How did a blithering idiot get to be the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Posted by: darcy at February 9, 2008 9:28 AM

Actually, I'm going to have to disagree with Hugh on this one.

In Beth Din, the committee is always made up of THREE MALES — no women allowed — and in order to obtain a "get" (permission to divorce) a woman has to get the permission of her husband and of the appropriate male committee.

That this law, which OBVIOUSLY disenfranchises women both under conservative Jewish law and the civil courts that enforce it, is viable in any civil state is completely unacceptable.

It is this situation with Beth Din, introduced by a religion that is a tiny minority in all Western countries after the Holocaust — even in American where 1/3 of the world's Jews live — that has opened the door for shari'a law in every Western country. This is the exception that makes liars of us when we try to resist the imposition of shari'a law on women in Western countries.

ALL RELIGIOUS LAW HAS TO BE BANNED IN ALL WESTERN STATES IF WE ARE TO SURVIVE.

Now, before people start piling wood, looking for the can of kerosene, and flicking their little Bics here ...

My husband (God rest his merry, rascal, genius soul) was Jewish and my natural son is half Jewish, and my four step-children are all Jewish.

And ... I am NOT equating Judaism with Islam when talking about the rights of women.

I don't notice any Jewish guys honor-killing their wives, forcing them into cover, forcing FGM on them, or telling them that their lives are worth a man's leg.

HOWEVER, it is quite clear that Beth Din in all its ramifications is extremely male-dominant and in its marriage and divorce decrees and judgments highly focussed on keeping major decisions regarding women in men's, not their own, hands.

Though its true that Judaism and Christianity and (for the most part) Buddhism have literally dragged civilization out of the "club on her the head and drag her to the cave" mode of relationship — and Islam and Hinduism are still in the stone age on this one — religious law is, in EVERY CASE, still discriminatory against women, as would be fairly naturally expected given the short time that the subject has been on humanity's table. It is the last form of social, legal and religious discrimination left as racism and slavery wither under the halogen light of human rights inquiry.

That said, one of the most powerful things we can do in the West now is to completely rid the social system of religious law and leave that to the CHOICE OF MEN AND WOMEN AND THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS ... OUTSIDE, OUTSIDE, OUTSIDE ... OF STATE LAW.

If we don't do this, we have no argument. And, to wit, I know a number of Jewish women who have submitted to this "get" garbage only because they knew that they and their children would be ostracized in the Jewish community if they did not. And since Beth Din holds the weight of secular law, which enforces it, in Western countrieds, it constitutes the one chink in the armor of Western civil law that "interested" Muslim concerns can exploit to introduce shari'a law for Muslim women in Western countries.

As such, it has GOT TO GO.

And besides which, it should go simply on the basis of being discriminatory. And I hope nobody tries to run the number that "it's equal, just different, and therefore separate".

Separate, but equal doesn't fly for racism, and it doesn't fly when you're talking about the disenfranchisement of women's wholeness in terms of law, society and spirituality, either.

Separate is never equal.

Period.

Get rid of Shin Bet and every other religious "exception" to civil law, or face the imposition of shari'a.

Saying that Beth Din is LARGELY, MOSTLY, AND OVERWHELMINGLY BENIGN -- which it is -- still doesn't solve the problem. It has got to go.

The only way the Canadians were able to prevent the imposition of shari'a law on Muslim women in Canada — and it came within 24 hours of going into law there — was to disallow all religious exceptions to Canadian civil law, and that meant Jewish family law.

Sorry, but that's just the situation. And listening to some garbage that religious law does not contain superior rights for men and discrimination against women is patently disingenuous.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 9:46 AM

I read your comment, Morgaan.

You are right - this has got to go:

"And, to wit, I know a number of Jewish women who have submitted to this "get" garbage only because they knew that they and their children would be ostracized in the Jewish community if they did not."

Also, the 100% male-dominated Beth Din committee. You are right, that is NOT fair and can be used by Islamists to further their sharia law attempts.

Posted by: darcy at February 9, 2008 9:54 AM

Morgaan, I'm curious about something: What happens if a woman--Jewish, or married to a Jewish man--doesn't want her divorce situation adjudged by a Beth Din court?

It seems to me that _one part_ (though only one part) of the problem with the whole sharia thing is that when women say they are "willing" to be bound by the judgement of the sharia court, they may not really be. They may have been even outright threatened by their husbands, husbands' families, and the community.

I would trust more a Jewish woman's statement that she consented to have her divorce adjudicated by a Beth Din court, because, as you say, Jewish men aren't known for honor killing their female relatives, routine wife beating, etc.

Posted by: Lydia at February 9, 2008 9:58 AM

The blithering the Archbishop of Canterbury has a long history of brown lipping the Islamo,s

Now more about the picture. This picture was taken just minutes after yet another Palestinian suicide bomber had detonated his explosive belt outside the main shopping mall in Netanya killing several innocent Israelis and injuring many more.

The news of this murderous attack was given to the Pompous Old Goat as he was on his way to pay a courtesy call on Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat.

Can you guess the Pompous Old Goat,s reaction

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2008/02/pompous-old-goat-pt-2.html

Posted by: shiva at February 9, 2008 10:35 AM

Assalamau Laikum all,

Here it is....the beginnings have arrived.

Elements of sharia + democracy

sharia lite

It is what I have been telling you for nearly two years...and you have been having a laugh at me...but here we are ...reality...and sharia lite.

I was always sure and had oddles of faith ...perhaps Allah Paak has shown me what you cannot or refuse to see.

Please do not fear...I am here and will guide you always (and free of charge) from Skirt to Hijab, from a higgle-di-piggldy christianity to rock solid Ahmadia.

These things will happen...and peoples on this web side will thank me for the advice.

I start taking the bows now...thank you...thank you.....bravo Rowan...I just wasn't thinking that it would be so soon.

Posted by: Naseem at February 9, 2008 10:50 AM

Could someone clarify if religious Jewish law has any standing whatever in the US legal system? I thought it was a voluntary thing. I thought that if a couple was divorced by a Bet Din and not a US court, they would stil be legally married in the US. Conversely, if a couple divorced legally in the US, neither party could claim any marital rights here if they had not been divorced by the Beth Din.

Is/was it different in Canada?

Posted by: Papa Bear at February 9, 2008 10:56 AM

"He is quite wrong"...

....all he needs to do is to review the history of those countries where Sharia law and other laws existed....and where Sharia law won out....

....In those countries where Sharia law won out...Islam dominated and all other religions were forced out of existence....

....it is a non refutable fact....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at February 9, 2008 11:08 AM

Realism is what counts. Are the handful of Beth Din courts, in which, I gather, Orthodox Jews -- those so orthodox as to wish to use these courts -- have a Jewish divorce, that is one recognized in Jewish as opposed to civil law -- really, in their significance, equivalent to the introduction of Shari'a?

This is a kind of missing-the-point equivalence, akin to that of the person who brightly says "Gee, if Australia is allowed to have nuclear weapons, then why should it be different for North Korea?" Or "since Israel has nuclear weapons, how can anyone argue against nuclear weapons for Iran or Saudi Arabia?"

This equivalence, and the furious denunciation, of a handful of Beth Din courts, ignores quite a few things. There may well be patriarchy in Orthodox Judaism. But there is no fear of physical coercion, or death, and women are free not to submit to Beth Din courts, and free to cease being fully orthodox in their observances, free to rely on the civil courts. And many, no doubt, do. The imposition of family law based on the Shari'a in Western countries, however, ignores the fantastic pressures -- including physical coercion - on Muslim women. It is not surprising that those who led the fight to prevent the imposition of Shari'a family law in Canada, by uncomprehending and eager-to-please multiculturalists, but Muslim women, who knew exactly what was at stake.

Furthermore, Beth Din courts are so small, so few in number, so limited in scope, and are not part of some larger plan to push, and push, and push, unlike the Muslim scheme of things. For if Shari'a were to be recognized in those countries where it has never been, that would be rightly seen, by Muslims, as confirmation (see Naseem's postings for an example) that they are on the path to undoing, little by little, all the obstacles to the spread, and the dominance, of Islam. That is clearly understood by Muslims and by non-Muslims who have taken the trouble to study the texts, tenets, attitudes of Islam. But it is not understood by the holier-than-thou (rip that collar off him), insensate Defender of the Faith (that Faith being Islam) Rowan Williams.

