Aderleth
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2011
- Messages
- 4,294
- Reaction score
- 2,027
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Luckily in that decision was reversed in time before the guy decided to beat the hell out of that woman or worse.
As long as it doesn't violate US law you should be able to impose any terms you want in a contract and those terms are written in that contract. A judge rulling on that contract would only be ruling on that contract..
Well... yes, but usually when you're seeing religious law in court it's because of some provision in a contract stipulating adherence to religious law, which means the judge is forced to address whatever religion is at issue. The article I cited has some examples. The case you were referring to is obviously a different kind of issue, but, again, this sort of thing does come up in intent determinations in crimlaw as related to a number of cultures. I commented on this a while back, but the first example that comes to my mind was a case involving a first generation Chinese immigrant who adhered to an animist tradition. I'll look it up when I get home if you're interested. My point, of course, is that Sharia isn't being imposed on US courts, and currently gets the exact same treatment as every other religious or cultural authority. Obviously the occassional judge is going to make a bad ruling, but that can happen whether or not any religion is involved at all.