Talk:Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United States: Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance). U.S. Congress Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) thing(s). Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following was moved here from the article:

the RLUIPA only applies to prisoners. This is far from true! RLUIPA has a large affect on any religious institution. For instance if a church moves into an area zoned as commercial or residential the government is not allowed to impose those restrictions against it. That is why it has land use in the title. I enjoy your articles but this one is very insufficient, and in many instances is outright wrong. JAD

I invite the author of this statement to improve the article accordingly. BD2412 T 05:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed alot more that was literally "getting too personal".

68.39.174.238 03:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I suggest that you take a look at the articles on the various Amendments to the Federal Constitution (for example, the 1st, 13th, 14th, and 15th). First and foremost in those articles is a word-for-word quotation of what the Amendment says, and next they delve into the implications of the Amendments, and the court cases that have interpreted the Amendments. This is the logical way to proceed in such articles.98.67.173.16 (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this as a section heading:

Law Review Articles About RLUIPA's Application To Eminent Domain

I changed it to this:

Law review articles about RLUIPA's application to eminent domain

Most of the section headings in this article made the same mistake. Surprisingly, this persisted while numerous people edited this article over several years. Please notice that

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20151222131232/http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/resource.org/fed_reporter/NEWcircs/cir9/08-56423_cir9.html to http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/resource.org/fed_reporter/NEWcircs/cir9/08-56423_cir9.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—