Religious Accommodations in Prison?

http://www.jacksonholestartrib.com/articles/2008/11/20/news/wyoming/b9b3aaf6c1ef6e8b8725750800075309.txt

Should there be religious accommodations for inmates that are serving in state penitentiaries? According to the Wyoming Department of Corrections, yes, there should be. The religious accommodations being made were for two Muslim inmates. The burden being placed on the inmates had to do with their daily prayers running into their lunch time, not being able to have food when they are done fasting, and not having access to a separate microwave when heating their food that is pork-free. A lawyer with the ACLU in Connecticut, Stephan Pevar, stated that in 2000 Congress passed a law “intending” to protect prisoners’ free exercise as long as there was not a security issue and he is praising the prisons official in Wyoming for upholding that law.
The article also addressed a Native American that wanted access to bald eagle feathers for his religious ritual, showing that across the board, accommodations are being made for the religious minorities in prisons, at least in Wyoming. This reminded me of Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) in which the court ruled that religious accommodation cannot be made for Jews to wear yarmulkes in the Air Force because of the uniformity that is implemented by the military. Obviously someone that is in the military is not in the same situation as someone that is in prison; but they are both in compromising situations where the court has to decide which reigns supreme, an individual’s religious beliefs or the safety and uniformity of an institution and all other individuals. In Goldman v. Weinberger the court basically argued the slippery slope theory, which I do not agree with in this case.
I think there should be religious accommodations in prisons as long as there are not legitimate safety concerns. One issue I think that could be raised by this happening is whether or not prisons make dietary accommodations for secular purposes. I do not think it will become a slippery slope issue because all of the accommodations are strictly related to the consumption of food. If the courts, or even prisons are to remain neutral to religion and non-religion wouldn’t they have to make dietary exceptions for secular purposes? Another issue that may be addressed deals with the wearing of religious clothing, such as turbans and swords for Sikh men, yarmulkes for Jews, and any others that may arise. I am not sure what the 2000 law explicitly states, but in this case it deals primarily with the dietary accommodations, so I do not feel intimidated by the slippery slope claim. If the law is generally applicable to any religious accommodations it should be interesting to see what will happen in the future.