It would be easy to indulge in the game that "they are all the same" or that "they are all equally abhorrent" and that, therefore, we must throw out the Beth-Din baby with the bathwater of the Shari'a." Not so fast. Distinctions matter.

Posted by: Hugh at February 9, 2008 11:17 AM

There are desperate denials coming out of Lambeth Palace, and Inayat Bunglawalla, to the effect that this was a simple acknowldgement that many people voluntarily use religious arbitration services for civil cases without going to law.

But if that was the case, there was no need for him to say anything at all. Where is the "inevitable" change that the rest of us have to get used to? There isn't one.

It has always been the case, that in non-criminal cases, any two parties may agree to be bound by any system, be it the toss of a coin, a gentlemans' agreement, local custom, religious traditions etc.

What is new, and unacceptable, is any notion that the outcome of such arbitration should be enforced by the state, on anyone. I say again, unless he was promoting such enforcement, he was calling for something that he knows, has always existed.

As for the ArchBishop, I suspect he has outraged his flock once too often. The man is a liability to his church, and to suffering humanity.

Posted by: Monty at February 9, 2008 11:19 AM

"How did a blithering idiot get to be the Archbishop of Canterbury?"

posted by Darcy.

Actually, if you read his full statement, you will realize that he is a scholarly and highly intelligent.. er... idiot.

The most dangerous type. Personally I prefer the blitherers; more on my level.

Posted by: StephenA55 at February 9, 2008 11:27 AM

"That this law, which OBVIOUSLY disenfranchises women both under conservative Jewish law and the civil courts that enforce it, is viable in any civil state is completely unacceptable."

Morgaan, darcy, in all western countries submission to the dictates of a Beth Din is entirely voluntary. Only in Israel, and possibly in Moslem theocracies like Iran would the verdict of a Beth Din be enforced by civil authority.

The place of the Beth Din in Israeli society is a legitimate topic for debate, is in fact hotly debated by Israelis today. I doubt whether the present situation will continue much longer - I expect secular trends will win out in the end.

Anywhere in the west, a Jewish woman can get a civil divorce if she wants one. She will of course be rejected by her Orthodox religious community, but they will not physically attack her. She can have her freedom if she will pay the price.

Posted by: ElderlyZionist at February 9, 2008 11:36 AM

Posted by: darcy

How did a blithering idiot get to be the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Quite simple Darcy, by being a blithering idiot, intelligence has nothing to do with it. You must remember that in politics and religion now scum always rises to the top. It usually takes a couple of years after a disaster to sort out the wheat from the chaff, and then as Churchill said you don't have to be polite only right. I must admire his aesthetic taste though. The Yellow color of his new vestments match really well with the stripe down the middle of his back.

Now to get back to the problem of Sharia law in Britain. What is it that defines a country and its boundaries. The physical extent of its legal jurisdiction. It is as simple as that. Let me give you a simple example. During the trial of the Locabie bombers. To bring them to trial America and Britain compromised with the Libyans. The Libyans would not agree to extradite the bombers to stand trial in Scotland. To get over this impasse the Dutch by an act of Parliament ceded a secure part of Zeiss Air force base to the British crown for the duration of the trial. Without this act any conviction of the accused would be null and void. For you Americans imagine what would happen if a certain ethnic minority decided that they wanted to implement Mexican law in parts of Texas what would happen, or for us Brits what would happen if say Dover had a majority of French speakers and wanted to implement French law. If they succeeded then part of Texas would become part of Mexico and Dover would become part of France.
This is what the P.C. Numb nuts who rule Britain seem to have missed, by acceding to the Demands of the Moon loons, especially in a criminal case they have agreed to the establishment. technically of a new country. This is an act of TREASON. The boundaries have yet to be defined, but have no fear that will come. Expect the establishment of tribal areas in my former green and pleasant land in the not too distant future. What is even worse in many ways is they have written out of British law, the concept of equality before the law. This does not seem to have dawned on many of my fellow Brits who have been assailing the various comment columns in the various papers in Britain with outraged drivel. It certainly dawned on the Government because Blair and his cohorts got rid of treason by Royal degree in 1997, so I will not have the dubious pleasure of mixing with the plebes on tower hill and throwing my sweaty cap into the air at their execution.

Signed

An extremely pissed off Brit

Posted by: Holger Dansker at February 9, 2008 12:19 PM

I made additional comments about a Bet Din here.

Morgaan and Darcy, if any Jew, male or female, wants to simply not abide by a Bet Din's decision anywhere outside of Israel, that's their choice and there's no power granted by any non-religious civil authority anywhere to force them to do otherwise..........

UNLESS...........

The people involved voluntarily signed a civil legally binding contract, when permissable by civil law, to make an arbitration panel's (which a Bet Din can be equated to) decision final and binding.

Again, this in itself is all within the framework of existing civil laws and does not impose new requirements on the existing local or national legal system.

And again, such legal acceptance of arbitrators has nothing to do with religion. Anyone can arbitrate and anyone can sign a legal agreement to abide by an arbitrator's decision, regadless of race, creed or color.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 12:29 PM

Look, it's the same thing to different degrees. Go see a film called "A Price above Rubies" and you will see what the pressures of women who do NOT want Beth Din divorce—always adjudicated ONLY BY MEN—and what happens to them when they resist it. Or, in the film, almost happens. But the pressures are clear, and if you don't think so, go ask some Jewish women who are fighting this.

Is it the same as in shari'a where they rape and butcher you and bury you in the back yard if you don't marry, divorce and have sex just as they say you should?

No, BUT ... and a very big BUT ...

... the fact that civil legal authorities have ACCEPTED AND ENFORCED BETH DIN is EXACTLY WHY MUSLIMS CAN LOBBY FOR AND GET SHARI'A.

Anybody who doesn't get this is either dumb as a doughnut or lying.

And give the choice of keeping Beth Din (and other such archaic, pro-masculine, woman-disenfranchising codes of "law" and "justice") or accept that we must do the same for Muslim men in accept shari'a culturally and legally forced down the throats of their women, Beth Din can go. Like today.

RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL DIVORCES, EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO GET TWO, MUST BE SEPARATE — AND THE RELIGIOUS ONE MUST BE INFERIOR TO THE CIVIL ONE IN ALL WAYS — NOT LEGALLY ENFORCABLE BENEATH IT.

Look, it's illegal already. Religious authorities cannot make laws inimical to those of the state, just as lawyers cannot write contracts violating the civil rights of participants, even if they agree to it!

I tried to write a contract giving copyright ownership of a piece of music to somebody else for life, and the State of California would not let me do it! Why? It's considered inimical to my rights as an artist.

Beth Din laws that treat women differently than men are illegal under the law, and yet courts will enforce them. It's unconstitutional RIGHT NOW.

Once an agreement is made for a Beth Din divorce, which I can assure is socially forced under the best of conditions, the CIVIL AUTHORITIES ACCEPT IT AND ENFORCE AND THEN WOMAN CANNOT SIMPLY GO GET ANOTHER CIVIL DIVORCE THAT ANNULS THE FIRST.

Enough already. It's misogynist and protects male hegemony, property rights, custody rights, religious rights—and everything you really need to know about it is that A WOMAN NEEDS PERMISSION TO GET A DIVORCE, SHE NEEDS PERMISSION FROM HER HUSBAND AND THREE OTHER GUYS WITH VESTED PERSONAL, CULTURAL, SOCIAL, AND RELIGIOUS INTEREST--AND THE HUSBAND DOESN'T NEED ANYBODY'S PERMISSION AT ALL.

And on that basis alone, it is unconstitutional, illegal, and should be brought before the U.S. government as a civil rights violation and thrown out of US law — and the law of Great Britain and every other court system in the world that ENFORCE religious edicts that disenfranchise women and run counter to the moral, legal, and civil rights of women.

You leave this loophole, and we get shari'a. And even it we didn't it would be wrong.

STOP TREATING WOMEN AS THE RELIGIOUS POSSESSION OF THEIR HUSBANDS.

Give me a break.

I can't believe I have to read this kind of tripe on a website decided, as it so often is, to protecting the rights of Muslim women.

But note this: We will defeat the worldwide spread of extreme shari'a law IF AND ONLY IF we do not try to continue to hold onto to those cultural and social and religious prejudices which ALLOW IT TO GAIN A FOOTHOLD IN WESTERN CULTURE.

