An analogy would be a religious wedding contract that a court enforces (or doesn't) according to neutral principles of law. The fact that there are also religious elements in the text of the contract (e.g. a quotation from sacred text, invocation of a deity) does not invalidate it. Some of the mahr cases have worked out that way.
________________________________ From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene [vol...@law.ucla.edu] Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:45 PM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: RE: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law" Well, if indeed the theory is that the court is not really deciding what Sharia law calls for, but just what the testator wanted, then I agree there might not be a First Amendment problem – but then I’m not sure that the amendment would ban the consideration of such testimony. On the other hand, if the court tries to figure out what the testator wanted by determining what Sharia law calls for, then the amendment would bar such a consideration, but so would the First Amendment. From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of hamilto...@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:40 PM To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu Subject: Re: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law" I agree there is a potential problem with a court interpreting Sharia law and he would do better to revise his will, BUT if the question in will interpretation is what he intended, I would think his intent is a fact question, and there could be testimony regarding what he believed, not what Muslims should believe. That would get around the prohibition on judicial determination of religious beliefs. Marci In a message dated 11/10/2010 2:38:33 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, vol...@law.ucla.edu writes: The second is the they-can’t-probate-my-will theory; but the problem with that, I think, is that a secular court already can’t try to interpret Sharia law – or Mosaic law or the Bible or any other religious authority – in interpreting a will, deed, or contract. So again the plaintiff is suffering no tangible harm from the existence of the law, it seems to me. _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.