[shibumi]

The judge in this case is simply applying the same principle to the Mohammedans that US Courts have used for years in dealing with Christian Churches.

There is long standing recognition of ecclesiastical autonomy in dealing with internal church matters. For example, the Roman Catholic church has its own legal system, complete with Canon Law and Canon Lawyers.

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.

[Alberta's Child]

There was a long thread on this earlier today. The judge didn't need to defend his decision at all. The case involved two parties who had previously signed an agreement to have any disputes by a third-party arbitration process based on sharia law. This is no different than any other arbitration process involving religious groups.

The person who "lost" the arbitration was apparently a "Sore Loserman" and tried to bring a suit in civil court to overturn the prior arbitration decision, and the judge rightly told him to take a hike.

[Salvavida]

I believe you are correct in certain aspects, but there is one major problem: One party sued. Ecclesiatic autonomy is for matters internal to the church, that would prevent issues going before the state. The biblical principle (and thus has founded itself in US laws), comes from 1 Cor 6:1-8. The context used by Christians, is that it is a shame to bring a matter between two brothers, into the courts of lost people; in the world system. Therefore, once a case is brought before the courts, one party has decided not to use the internal procedures. At that point, the laws of the land kick in; and the only valid evidences are (1) the by-laws, (2) the constitution of the organization, and (3) the testimony of each witness. Then the state and local laws are applied to settle the dispute. The judge ruled incorrectly. Good discussion.