That only means we have to give up the very few things we are still doing wrong.

And that only means that men have to stop trying to lobby for extra everything — money, inheritance, jobs, salaries, and control of every possible sort — which are ill-gotten gains and immorally-obtained advantages ripped from women under false pretenses and doctrines introduced into religions by men who had the very simple physical advantage that they could punch your lights out if you didn't like it.

Oh, man. Seeing this parsed to within an inch of its adverbs to try to make a case for this crap is just unbelievable.

And, it's a situation in which people who are often geniuses make themselves vulnerable to being written off altogether for the 2% of things about themselves they personally need to rethink and scrub out of their psyches.

Think before you speak. Or write. The position you are taking is not different than shari'a; it varies only in viciousness and, in the case of Christianity and Judaism, was softened and faded by the enlightened both within and without the religions who tempered the control of men with a conscience born or a consciousness of human rights.

Religious laws and doctrines which paint women as evil or which determine their social roles, bar them from the priesthood, or in any way imply that they should IN ANY WAY AT ALL be under the control of men as a dictum of God must go.

They are not dicta from God. They are men's lies dressed up in God's robes. If I were you guys, I would be very concerned about just what God really thinks of what you are doing with this.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 12:51 PM

When a woman has to get PERMISSION FROM HER HUSBAND, A RABBI AND TWO OTHER "UPSTANDING" MEMBERS OF A COMMITTEE -- AND A MAN DOESN'T -- that's got NO PLACE in a civilized society. Period.

And no, God did not say that. ANYWHERE. EVER.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 1:05 PM

Yes, Morgaan, we Jews are oh so primitive.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 1:07 PM

As far as what G-d said and didn't say, the Torah simply says other than you claim.

You wish to not belive that the Torah is true? No problem. But don't make claims contrary to what's stated therein.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 1:08 PM

Gee Whiz, what is wrong with me?

I agree with Morgaan S. However only to this extent. I don't care how people solve their personal disputes outside of civil court. Car accidents, construction disputes, personal injury. and anything else that people do to one another, if they solve the problem, and everybody agrees freely, so what. When the states pass laws that makes these religious agreements binding is where I get nervous. I do not think US law should recognize any religion based divorce law or child custody law.

I have read too much of Leviticus to want anything to do with Jewish law in any shape form or fashion.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 1:24 PM

Shy Guy; being a secular Jew myself, I can't speak from personal experience of Beth Din. Morgaan's comments, however, certainly agree with everything I've heard from others, including my Orthodox sister's family's experiences.
If Beth Din is the shoehorn for Shari'a, then let it go. There's no way in hell that the religious courts are going to bring THEMSELVES into the 21st century.
Hugh and others here post daily, incidents of tragic and totally unjust violence, flowing directly from Shari'a edicts...many of them from NON Islamic states!
As I said yesterday, Rowan is nothing short of a Quisling, whatever his IQ.

Posted by: DaninVan at February 9, 2008 1:28 PM

ShyGuy ... if you say so, at least as regards yourown self-perception.

I don't agree with you, but if you insist.

And BTW, to intimate anti-Semitism in people just because they say you have SOME things wrong, is tawdry, cowardly, and despicable.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 1:31 PM

SIMPLIFIED VERSION:

If the legitimacy given Beth Din under British and American law WASN'T ADVANTAGEOUS, THE MUSLIMS WOULDN'T WANT IT, NOW WOULD THEY?

No, they wouldn't.

Granting religious courts a STANDING under civil law LEGITIMIZES THEM in the view of those on whom their dictates are visited.

And in the case of shari'a, it is a FIRST STEP (whereas in Judiasm it's enough in itself) toward something much more sinister. It's a fact that conservative religious "states" (even states within states) always become more conservative, and they also MUST create an enemy at peaceful times to keep themselves legitimate (people just lose interest in them otherwise).

Beth Din should NEVER have been given legitimacy in civil states. Any civil states.

And it should immediately lose its legitimacy under civil authority. I don't care if people have to get divorced twice or not.

If we do not do this, shari'a will take hold in every Western country. Period.

The ONLY way it was prevented in Canada was to chuck Beth Din. So let's not hear any whining and moaning on the part of religious "legal" counsels that grant expanded rights for me and contracted rights for women.

Jews, Christians, Hindus and everybody else should get rid of these odious chauvinistic laws ON MORAL GROUNDS, AND NOT HAVE TO BE FORCED TO DO IT.

There is no question that we're going to have to force the Muslims to do it, so the sooner Jewish, Christian and Hindu men take the moral high ground so that they CAN force Islam to do it, the better.

So, which will it be?

Will men continue to defend the indefensible?

Or will men get off it and DEMAND that Muslim men do the same?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 1:39 PM

So its the Jews that legitimize the Muslims push for Shariah in the west.

Sweet, even CAIR couldn't have come up with this in a million years.

So it's blame the Jews as usual. So much for Nazism being dead.

Posted by: waltc at February 9, 2008 1:41 PM

I do not think US law should recognize any religion based divorce law or child custody law.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 1:24 PM

I have read too much of Leviticus to want anything to do with Jewish law in any shape form or fashion.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 1:47 PM

Waltc, I am going to defend Ms. Sinclair! I think you miss the point. When a government recognizes a certain religious court, that government looses the right to prohibit other religious courts. All it takes is one instance to open the door to the others.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 1:54 PM

And BTW, to intimate anti-Semitism in people just because they say you have SOME things wrong, is tawdry, cowardly, and despicable.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 1:31 PM

What is to be said of people like you who make such false accusations and hurl adjective barrages in other's direction?

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 1:54 PM

Shy Guy, I agree with you about existing law, it is and should be neutral concerning religion. I am talking about the recognition of religious based courts, that may issue rulings that violate other state or federal law.

What is the basis for ignoring Liviticus?

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 2:03 PM

Waltc, I am going to defend Ms. Sinclair! I think you miss the point. When a government recognizes a certain religious court, that government looses the right to prohibit other religious courts. All it takes is one instance to open the door to the others.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 1:54 PM

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 2:05 PM

Shy Guy, I agree with you about existing law, it is and should be neutral concerning religion. I am talking about the recognition of religious based courts, that may issue rulings that violate other state or federal law.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 2:03 PM

What is the basis for ignoring Liviticus?

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 2:10 PM

Shy Guy ...

In both the United States and Britain, and until recently in Canada, US civil courts ENFORCE agreements made in Beth Din courts (and with legal statutes that disenfranchise women by applying inequality before the law).

That's ENFORCE those divorces. Once the agreements are set, the US CIVIL LAW ENFORCES THEM.

That is patently unconstitutional as it represents a shadow code of law and because the code of law applied does not practice equality before the law guaranteed for women by the 17th Amendment.

Got it now?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 2:13 PM

One thing the Ontario government understood when deciding to say no to Sharia courts was that, if you allow one religion based tribunal, you have to allow them all. Otherwise you can be rightly accused of applying the law unequally.
The result was that Beth Din and Catholic Annullment tribunal rulings would no longer be accepted.
If the price of keeping out the bad is also keeping out some of the good, then that's the price we unfortunately have to pay.

Posted by: BlackJackP at February 9, 2008 2:15 PM

Shy Guy, As I posted earlier:

"I don't care how people solve their personal disputes outside of civil court. Car accidents, construction disputes, personal injury. and anything else that people do to one another, if they solve the problem, and everybody agrees freely, so what."

We might be saying the same thing in different ways.

It is OK for two people from the same religion in front of a religious arbitration panel to reach an agreement and sign a contract. If the terms of that agreement do not cause any party to violate existing law, there is no problem in my view.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 2:17 PM

Folks, Melanie Phillips is, I believe Jewish. She is a leading commentator and broadcaster in the UK.

Here is her reasoned, reasonable, and informed take on the Beth Din issue:-

Quote: "At the end of the lecture the Archbishop referred to a suggestion by a Jewish jurist that there might be room for 'overlapping jurisdictions' in which ‘individuals might choose in certain limited areas whether to seek justice under one system or another’. This is what currently happens both within the Jewish arrangements and increasingly in current alternative dispute resolution and mediation practice.

