Talk:Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

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)

I've removed alot more that was literally "getting too personal". 68.39.174.238 03:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is odd that an article on the "Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act" does not at least quote pertinent passages from the law, or else present a lengthy and scholarly summary of this Act of Congress.

It is patently silly to instantly jump into a description of legal cases concerning the many disagreements about what this Act means -- without first stating what the law says, at least in a summary form.

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)

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 WP:MOS does exist, and other Wikipedia articles exist, and most of them follow the standard prescribed in WP:MOS. 174.53.163.119 (talk) 14:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• 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. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Bernards Township, New Jersey#Islamic Society of Basking Ridge. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)