even non-profits should pay their fair share of community costs
ProgressiveProfessor
Feb 2013
#40
That exemption is also extended to property taxes in most jurisdictions
ProgressiveProfessor
Feb 2013
#34
You must teach me, George Michael. You must teach me the ways of the secular flesh. nt
Tommy_Carcetti
Feb 2013
#8
Certainly. I would be outraged if Congress passed a law respecting the establishment of religion,
Nye Bevan
Feb 2013
#26