This is completely untrue. As I wrote in my post below, there are no ‘overlapping jurisdictions’ between English and Jewish law, and Jewish law is not a ‘supplementary jurisdiction’ in the UK. A jurisdiction is a body of legal authority which has binding force upon those to whom it is applied. Jewish religious law in the UK has no legal authority over British Jews and no such binding force. Jews most certainly do not choose ‘whether to seek justice in one system or another’ except where their participation in Beth Din religious tribunals is entirely voluntary on the part of all concerned, such as in the informal arbitration of disputes. For the enforcement of justice, they must seek remedies from English law, just as they must be married or divorced under English law — Jewish marriage and divorce rituals having no official standing — for such status to be recognised by the state. It is a Jewish religious requirement for Jews to live under the law of the land in which they reside.

It is simply astounding that Lambeth Palace continues to perpetuate a false impression about this. Do they really know nothing about Judaism? Why do they insist upon dragging the Jews into this?"

End quote.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/

Posted by: Infidel419 at February 9, 2008 2:18 PM

Infidel419, the Jews get dragged into this because they are the example. If another religion had a similar system, we would be talking and writing about them also.

I know of no other religious based arbitration system except the sharia system.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 2:24 PM

Woops, I should have written

I know of no other religious based arbitration system except the sharia system and Beth din.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 2:27 PM

Shy Guy ...

In both the United States and Britain, and until recently in Canada, US civil courts ENFORCE agreements made in Beth Din courts (and with legal statutes that disenfranchise women by applying inequality before the law).

That's ENFORCE those divorces. Once the agreements are set, the US CIVIL LAW ENFORCES THEM.

That is patently unconstitutional as it represents a shadow code of law and because the code of law applied does not practice equality before the law guaranteed for women by the 17th Amendment.

Got it now?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 2:13 PM

You still don't get it. The Bet Din is only empowered by existing non-religious civil contractual laws.

You can scribble "IOU a million dollars" on a bubble gum wrapper, give it to someone in front of witnesses, inform everyone present that you are serious and of sound mind and body and wind up in court afterwards for reneging on your agreement.

So watch what you scribble!

If the terms of that agreement do not cause any party to violate existing law, there is no problem in my view.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 2:17 PM
This is exactly how a Bet Din does and MUST operate, in accordance with existing civil laws. It is NOT above the law. It becomes secondary and subservient to it.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/

Posted by: Infidel419 at February 9, 2008 2:18 PM
Yes, Melanie Phillips is Jewish. She's also saying what I've been saying. And she's a great commentator all around.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 2:35 PM

Pelayo is right.

The attempt to institute shari'a in Canada was BASED UP Beth Din.

The attempt to claim legal legitimacy for shari'a in Britain is BASED on Beth Din.

Come on. It's not fair to suddenly scream anti-Semitism when we are talking a real, tangible threat.

The truth is that most religious "legal" systems are instituted with a MAJOR PART (not all, but a major part) of them OBVIOUSLY AND OVERTLY ABOUT MEN RETAINING CONTROL AND PRIVILEGES.

And if there were not an intent to *replace* equality when leveraged privilege and status, there would be no attempt by religious auhorities EVER to invoke religious law over civil law.

IF THERE WERE NOT AN ADVANTAGE TO DOING IT IN A RELIGIOUS COURT, PEOPLE WOULDN'T INSIST UPON THE STATE RECOGNIZING THE LEGITIMATE COURT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And the way in which this works in Beth Din is that the ADVANTAGE is to men.

And the way it works in shari'a is that the advantage is to MEN and MUSLIMS against women and non-Muslims.

And the levels to which this is pushed in Islam is a level unheard of in Judaism in its entire history.

And while you read this, do note that I married a JEWISH man and never regretted it ... and that when a young woman asked me the other day which group of men I thought made the best husbands, I said, "Get yourself a Jewish husband if you possibly can, because there is poetry in the way they relate to women.

Now, Shy Guy, if you can't get that a woman could love Jewish men AND criticize a Jewish legal system that requires a woman to have the PERMISSION a man (that she wants to leave) and three of his chums to get out of a bad marriage — and if you can't understand that civil imprimatur of religious courts leaves us open to the worst of them (not to say what it does to Muslim women) — then this conversation is too complicated for you to be involved in.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 2:40 PM

And this brings us to another point:

EXTRA-JUDICIAL ***ANYTHING*** IS DANGEROUS.

All over this planet "extra-judicial" killings, jihads, beheadings, market bombings — things authorized by religion rather than the state — have threatened the reason of the entire planet.

To me, the separation of church and state is crucial to free thought, freedom of religion, safety from punishment for apostasy and blasphemy and abrogation of rights based on age, sex, religion, creed, national origin, etc.

Yes, I know that radical secularism threatens to wipe out religious freedom — but I think we can deal with that.

But we cannot deal with EXTRA-JUDICIAL subsets of law, becuase the only reason they ever exist is to superfranchise one group and disenfranchise another.

And certainly religion cannot be trusted with such a thing until it rids itself of ALL disenfranchisement of women, including the priesthood.

Until it does, it is never a safe bet.

And when it becomes the bastion of equality it was meant to be, then IT WILL NOT SEEK EXTRA-JUDICIAL LAW BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE NO NEED OF IT.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 2:43 PM

Morgaan, you've basically ignored Hugh's main point above:

"The difference between the imposition of any part of the Shari'a and whatever a very limited role is allotted to Jewish (or possibly Hindu) family law, is that there is no real challenge, by the latter, to the supremacy of English law. There is no long-term program to use whatever small place has been allowed for there to be some kind of use of Jewish (or Hindu?) family law, in very limited ways, and ONLY when those ways do not contradict English law, to undercut the supremacy of the law of the English state. There is no program to undo the legal and political institutions of the English state.

The situation is quite different from Islam....."

And this brings us to another point:

EXTRA-JUDICIAL ***ANYTHING*** IS DANGEROUS.
So you're for outright banning of arbitration and out of court settlement in principle? Have you thought that through? I can think of millions of businesses, organizations and people, none of them thinking about religion, who would find your porposition absurd, and for good reason.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 2:51 PM

Okay, Morgaan, I didn't see that movie. I've just looked up some Amazon reviews, and none of them tell me what ill befalls the woman protagonist if she tries to get a secular divorce (is that it?) instead of a Beth Din one, or if she tries to resist accepting a Beth Din divorce (is that it)? So go ahead. Don't worry about being a spoiler. Just tell me: What does the woman do, and what happens to her when she won't consent to a Beth Din divorce or tries to go outside that system? You've already admitted it's some sort of "pressure" that's not life threatening, but you imply something terrible "almost happens" to her. What's that? Let's get down to brass tacks: What are the Orthodox men doing to the women to get them to consent to be ruled by the disadvantageous Beth Din system?

I'm asking seriously. I don't want to be uninformed. But it sounds like perhaps you are being non-specific about these "pressures" because if you spelled them out in so many words, they wouldn't sound so terrible. I mean, are we talking shunning or something? If she wants to divorce the guy, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. So spell it out.

Posted by: Lydia at February 9, 2008 3:08 PM

Morgaan, I believe that we are now discussing two different things. You are thinking that there will be laws that require people to accept religious arbitration involuntarily. That is not the case as I see it.

Shy Guy and I are not advocating a different set of laws. If two people settle a dispute without clogging the court system, that is a good thing.

The problem is not with the idea of religious based arbitration or negotiation as a concept; the problem is with Islam.

If you are concerned with the treatment of women in these religious courts, then women should not agree to submit to that kind of arbitration. Furthermore, any agreement that violates existing law would be null and void if challenged.

Even in the Texas case posted earlier, all parties agreed to submit the case to Sharia court.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 3:08 PM

It would be one thing for a scholar to say that given immigration, Sharia law would some day be accommodated in the UK, but Williams is not just a scholar his is a church leader. A proper leader would have pointed out that Sharia law is discriminatory and cruel. Adopting it even in a small way in the UK would go against many principals accepted by modern Christianity.

It is one thing to accept that Muslims must have freedom to worship but Islam is more than just a religion. Muslims should have no freedom to impose their male focused social code on the West.

Posted by: Jerry M at February 9, 2008 4:03 PM

I'll be honest when I say this -- prior to this week, I'd never heard of "Beth Din" in my life. Moreover, I've never read a single news story in any UK newspaper describing or reporting any kind of sexist abuse inflicted on any female under as a result of any Jewish marital tradition(s). (and I do read a lot of newspapers). Furthermore, if they did happen I'm sure they would certainly be reported in the UK media, as there are many quarters of the leftist UK media that are blatently pro Islam, and anti Jew/Israel (the BBC for example).

