[x-factor]

Originally Posted by dennisw

Although I have heard of many folks solving their differences or avoiding litigation through arbitration, I've never knew it was tied to religious groups. What is your research source on this?

Excerpted from an article in the Columbia Law Review:
Religious tribunals in the United States regularly adjudicate cases in the same manner as conventional arbitrations. Both federal and state courts enforce religious tribunal decisions under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) or under state statutes modeled on the Uniform Arbitration Act (UAA), thereby transforming the decisions into binding legal judgments. In light of that result, the FAA and UAA provide a statutory standard of review that ensures that a minimum level of due process has been followed.

Like I said, Orthodox Jews, the Amish, and other groups do it all the time.

It will mean very little if the coercion comes in the form of an honor killing.

Death threats as coercion is not unique to Islamic divorces. Besides, thats a criminal issue and out of bounds for the policy we're discussing.

Your quoting of the Koran is rich. I love an optimist. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Koran prohibit Muslims from killing each other? What about the woman who was raped and then stoned to death in Pakistan? What's the Koran have to say about that? I don't remember the Imans jumping in the stop them from killing her. This is the U.S. Unless it's a dispute about camels, we don't need a Sharia Court to solve anything.

That Muslims don't always practice the ideal version Islam should not come as a shock any more than the existence of hypocrite Christians. However, there do exist well-meaning law-abiding Muslims in this world. Especially here in America where so many Muslims come to practice their faith free of the ethnic/tribal/cultural garbage of the Arab world.

There's a valid case for outlawing religious arbitrations, but if you want to make that case you better be prepared to enforce it equally across all religions.