I agree; and I take it that nothing in the Oklahoma amendment would invalidate such a contract enforced according to neutral principles of law, either.
> -----Original Message----- > From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw- > boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Eric Rassbach > Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:11 PM > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Subject: RE: FW: TRO against Oklahoma "no use of Sharia Law" > > > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