Yet, almost every week (if not every day), you may find reports of severe abuse committed against women committed in the name of Shari'a, Mohammed and, of course, Allah. And of course, islamic communites turn a blind eye to it all, or excuse it in some way. (As do many Dhimmis, like BBC reporters, and now, apparently, Dr Rowan Williams).

Posted by: Infidel419 at February 9, 2008 4:15 PM

Is the Archbishop really that stupid?

Or is he just a bad man?

It's curious how we give so many people the benefit of so many doubts this late in the course of events.

Posted by: joeblough at February 9, 2008 4:17 PM

Dear Morgaan Sinclair.

Thank you very much for telling us about Beth Din. You are right when you say that this is the chink in the armour against Sharia law being adopted by the west.

RELIGION IS THE WORLD'S OLDEST FORM OF TOTALITARIANISM.

Posted by: Voltaire at February 9, 2008 4:22 PM

Posted by: joeblough

Is the Archbishop really that stupid?

Yes

Posted by: Holger Dansker at February 9, 2008 4:37 PM

After Hugh Fitzgerald thoroughly and cogently explained why the poster "Morgaan Sinclair" was wrong in his or her "kind of missing-the-point equivalence", that poster continued to post longer and more hysterical posts obtusely buttressing the initial error.

What an eensy-weensy itsy-bitsy sub-culture like Jewish Orthodoxy (and its even eensy-weensier wing of "Ultra"-Orthodoxy) -- that furthermore poses absolutely no danger to the West and to the Rest of the World -- wishes to do, is utterly irrelevant to the mission of Jihad Watch and Dhimmi Watch.

I think Fitzgerald was being much too kind to call it "kind of missing-the-point equivalence".

P.S.: Perhaps "Morgaan Sinclair" would also like to pound out on the keyboard a thousand-word jeremiad (salted and peppered here and there with escalatingly hysterical ALL CAPS) against the Amish, too...?

Posted by: cantor at February 9, 2008 5:23 PM

Pelayo, when US and other governments sanction the religious law IN LIEU of civil law and then ENFORCE IT if it is broken, it does at least five things:

(1) IT GIVES THE IMAM OR PRIEST THE WEIGHT OF THE SUPREME COURT ON HIS HOME TURF. Note the on-the-ground impact noted by Jews above. The impact is that it disenfranchises women.

(2) The second thing it does is that IT BREAKS DOWN THE SUPREMACY OF RIGHTS-BASED CIVIL CODES.

(3) A woman who signs, or is forced to sign, an agreement inside such courts -- forced physically, emotionally or by threat of expulsion from the group, business, religion, branded a polygamist if she marries again, w hatever -- cannot then go to civil court and "take it back". It is ENFORCED by law enforcement.

(4) It further entrenches male-preference/woman-disenfranchising tenets of religion by giving them the stamp of approval of the US civil court system, and that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If there were no material advantage to it, Jewish rabbis wouldn't insist upon it and Muslim imams wouldn't insist upon it. The material advantage is to men. Period.

(5) It's immoral on every level and needs to be stopped as its primary purpose is to maintain the status quo, and power-broker, with the supposed imprimatur of God, a status quo is MALE-DOMINATED AND IN MOST CASES *EXCLUSIVELY MALE TO BEGIN WITH*.

It's pure and total BS, and the very idea we would have to lose Western culture because the West's own men aren't willing to give up control and admit the equality of women on a spiritual level is despicable.

I have spent so much of the last 20 years trying to believe that I should continue to remain within and love the religion of my youth, and so far I have done so.

But when I listen to things like this, I start to really feel that women should get up and walk out of every church, synagogue, mosque, and temple on this planet and go right back to worshipping the Goddess, which is no more gender-centered that what is being forced on women all over the world.

Basically, I just don't want to. I have always loved my religion, despite its screamingly obvious faults. But the farther down this road we go, the clearer it is to me that men will throw away everything gained by Judeo-Christian culture and Western Englightenment in the last 500 years just so they can hang on to their ability to screw a woman out of the better job, the better pay, the most options — and keep being as promiscuous as they'd like while making sure that the "little woman" is still available for procreation and remains "pure" so that she doesn't just up and make him as anxious about whether he's loved as he makes her.

And the bottom line of how they do it and have always done it is by pretending that God decreed it, tilling that hard ground to try to find out what was said by some long-dead somebody in Leviticus or uttered by somebody who's brain had already been fried by lightning when he said or by some virulent misogynist and anti-Semite like Martin Luther. That church DOCTRINE is based on any of these writings, which should as obviously be taken in context in regards to women's rights and equality as they are taken historically in regard to pronouncements about the behavior of slaves, is absurd.

The bottom line is that if you guys don't get off this male-supremacist crap and open churches, synagogues (which Reform Jews do), and temples to the participation of women at all levels -- YES, EVEN IF THAT MEANS YOU HAVE TO CONFESS TO A WOMAN -- then you are lying when you say you want to defeat radical Islam. Maybe you do ... some. But you don't want to do it badly enough to give up your little special perks and privileges that you DEMAND that the rest of us agree was given to you by God.

No, it was given it you by you, and only by selling half your sole to tell this despicable and harmful lie generation unto generation.

The single most powerful weapon against the worldwide spread of extreme shari'a law was CEDAW, the UN convention against discrimination against women.

And it has failed (so far, until recently perhaps) for two reasons, and two reasons only:

(1) CEDAW allowed exceptions so that wholly misogynist states like Iran and Saudi Arabia could say they signed it. And

(2) The Vatican and the Arab League went into collusion to stop it, and they have, and every time a vote comes up about women's rights that would break the back of shari'a all the Arab states vote it down and the RCC backs them up. And if you think that the Vatican is out there fighting radical Islam, you are sadlay mistaken. Because the RCC will do ANYTHING, ANYTHING, ANYTHING, ANYTHNING, INCLUDING CUTTING A DEAL WITH ISLAM TO KEEP CONTROL OF WOMEN. PERIOD.

So, you guys need to have a long hard look at what you are doing with religion. Women are leaving religion in droves, and there is little wonder why. I have friends, male and female, who will NEVER take their daughters into church because they will not have them taught that they are responsible for some original sin (purported original sin, since the Jews changed the original Sumerian myth into a club of blaming women, that childbirth is painful because they are being punished (no, it's because the species found it better to be upright than to paddle around on all fours), that women are, by virtue of being physically, subject to men, and right down to the concept that if Jesus came as a man the first time, he'll come back as a man.

Well, here's a little clue for you guys. God didn't need you to make a Christ last time, and he won't need you next time, either. And next time, just for the sake of balance, He's going to send his Daughter, to whom he expects you to listen, and you will run right past it out of prejudice.

Stop taking what was never given to you by God and which you have done nothing to deserve.

Stop trying to control women, and instead go control men who have sex as if the word responsibility didn't apply to them at all and dump children all over the planet without taking care of them.

And start preaching to men that they have got to clean up this constant violence and criminality (men commit more than 95% of all crimes worldwide). That's what you can do with your desire to control.

I've never seen a situation in which men were so thoroughly confronted by such a stark choice:

Give up your false supremacy over women, or lose your culture. I can only say for those of you who hate this idea that it may be of some consolation to you that when it goes it, there will be fewer than three generations of women who ever knew what it was to be really free. And none of those women will be your daughters.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 5:27 PM

Cantor ...

Would you like to translate "Beth Din" for our friends here, or would you like me to do it?

How much would you like to bet it has a patriarchal connotation??? Hmmmmmm????

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 5:31 PM

For Cantor ... I think you missed this one. Now anybody who thinks this isn't a problem ... has as problem.

Is it equivalent to shari'a? Of course not. But neither should a legal situation with this kind of impact be allowed to stand in in lieu of civil law, and under no circumstances should any religious LAW ever be sanction or enforced by a civil state.
© Copyright
The Agunot Campaign 2000
Privacy Notice
Webmaster Julie Armitage

Agunot Campaign Forum Speech

Dr. Adreinne Baker.

