YET THESE INTERESTS SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED UNQUESTIONINGLY WHEN AN INMATE CLAIMS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRACTICE HIS RELIGION HAS BEEN VIOLATED. THE PROPOSED STANDARD TO BE APPLIED WHEN BALANCING PRISONER'S RIGHTS WITH PRISON INTERESTS SUGGESTS THAT CONDUCT WHICH IS REASONABLY AND NECESSARILY RELATED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF SOME JUSTIFIABLE PURPOSE OF IMPRISONMENT WILL ENABLE SOME CURTAILMENT OF THE PRISONERS' RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE. JUST HOW REASONABLE AND NECESSARY IT IS WILL DEPEND ON AN APPLICATION OF THE TEST ESTABLISHED IN UNITED STATES V. O'BRIEN (1968) - WHETHER A STATUTORILY EMPOWERED REGULATION WHICH FURTHERS AN IMPORTANT INTEREST AND IS UNRELATED TO THE SUPPRESSION OF THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION IS NO BROADER THAN IS ESSENTIAL TO THE FURTHERANCE OF THE LEGITIMATE INTEREST SOUGHT TO BE PROMOTED AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, ON AN EXAMINATION OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR PURSUING LEGITIMATE INTERESTS WHICH WOULD LESS DRASTICALLY AFFECT THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)...ELW