first contention, it is observed that the Chief Justice’s concern in Cruz had to do with the distribution of literature within a prison, and not with the receipt of food by prisoners. A number of courts have been willing to uphold prisoners’ religiously based dietary claims. See e. g., Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492 (2d Cir. 1975); see generally, Note, Free Exercise of Religion in Prisons — The Right to Observe Dietary Laws, 45 Fordham L.Rev. 92 (1976). 6 . Compare St. Claire v. Cuyler, 634 F.2d 109 (3d Cir. 1980) with St. Claire v. Cuyler, 643 F.2d 103 (3d Cir. 1980) (Adams, J., dissenting from denial of petition for rehearing); see generally Comment, The Religious Rights of the Incarcerated, 125 U.Pa.L.Rev. 812 (1977). See also Alim v. Byrne, 521 F.Supp. 1039, 1045 (D.N.J.1980) (<HOLDING>). 7 . “1 cannot give up my guidance to the
holding that the defendant countys two denials of variance permits under the circumstances had to a significantly great extent lessened the prospect of the religious institution being able to construct a temple in the future thus imposing a substantial burden on the religious institutions religious exercise holding that religious exercise is any exercise of religion whether or not compelled by or central to a system of religious belief and that the use building or conversion of real property for the purpose of religious exercise shall be considered  religious exercise holding that exclusion of religious groups from universitys open forum policy violated the first amendment holding exempt under ors 307130 which relates to other charitable institutions a building that was used as an office for a religious official and religious court and a printing press for a religious publication holding that limitations placed upon the religious activities of two prison groups found to be religious organizations were reasonable under the circumstances