'Seeking Halachic Solutions to the Problems of Get and Agunah'

LONDON, 13 NOVEMBER 2000

I am delighted to have the opportunity of speaking here this evening but am saddened by the absence of the Chief Rabbi. He is attending a charity dinner for World Jewish Relief, although what we are discussing here also concerns world Jewish relief. Nor are any of the dayanim present, nor any formal representative from the Office of the Chief Rabbi. Although I am pleased to see - and look forward to meeting - the leader of the newly formed Get Task Force, I cannot but wonder what message the religious establishment is sending us.

We were not the first group of women to research the problem of Get and Agunah. There were women campaigners thirty years ago. When in 1992 Rosalind Preston invited me to join her on the Women's Review and to form a Get Research Group, I approached two of those earlier stalwarts - Googie Graham and Ruth Winston Rox. Both wished us luck but said how disheartened they had been that all efforts had been so unsuccessful. Undeterred, and inspired by the Chief Rabbi's request that we 'heed the unheeded', we nevertheless set out to listen to women who were trapped - many during their childbearing years - in the status of agunah. We also sought the guidance of rabbinim and dayanim and learned how intractable the situation within halacha seems to be.

Over the two years that we asked questions and listened and studied the problem, I was reminded of a concept put forward by the sociologist, Max Gluckman. Writing in 1964, he coined the expression 'rituals of rebellion' to describe the process in which those with the power to define and enforce the rules give a semblance of freedom to those without such power. Such freedom is, of course, illusory: it allows the disenfranchised to enquire, after which the status quo is reinforced.

I want to emphasise that our understanding right from the beginning was that halacha cannot change. We were all campaigning from within observant Judaism. But our hope had been that, in its interpretation and implementation, there could be a halachically valid way to ensure that women would no longer remain in such a disadvantaged position.

The report of the Women's Review, including our findings and recommendations, was published in 1994. What was the research intended to produce? We raised the hopes of many women - if not for them, for their daughters or their granddaughters - only to have their expectations thwarted when nothing with any enforceability resulted. That individual rabbis find individual solutions is good and desirable but what is needed are global solutions which are halachically accepted and enforced. Seeking solutions through the civil law - as Sharon Shenhav has outlined - should not absolve the rabbis and dayanim from seeking halachically valid solutions. We believe that there are halachic scholars who are respected and who could offer such answers, but who fear being marginalised.
There are certain pivotal questions we need to ask:

*

1. Why does the community continued to tolerate a situation in which women are so disadvantaged in an aspect of religious law?
*

2. Why has no effort been made by our religious leaders to ascertain how many women reluctantly leave Orthodoxy in order to remarry (thus, in halachic terms, entering an adulterous relationship). In our research we interviewed many. Often they deny themselves children in their second marriage rather than bring mamzerim (trans. bastards) into the world. Is Orthodox Judaism so secure or so uncaring that the pain of these women, forced to move out of the community where spiritually they still belong, is of no significance? Does their loss not matter?
*

3. Why is so little heed paid to women within the strictly Orthodox community who will not protest? (At a recent Orthodox barmitzvah celebration, several of the women at my table commented on the importance of our vigils but, when I suggested that they join us, they replied, 'We can't; we daren't!')
*

4. How useful is the advice of the Get Advisory Service when it is tied to the Beth Din?

In relation to the get, I would like to illustrate the sort of problems we are discussing with the stories of two women's lives:

The first woman has six children. Two were born during her marriage and are halachically Jewish. Subsequently, the couple divorced but the husband withheld the get. After many years as an agunah, she remarried, but this has to be outside Orthodoxy. Two children were born - mamzerin. Then the first husband decided to remarry within Orthodoxy which required his granting her a get. Some time later, she and her second husband had two more children - halachically Jewish, because now she had the get. But despite the get, she was not permitted to remarry her second husband in an Orthodox synagogue, which they wanted to do, because their union was regarded as an adulterous relationship.

The second woman, in her early forties, is married to a man recently diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease. At present his deterioration is only physical. With compassion her United Synagogue rabbi has advised her that, if she should want to be free eventually to remarry, she must ask her husband for a get now, whilst he is still mentally aware. Her reply to the well-meaning rabbi was that her husband's suffering is enough without her inflicting more distress on him.

As well as the inconsistencies and injustices in the get situation, of which we are only too aware, there are also certain anomalies which are less well known. I am told (Geoffrey Blumenthal, JMC, 14.1.94) that if an agunah marries a non-Jew and they have a child, that child is not a mamzer.

What has resulted in terms of possibilities within halacha since the Women's Review? Essentially, two measures:

*

1. The Prenuptial Agreement. But we must note its unbinding character. That it is a 'declaration of intent' is of no value when a marriage breaks down and when animosity results in a recalcitrant spouse who makes extortionate demands (and in these situations we must ask if the Beth Din condones blackmail).
*

2. The possibility of communal sanctions. But women are reluctant for these to be used, fearing domestic violence or that, out of spite, the get will never be granted.

When we began our research, there was much ambivalence in the wider community to our doing it. Reactions ranged from,

a) Scepticism - 'nothing worthwhile will come out of it'

to

b) Opposition - 'You shouldn't be questioning. Look at the non-Jewish world in which change is happening all the time. Is that a good place to live? There is no stability, no values.'

It needs to be emphasised that our aim was never to make divorce easier but to press for appropriate responses within halacha to situations when a marriage broken down and no get is forthcoming. We acknowledge the rabbis' concern and yet we also note their seeming lack of options within halacha.

But the research and the subsequent vigils have achieved a most important goal: to give prominence to the problem and to remind us that Judaism has always been motivated by the concept of tikkun olam: to heal the world. If not now, when?

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 5:39 PM

'Bet' in Hebrew means 'house'.

'Din' in Hebrew means 'law'.

As in 'house of law', usually called a 'court'.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 5:42 PM

I agree with Morgaan.

This is what Hugh wrote:

"The difference between the imposition of any part of the Shari'a and whatever a very limited role is allotted to Jewish (or possibly Hindu) family law, is that there is no real challenge, by the latter, to the supremacy of English law. There is no long-term program to use whatever small place has been allowed for there to be some kind of use of Jewish (or Hindu?) family law, in very limited ways, and ONLY when those ways do not contradict English law, to undercut the supremacy of the law of the English state. There is no program to undo the legal and political institutions of the English state."

And this is exactly what muslims want to do (at first). They don't want to deal with any muslim laws that would trump English laws (at first).

Morgaan is saying that once they get their foot in the door...that's all they need to implement full sharia law, inch by inch.

And if we say "no way" to the muslims, they are going to point their fingers at the jews and say "well, if they can do it, why not us?"

Posted by: mrockroll1969 at February 9, 2008 5:47 PM

Well, some think I am missing the point. Perhaps.

But I think the point, just established in detail, is that ...

(1) Beth Din disenfranchises women.
(2) Because it has state sanction, it is enforced by law once "agreement" (if it can be called that) has been attained.
(3) Beth Din sanctions under Western civil society law opens the door for shari'a, and therefore Beth Din may continue as long as Jews want to have it, but it MUST NOT have any relation to the laws of any civil state, and must not replace them, and must not be enforced by them.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 5:47 PM

But I think the point, just established in detail, is that ...

(1) Beth Din disenfranchises women.
(2) Because it has state sanction, it is enforced by law once "agreement" (if it can be called that) has been attained.
(3) Beth Din sanctions under Western civil society law opens the door for shari'a, and therefore Beth Din may continue as long as Jews want to have it, but it MUST NOT have any relation to the laws of any civil state, and must not replace them, and must not be enforced by them.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 5:47 PM

(2) It has state sanction, not for its religiousity, but for its acting as an arbitratot. Please do not disavvow us or anyone else the freedoms of arbitration. This is what you are doing.

(3) Any arbitration opens up an excuse for Sha'aria. If there were no Jews and no Bet Din in England, Muslims would still point out their legal rights to arbitrate, all under existing British civil law. Just because Bet Din is the closest example around does not mean it is the only example. And again you ignore Hugh's points of distinction.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 5:55 PM

Beth Din of New York posts their contract on the Internet. Note this section:

BINDING CIVIL COURT EFFECT. When properly executed,this Agreement is enforceable as a binding arbitration agreement in the courts of the United States of America, as well as pursuant to Jewish law (halakha). The supervising rabbi should explain this to the parties. This Agreement should only be used when the parties expect to reside in the United States upon marriage. Parties should contact the Beth Din of America to inquire about appropriate forms when they will be residing outside the United States. For those who will reside in the United States, the Beth Din will appoint the proper dayanim (arbitrators) to hear and resolve matters throughout the country.

