You are correct, of course. The Fox headline is incorrect and unnecessarily provocative.
The judge did not apply shariah law, the parties themselves applied it.
The judge was not defending his decision, he was merely explaining it.
The decision is not controversial or even a close call; there is nothing to defend.
The fallacy in all this is the presumption that this farce is a religion. I agree completely with shibumi, and the comment deserves to be made again:
On the other hand, if someone were to argue that Mohammedanism is not a bona fide religion, but rather a murderous, cultic, death worshiping socio/political movement, which should not be afforded protection of US Law under any premise, then I’d say you had more of a solid case.
But, given the assumption that they have religious standing, this judge’s ruling was absolutely correct.
“The judge did not apply shariah law, the parties themselves applied it.”
But Judge Nielson said: “This case will proceed under Ecclesiastical Islamic Law.”
In a secular court, this is wrong. They should settle it themselves.