I don't see this so much as deferring to religious law. The article as I read it is about arbitration, which is totally legal and happens all the time in the US. It's just about arbitration being conducted by a religious organization rather than your typical arbitration group. If everyone involves is agreeable to the arbitration then it shouldn't matter if it's Islamic, Jewish, Cristian, or Vulcan law that's applied. The laws of the land have nothing to do with it. It's a private transaction.
Now if a crime is committed in this country, it should be considered a crime, regardless. If someone is stoned to death, a crime was committed. The real problem here is getting people to know it was a crime and they have a legal resolution available to them. Many people who have become indoctrinated into a religion or cult may not be aware of or willing to accept that legal resolution. -Cameron Gruss Gott wrote: > When the Law of Religion Meets the Law of the State > Posted by Dan Slater > > As many news junkies know by now, on February 7 the Archbishop of > Canterbury, Rowan Williams, fueled some serious controversy over a > long-running debate in Britain: To what extent should Islamic law be > accommodated in a society that's now home to nearly 2 million Muslims? > (Click for original reports from the FT, the Times of London, The > Economist and the NYT.) > > Here's what happened: In an interview with the BBC, Dr. Williams > known as the spiritual leader of the world's Anglican population > suggested that Britain should "constructively accommodate" certain > aspects of Sharia law in areas such as commercial and family law. > (Sharia is a body of Islamic law based on the Koran, the words and > actions of the Prophet Mohammed, and rulings of Islamic scholars.) > Doing so, he said, "seems unavoidable" to achieve social cohesion. > > The Archbishop, who last year said that schools should refuse to teach > creationism, clarified that he was not advocating the criminal > punishments issued in some Muslim communities where alleged violations > of Sharia are sometimes dealt with by stoning and beheading. > > On Sunday, the NYT's Adam Liptak offered some U.S. context to the > debate. In the "Ideas & Trends" column, Liptak gave several examples > of U.S. courts deferring to religious tribunals Islamic, Christian > and Jewish. In 2003, a Texas appeals court reportedly referred a > divorce case to a tribunal called the Texas Islamic Court; in 2005, a > federal appeals court in New Orleans affirmed an award in an > employment arbitration by the Institute for Christian Conciliation; > and, it's common, reports Liptak, for state courts to enforce the > decision of Jewish courts, known as a bet dins. > > Whether government courts should ever defer to religious ones, writes > Liptak, is a question whose answer depends on whether the parties > consented to religious adjudication, whether they're allowed to change > their minds and whether the decisions of those tribunals are offensive > to fundamental conceptions of justice. "The hard questions, as the > archbishop learned, arise in the area of family law," says Liptak, > "where the agreement to arbitrate may be uninformed or obtained by > duress." > > One law professor told Liptak that government courts should refuse to > enforce any ruling from a religious tribunal that leaves a woman worse > off than she would have been in a conventional divorce. "Society has a > stake in the outcome," said Washington & Lee's Robin Fretwell Wilson. > "Some religions are tilted against women." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:254448 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
