Rabbis said to use torture to secure divorces for women

[crazy canuck]

Get outta here.

[Admiral Yi]

It isn't doing that.

It is threatening punishment for failure to remove a religious bar to remarriage. In  the specific case of Judaism, the religion itself is not "inconsistent" - the man is obligated to do just that - provide the 'get'.

Well, since we have a case here of a man who did not, clearly he is not "obligated."

The court has no place taking sides in a purely religious dispute.  No way this would pass a constitutionality test in the US.

[Malthus]

I don't think it should be the responsibility of the justice system to fix a given religion's inconsistencies.

It isn't doing that.

It is threatening punishment for failure to remove a religious bar to remarriage. In  the specific case of Judaism, the religion itself is not "inconsistent" - the man is obligated to do just that - provide the 'get'.

Still, the point is that it's a religious matter.  If religious authorities lack the means to enforce a religious environment, then it's their problem to solve, not secular legal system's.

The secular system isn't "solving" it. "Solving" it would be where the secular courts provide the 'get' themselves. I agree, they shouldn't do that. That is a religious matter.

What the secular courts are doing, is providing a purely secular incentive to not act like an asshole. That's something, IMHO, they *should* do, on matters that are otherwise properly before them. If you act like a dick, why should the Court be *precluded* from taking that into account in their judgment? It's a relevant issue.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The secular court is punishing the guy for doing something that is only important in the context of a religion. I do not see this passing the establishment clause here in the States. I also suspect if an American court had proposed a law like this someone like Jacob would be against it, as would other Canadians like CC and Malthus. But since this is Canadian law we are talking about I suspect they all support it emphatically and point to it as "enlightened multiculturalism", where the same thing if done here would be an example of our dangerous religious fundamentalism  .

[Admiral Yi]

What the secular courts are doing, is providing a purely secular incentive to not act like an asshole. That's something, IMHO, they *should* do, on matters that are otherwise properly before them. If you act like a dick, why should the Court be *precluded* from taking that into account in their judgment? It's a relevant issue.

Because it's not against the law to be a dick.

[Malthus]

Well, since we have a case here of a man who did not, clearly he is not "obligated."

Huh? I don't follow.

People fail to do stuff they are "obligated" to do all the time.

The court has no place taking sides in a purely religious dispute.  No way this would pass a constitutionality test in the US.

Interesting you should say that ... apparently, some people have argued as you do, and lost.

http://www.womenslaw.org/laws_state_type.php?id=12530&state_code=RL&open_id=12602

In 1983, New York State passed the Get Law: Domestic Relations Law §253, which states that prior to a the court granting a civil divorce, both parties to the divorce will take all steps possible to remove any barriers to remarriage that the other party might encounter.  This effectively means that in the State of New York, before a civil divorce is finalized, a Jewish husband must grant his wife a get.  If you live New York State, be sure to talk to your civil lawyer and your rabbi about how to ensure that your husband gives you a get.

In 2007, the Maryland State Senate failed to pass a similar law, Bill 533.  No state other than New York currently has get legislation.  There is, however, case law in the statutory annotations of many states; this means that in any state, a court may or may not order a husband to give a get, depending on the circumstances of the case.  Get cases are sometimes argued under the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  For example, in one New Jersey divorce case, the court decided that forcing the husband to give a get fulfilled the secular purpose of completing the divorce; since no religious ritual was required in order to obtain the get, and since the get in no way impacted his ability to practice his religion, his First Amendment rights were not infringed by this requirement. 

http://law.onecle.com/new-york/domestic-relations/DOM0253_253.html

[katmai]

What the secular courts are doing, is providing a purely secular incentive to not act like an asshole. That's something, IMHO, they *should* do, on matters that are otherwise properly before them. If you act like a dick, why should the Court be *precluded* from taking that into account in their judgment? It's a relevant issue.

Because it's not against the law to be a dick.

Thank Hod!

[Malthus]

The secular court is punishing the guy for doing something that is only important in the context of a religion. I do not see this passing the establishment clause here in the States. I also suspect if an American court had proposed a law like this someone like Jacob would be against it, as would other Canadians like CC and Malthus. But since this is Canadian law we are talking about I suspect they all support it emphatically and point to it as "enlightened multiculturalism", where the same thing if done here would be an example of our dangerous religious fundamentalism  .

... and I think you are full of shit . See my post above, concerning the exact same thing happening under US law. 

[Jacob]

What the secular courts are doing, is providing a purely secular incentive to not act like an asshole. That's something, IMHO, they *should* do, on matters that are otherwise properly before them. If you act like a dick, why should the Court be *precluded* from taking that into account in their judgment? It's a relevant issue.

Because it's not against the law to be a dick.

Thank Hod!

If it was, Languish would basically be a criminal enterprise.

[Malthus]

What the secular courts are doing, is providing a purely secular incentive to not act like an asshole. That's something, IMHO, they *should* do, on matters that are otherwise properly before them. If you act like a dick, why should the Court be *precluded* from taking that into account in their judgment? It's a relevant issue.

Because it's not against the law to be a dick.

They are not being charged with "being a dick".

The court is choosing to exercise its discretion against them because they are being a dick concerning the matter before them.

If you think this doesn't happen all the time, it is because you are not a litigator. 

[DGuller]

Still, the point is that it's a religious matter.  If religious authorities lack the means to enforce a religious environment, then it's their problem to solve, not secular legal system's.

Why?

Because it's too different systems of laws and enforcement of such laws, and they should not intersect.  The problem is contained well-enough in the religious world, it doesn't impact any basic freedom that is guaranteed by the secular constitution.  It's not like you can't get divorced without a get, you just can't be accepted by the religious community if you act like you're divorced when you didn't get a get.  Well, that's the problem of the person wanting to be part of the religious community and the religious community itself that imposes laws it has no power to enforce.

We're not talking about things like female circumcision here, where religious laws come in conflict with the secular law.

[garbon]

The secular court is punishing the guy for doing something that is only important in the context of a religion.

I think this is the part that rubs me wrong about this.  That said, I'm glad on the flipside that this sort of thing helps negate the need for said  torturing.

[Neil]

The Orthodox are weird and kinda bad.  It's not news.

[Malthus]

Still, the point is that it's a religious matter.  If religious authorities lack the means to enforce a religious environment, then it's their problem to solve, not secular legal system's.

Why?

Because it's too different systems of laws and enforcement of such laws, and they should not intersect.  The problem is contained well-enough in the religious world, it doesn't impact any basic freedom that is guaranteed by the secular constitution.  It's not like you can't get divorced without a get, you just can't be accepted by the religious community if you act like you're divorced when you didn't get a get.  Well, that's the problem of the person wanting to be part of the religious community and the religious community itself that imposes laws it has no power to enforce.

We're not talking about things like female circumcision here, where religious laws come in conflict with the secular law.

So what?

[DGuller]

I'm not sure in what way my answer was incomplete.