Not only was the headline misleading, but my subject line was
grammatically appalling! I've tried to correct it; my apologies as to that.
I agree that it sounds like the judge wasn't ordering the use of
Islamic law in the first instance, but it sounds like the
If the parties agreed to it, it's just an arbitration clause. There is a
vast body of arbitration before Jewish courts, and it doesn't generate
headlines like this. And this does not sound like one of the arguably
exceptional cases where individuals agree to religious law and it turns out
to
Serbian Eastern v. Milivojevich holds that civil courts cannot decide
whether religious courts followed their own procedures. Removing a bishop is
an especially sensitive context; these trustees may or may not be equally
sensitive. Whether that matters depends on whether we treat religious
Dear All,
First, thanks to Rick for passing this thread along to me and I'm pleased to
have joined the listserv.
I had a couple of initial reactions to the case:
(1)If this were not an arbitration before a religious tribunal, then the
court would be required to determine whether or not