Contains other juicy clauses saying that if the Wife doesn't come to Beth Din, she loses all her right to support. Or, put another way, if she goes to civil court, the original agreement, enforceable by the clause above, renders her husband's responsibilities toward her moot.

ALSO, the Beth Din pre-nup and marriage agreement states that matters of custody will be decided by Beth Din ONLY, and that is part of the BINDING AGREEMENT this court's decree has. Therefore, if the couple breaks up, Beth Din decides who gets the kids -- not the mother, nor the husband.

Read it all:

http://www.rabbis.org/pdfs/Halachic%20Prenuptial%20Arbitration%20Agreement.pdf

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 5:57 PM

You know, Shy Guy, I have NO IDEA why it is not enough for you and Hugh that shari'a councils all over the Western world are appealing for the same rights that Beth Din committees have — and the Western world doesn't have a way to counter the request because, in fact, Beth Din constitutes a LEGALLY BINDING AND ENFORCEABLE ADJUDICATION THAT CONTRAVENES CIVIL LAW. PERIOD.

And ... if shari'a law IS instituted in Britain, it can well be said that every Muslim woman in Britain just "agreed" to have the shari'a court hear it, just like you're saying every Jewish woman "agreed" to offer up all her civil rights, which she'll do, of course, on the trust that everybody will be fair. And then she'll find out they aren't (see Agunot discussion above).

If you can't get it on a level of fairness toward women (and apparently you can't), then just get this:

THIS IS THE EXCUSE BY WHICH SHARI'A LAW WILL BE IMPOSED ON SOME WOMAN YOU KNOW IN YOUR LIFETIME.

Not that you care.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 6:05 PM

Contains other juicy clauses saying that if the Wife doesn't come to Beth Din, she loses all her right to support. Or, put another way, if she goes to civil court, the original agreement, enforceable by the clause above, renders her husband's responsibilities toward her moot.

How unexciting.
ALSO, the Beth Din pre-nup and marriage agreement states that matters of custody will be decided by Beth Din ONLY, and that is part of the BINDING AGREEMENT this court's decree has. Therefore, if the couple breaks up, Beth Din decides who gets the kids -- not the mother, nor the husband.
What's wrong with that?

And again, don't like a deal? Don't sign.

But I smell the feminist agenda overriding everything else in this topic.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 6:07 PM

Dear Morgaan,
Can you please (and without pasting in a 10,000 word missive), provide us here with links to reports/examples of actual sexist abuse of women in the context of "Beth Din".

I'd also like read some actual concrete evidence where, despite a woman's protestations, the State legislature has upheld a punitive Beth-Din verdict in lieu on State law (either in the US or Europe).

Furthermore, can you please provide links to examples of actual physical abuse to women at the hands of relatives or partners, that was as a result of a Beth-Din 'council' consent.

Thanks.

Posted by: Infidel419 at February 9, 2008 6:08 PM

Morgaan, as a very irriligious person, I do not appreciate being lumped in with "you guys."

I still believe that you are missing the point or are else fabricatiing a straw man. There has not been any laws passed in the US that I know of that enact any aspect if Jewish or Islamic Law. You seem to be confusing religious law with religious arbitration. Any agreement arising through a religious court will still have to meet existing law - How many time must it be said?????

Two points -

A divorce still requires a decree from a judge in the established courts. By "courts" I mean the state courts (the non-religious ones the we all eccounter).

No religious court is going to make a child custody decision. The state has too much interest in child welfare.

The example of the Texas case was a voluntary decision by all parties to submit to Sharia court.
Do you understand the meaning of voluntary? If you are concerned with women being coerced, I suggest it is a problem that is not limited to any religious system.

Fimal entry in this post. Some silly politicians claim the US law is based on Judeo-Christian values. So, what is wrong with a Jewish court?

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 6:09 PM

Shy Guy, I would be very surprised if a pre-nup agreement that has requirements for child custody could be enforced without American judicial review, especially if allegations of neglect are made.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 6:13 PM

You keep on repeating the same lie:

........ because, in fact, Beth Din constitutes a LEGALLY BINDING AND ENFORCEABLE ADJUDICATION THAT CONTRAVENES CIVIL LAW. PERIOD.

It doesn't contravene civil law at all. It adheres to existing civil arbitration laws that would exist even if there wasn't a single Jew or Muslim in the US or the UK.

You are barking up the wrong tree and bark you are!

just like you're saying every Jewish woman

"agreed" to offer up all her civil rights, which she'll do, of course, on the trust that everybody will be fair.

And then she'll find out they aren't (see Agunot discussion above).

Interestingly enough, the pre-nup agreement you linked to helps prevent many potential Agunah cases. Make up your mind!

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 6:16 PM

Pelayo ...

"You guys" referred to you as men. If you're a woman, apologies.

Meanwhile, you are just not getting it. It is as BINDING ARBITRATION, and if you would like to submit PROOF that it is subject to and not equivalent to US court proceedings, then please cite at least 10 cases with links that refute the claims of the Beth Din itself, because I can assure you it is damned sure of its position with regard to US law.

Second, US law is NOT made of "Judeo-Christian" law per se. It is crafted of a number of good things from a number of places, including many concepts foreign to Christianity before the Enlightenment, and carrying quite a few metaphyhsical principles from the Blue Lodge, levels four plus.

You haven't addressed how unfair this set of laws is to women.

AND you haven't acknowledged the OBVIOUS problem that shari'a-salivating imams are pointing out Beth Din's relationship with the govenrments of UK, Canada and the US, and that because Beth Din is there (it should never have been), they can ask for it and probably get it. Whether YOU think so or not, they have a very viable legal argument, which I assure you they press to the limits of everybody's patience.

Please just acknowledge REALITY.

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 6:19 PM

Shy Guy, I would be very surprised if a pre-nup agreement that has requirements for child custody could be enforced without American judicial review, especially if allegations of neglect are made.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 6:13 PM

A US court would make no distinction between the aetheist or the Jewish agreement. Courts can overrule arbitration in certain circumstances and this would apply equally in these 2 examples.

Point again: there is no consideration of religion or the lack of it when civil law permits arbitration. These are all within the framework of civil law arbitration rules.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 6:23 PM

Morgaan still doesn't catch. Islamic courts can do plenty under existing arbitration laws in most free world countries. They don't NEED a Bet Din as an example.

We are talking about something more encompassing here which Judaism doesn't do and isn't interested in doing.

You will not stop Sha'aria by voiding perfectly valid civil arbitration laws. You're gonna need a bigger gun.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 6:28 PM

Morgaan,

No. 1 - I'm a guy,male, old codger.

No. 2 - In any lawsuit that moves from an American court to an arbitration panel will be submitted to the original presiding judge for final disposition. I am not a lawyer, but I have so much experience with law suits that I know what I am talking about.

No 3 - You find ten cases! I am not doing your research.

I have cited the only case I know about.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019862.php#comments

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 6:29 PM

Morgan, You brought up "binding arbitration." I think you should find the examples.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 6:35 PM

No 3 ... Don't accuse me of being wrong unless you can provide law to back you up. You play very fast and loose with your assertions that women are protected under US in cases where they MOST DEFINITELY ARE NOT. I've done my homework already, thanks.

And I'm not interested in you defending Jewish Beth Din law by quoting a shari'a case in court. Shari'a OF COURSE winds up in Texas court because shari'a does not enjoy the same legal status as Beth Din.

But it will get it if it can, and it will use the precedent of Beth Din to get it.

And it will succeed unless Beth Din's special dispensation from the American legal system is stopped cold.

Well, Old Codger, I gotta go. I have a magazine to put to bed, and a paper to write to a humanities department that tried to force a Marxist American history course down my throat (be afraid, be very afraid ... they quote Eldridge Cleaver like he's a saint and openly say that Marxist history is best because it sees all life as class struggle ... oh boy).

Anyhow, thanks for the conversation, and don't worry ever about being an Old Codger. Good men usually wind up as Old Codgers, brave and truth-telling and not suffering fools to their last breath.

Looks like you've arrived at OC in fine shape.

TTFN ...

