Rabbis said to use torture to secure divorces for women

[Malthus]

It wasn't clear from your earlier post what matter the court was using to blackmail the dude, which is why I asked for clarification.

So we're talking about child custody, division of assets, that sort of thing?  Not sure that makes it any better.  "We'll give your ex-wife the house unless you fulfill this religious obligaion."

That's not exactly how it works. I posted the actual legislation upthread.

Way it works is, the Court will strike your defence or refuse to allow you to pursue an action in respect of certain stipulated matters (basically, money issues like division of property or support) if you fail to remove a religious barrier to remarriage that is under your control, such as providing the get.

Essentially, if you refuse, the other person's case gets heard. That doesn't necessarily mean she wins everything - that was my hyperbole, it is still all within the court's discretion - but usually, if you piss off the court to the extent that they strike your claims or defences, it isn't good for you. 

[DGuller]

Don't agree with it in the US either.

Same here.  I don't see any difference between these kinds of cases, and the cases where a Catholic wife resists an annulment.  Fucked up religious matters should stay inside religion, unless they run afoul of secular laws. 

Obviously it's a good thing for the people involved that assholes are compelled to give a get, but sometimes heart-warming results are achieved by bending the rules and principles, and IMO it's one of these cases.

[Admiral Yi]

That's not exactly how it works. I posted the actual legislation upthread.

Way it works is, the Court will strike your defence or refuse to allow you to pursue an action in respect of certain stipulated matters (basically, money issues like division of property or support) if you fail to remove a religious barrier to remarriage that is under your control, such as providing the get.

Essentially, if you refuse, the other person's case gets heard. That doesn't necessarily mean she wins everything - that was my hyperbole, it is still all within the court's discretion - but usually, if you piss off the court to the extent that they strike your claims or defences, it isn't good for you.

So, blackmail.

[Malthus]

Don't agree with it in the US either.

Same here.  I don't see any difference between these kinds of cases, and the cases where a Catholic wife resists an annulment.  Fucked up religious matters should stay inside religion, unless they run afoul of secular laws. 

Obviously it's a good thing for the people involved that assholes are compelled to give a get, but sometimes heart-warming results are achieved by bending the rules and principles, and IMO it's one of these cases.

... except that you have failed to articulate any rules or principles being "bent" other than 'I don't like it, no sirree'. 

[Admiral Yi]

[Malthus]

That's not exactly how it works. I posted the actual legislation upthread.

Way it works is, the Court will strike your defence or refuse to allow you to pursue an action in respect of certain stipulated matters (basically, money issues like division of property or support) if you fail to remove a religious barrier to remarriage that is under your control, such as providing the get.

Essentially, if you refuse, the other person's case gets heard. That doesn't necessarily mean she wins everything - that was my hyperbole, it is still all within the court's discretion - but usually, if you piss off the court to the extent that they strike your claims or defences, it isn't good for you.

So, blackmail.

Yeah, like the obligation to come to the court with "clean hands" if you want an equitable remedy from them is "blackmail". 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/clean+hands+doctrine

[Malthus]

[DGuller]

... except that you have failed to articulate any rules or principles being "bent" other than 'I don't like it, no sirree'.

I'm not sure where this hostility is coming from, but I believe that I did articulate such principles repeatedly.  Just because you can cite legal opinions that disagree with my interpretation of such principles does not negate the fact that I did state these principles.

[Malthus]

... except that you have failed to articulate any rules or principles being "bent" other than 'I don't like it, no sirree'.

I'm not sure where this hostility is coming from, but I believe that I did articulate such principles repeatedly.  Just because you can cite legal opinions that disagree with my interpretation of such principles does not negate the fact that I did state these principles.

What "hostility"?  Is claiming someone is wrong or hasn't articulated a point a hostile act for you?  This is the second time you have passively-aggressively claimed I'm being mean. What gives with you?

Malthus, take it easy, we're not debating circumcision here.

But fair enough - you haven't articulated any rules or principles other than those demonstrated to be irrelevant.  Better? 

[Sheilbh]

Same here.  I don't see any difference between these kinds of cases, and the cases where a Catholic wife resists an annulment.  Fucked up religious matters should stay inside religion, unless they run afoul of secular laws. 

There's no element of choice in annulment. If there's grounds for annulment it'll be heard by a Church court - it's a matter of evidence, not consent.

[Admiral Yi]

But fair enough - you haven't articulated any rules or principles other than those demonstrated to be irrelevant.  Better?

Very grumbleresque declaration of victory.

[DGuller]

Malthus, I'm done here.  If you think your tone and manner of discussion throughout this thread was appropriate, then it's a bigger problem for you than it is for me.

[Malthus]

But fair enough - you haven't articulated any rules or principles other than those demonstrated to be irrelevant.  Better?

Very grumbleresque declaration of victory.

It's an invitation to sharpen the argument. Prove me wrong. 

[Admiral Yi]

It's an invitation to sharpen the argument. Prove me wrong. 

Your arguments all suck and I win. 

[Jacob]

Malthus, I'm done here.  If you think your tone and manner of discussion throughout this thread was appropriate, then it's a bigger problem for you than it is for me.

I don't see how Malthus is being hostile in his arguments either. I think you're reading a tone into his posts that isn't necessarily there.