be clear that our assertion that there are some burdens so minor that they do not amount to a violation should not be taken as an invitation to impose a substantial burden test by indirection. But cf. Ford, 352 F.3d at 591 (describing prison officials' argument that denying an inmate one religious feast meal “is not a 'substantial burden'-or, in other words, is a 'de minimis burden’-on [plaintiff's] religious exercise”). 7 .See also, e.g., DeHart, 227 F.3d 47 (finding that Buddhist plaintiff whose request for a vegetarian diet was denied because vegetarianism was not an absolute requirement of Buddhism had stated a free exercise claim, and remanding for further factual findings regarding the existence of countervailing pe-nological interests); Love v. Reed, 216 F.3d 682 (8th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); Makin v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 183 F.3d 1205
holding that  relatively shortterm and sporadic  intrusions on an inmates prayer activities did not constitute a substantial burden on inmates free exercise of his religion holding that prisons policy of supplying orthodox jewish inmates with one frozen kosher dinner supplemented with nonkosher vegetarian or nonpork meals violated prisoners free exercise rights holding that prison officials failure to accommodate inmates meal requirements during ramadan violated his free exercise rights holding that denial of inmates request for bread and peanut butter so that he could prepare his sunday meals in his cell on saturday  thereby avoiding preparing food or benefitting from the preparation of food by others on the sabbath  violated prisoners free exercise rights holding scheduling employee for later shift on sunday so he could attend church did not eliminate conflict with his second religious practice of not working at all on sunday his sabbath