Posted by: Morgaan Sinclair at February 9, 2008 6:37 PM

I have cited the only case I know about.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019862.php#comments

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 6:29 PM

"In general, private arbitration agreements are enforceable by government courts. Shari'a arbitration agreements are one type of private arbitration agreement. Without a theory as to why shari'a arbitration agreements shouldn't be enforced by the courts, I'm not sure what else the appeals court could have done in this case. Still, this is not a welcome development."

It's 'not a welcome development' because Islam is not welcome.

Again, gotta get a bigger gun.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 6:39 PM

I have been posting this on several threads and sites for 2 days because it is amusing and it illustrates the difference between the state's approach to Jewish law and the demands of Sharia law

It was the custom among Moroccan Jews in Israel to end one of the festival meals with a performance by a belly dancer. When the rabbi who supervised the kosher food for the meal found out he issued an ultimatum - get rid of the belly dancer or we won't provide you with kosher food. I am not Jewish myself but I have to say I understand his point of view, even though I find it an interesting way to end a religious celebration.

Naturally enough the following year the belly dancer was dropped without telling her why. Nevertheless someone must have told her because she sued the rabbi in the Israeli High Court for loss of earnings – and she won her case.

On those terms I could live with Sharia courts but I cannot ever see an iman losing a case to anyone, let alone a cabaret performer.

BTW When British divorce law was last revised about 1995 The Jewish Board of Deputies at the request of their religious authority requested a slight change to the law. This would have redressed a defect in Jewish law and benifited Jewish women. This was refused by the Lord Chancellor because to quote the late Chaim Bermant a colunmist in the Jewish Chronicle, "On the perfectly reasonable grounds that the civil laws of the realm should not get mixed up with the religious laws of a particular minority"

Posted by: Fred at February 9, 2008 6:40 PM

Here are two scenarios:

Two people take their dispute to the local religious leader without filing a regular lawsuit.

No Problem

A regular lawsuit is filed and the parties agree to submit to an arbitration board that they mutually agree to. The aritration board submits the decision to the regular judge for final ruling. The judge issues the decision or amends the decision to conform to regular law.

No problem.

Simple, huh?

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 6:43 PM

Shari'a OF COURSE winds up in Texas court because shari'a does not enjoy the same legal status as Beth Din.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 6:49 PM

MY God! Can we just get the Mohammedans OUT of the West???

Posted by: darcy at February 9, 2008 6:50 PM

I see, no examples from Morgaan.

Posted by: Infidel419 at February 9, 2008 6:51 PM

Personally I don't give a dam whether they call themselves Beth Din or Death Bin, I couldn't give a dam what color they are whether they are blue black yellow white or Khaki, whether they believe that the moon is made out of Green cheese, worship a blue teapot orbiting around mars or wearing magic underpants will gain you a place in heaven first or the White house. Normally I try and keep out of religious argument, when it comes to religion, logic doesn't work. What I care about is my Children and Grandchildren, and their future. I have a son he is nearly 16. I had him rather late in life, but that doesn't matter. He is seriously thinking about joining the British Army. If he does I will have him still for a couple of more years before he is shipped off to the middle east. You have to be at least 18 before you can die for your country. Don't think that they wont, they have just dispatched the last of the Para battalions there. The British Armed forces are stretched so thin at the moment they are almost at breaking point. This surprisingly doesn't worry me, what worries me is the fact that he might get killed fighting in some back street of Bradford or Birmingham to defend his country that has been sold out by a set of amoral anal retentive politician whose only allegiance is to their bank balance. This is of cause is not helped by commenter's here trying to score debating points and acting like the Roman senate with the Goths banging on the gates of Rome. On Sharia law there can be no compromise. Beth Din is irrelevant, Melanie Phillips has made that quiet clear, its laws are subservient to the law of the land. Sharia law is very different, Sharia law are god's laws and are by definition above the laws of the land. To give them equal status which has been done in this case by giving the Sharia court the right to decide punishment in a criminal case, has elevated the Sharia law in the eyes of the muslims above British law. For this stupidity we will pay a high price, myself and my family perhaps a higher price. By the way you lot keep moving the deck chairs around on the deck of the good ship U.K.

Posted by: Holger Dansker at February 9, 2008 6:51 PM

If we allow Jewish arbitration panels we will have to accept Islamic arbitration panels. That is the nature of life under the US Constitution.

The "bigger gun" that is needed is the decision that declares that Islam is not a religion.

That would be a BIG GUN.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 6:52 PM

Pelayo, that's what I meant by a 'bigger gun'.

I wouldn't say that Islam isn't a religion. It is. A decision needs to be made that the religion called Islam is illegal.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 6:55 PM

Holger Dansker, If you are correct that Sharia courts can decide criminal punishment, that is a __________ of a different color.

Posted by: Pelayo at February 9, 2008 6:56 PM

While we're here: LGF: British Journalists Dig Sharia.

Posted by: Shy Guy at February 9, 2008 7:03 PM

Hurricane over?

Posted by: champ at February 9, 2008 7:54 PM

Enough about the archdhimmi already;

For now its time to meet the puppetmasters;

Khalid Mahmood - Labour M.P. - Birmingham - Perry Barr - England.

"Rowan Williams wants Sharia Law without the stoning, but in Islam you cant pick and choose."

Posted by: Stone Rose at February 9, 2008 7:55 PM

Regarding the Bet Din, I believe as many pointed out, the Bet Din is an arbitrator agreed to by both parties. A woman does not have to agree to permit the Bet Din to hear her case if she doesn't want to. Maybe some would prefer to have the Bet Din hear their case because they don't want to pay a fortune to an attorney. Or religous law would be more favorable, i.e., if the husband had committed adultery or other sins.

In Islam, its much more complicated because there may be intimidation against women seeking civil remedies. And, it appears that the Archbishop was in favor of allowing Muslims to follow Islamic law, something that is not permitted the Jews.

Posted by: DavidE at February 9, 2008 8:11 PM

Dear Peyalo,
thank you for reading what I have written and finally grasped what I have been trying to get at, if you go back to the beginning of the comments you will find a comment that I wrote that I think is pertinent to this discussion which seems to have been missed by all following readers.

Here is an article from the Daily Mail 9 of February 2008 and the link make up your own mind.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=513020&in_page_id=1770

Sharia law "courts" are already dealing with crime on the streets of London, it emerged today.
The revelation came after the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, called for an "accommodation" with parts of the Islamic legal code in a speech which attracted widespread condemnation.
The Archbishop said parts of civil law could be dealt with under the sharia system but already some communities have gone much further - and it was revealed today that a teenage stabbing case among the Somali community in Woolwich had been dealt with by a sharia "trial".
Youth worker Aydarus Yusuf, 29, who was involved in setting up the hearing, said a group of Somali youths were arrested by police on suspicion of stabbing another Somali teenager.
The victim's family told officers the matter would be settled out of court and the suspects were released on bail.
A hearing was convened and elders ordered the assailants to compensate the victim.
"All their uncles and their fathers were there," said Mr Yusuf. "So they all put something towards that and apologised for the wrongdoing."
An Islamic Council in Leyton also revealed that it had dealt with more than 7,000 divorces while sharia courts in the capital have settled hundreds of financial disputes.
Today's revelations came as controversy raged over Dr Williams's call for parts of sharia law to be adopted in Britain.
His comments were condemned by Downing Street, the Tories and the chairman of the Government's Equalities and Human Rights Commission.
They were described as a "recipe for chaos" by Culture Secretary Andy Burnham.
Along with the Islamic Council in Leyton, there are reports of at least two other sharia courts sitting in London.
There are also courts in a number of other areas of the country with high Muslim populations, including Dewsbury in West Yorkshire, Birmingham and Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
Most are understood to concentrate on divorce cases - although such judgments are not recognised in British law - as well as financial disputes.
Suhaib Hasan, a spokesman for the Islamic Sharia Council in Leyton, which was set up in 1982, said that he and his colleagues dealt with more than 200 cases a year, ranging from inheritance to marriage and divorce.
"From the beginning, people have wanted our services. More and more come back to us. Each month we deal with 20 cases," he said.
On its website, the Islamic Sharia Council warns those who use its services that the divorces it grants cannot invalidate a union under British civil law and advises that a separate civil divorce should be obtained.
As well as giving advice on legal matters, such as inheritance, the website also gives general guidance on Muslim practices including the need for beards and the need for women to cover themselves in public.
It also covers issues such as whether women should train as doctors.
It supports this as a "