Rabbis said to use torture to secure divorces for women

[crazy canuck]

Which is exactly my point. You have the court ruling on which belief is valid. That's not what courts should be doing.

I am not sure why you think courts should not be making judgments as to whether legislation is unconstitutional.  I think you are missing the step where the legislature has created a law that sets up a pretty easy test on the evidence..

[garbon]

In these examples you have conflicts between religious laws and civil laws, in which the civil laws naturally prevail.  Here we don't have a conflict, the presence of absence of gets has no bearing on any civil matters.

The right to remarry without let or hinderance has been judged a legitimate civil purpose. That's what legislators are for, in part - to decide what is, and what is not, a legitimate civil purpose.

Those challeging the legislator's decisions have to: (a) indicate that their choice violates a protected right; and (b) show that the violation is unjustified.

I don't think so. I think a person would just have to convince enough legislators that keeping such a law wasn't politically viable.

Besides, we're just discussing why we don't feel it is appropriate. I don't think there are standards on how our reasons have to be formatted.

[Iormlund]

What about Sikhs and the kirpan? Or blood transfusions and Jehovah's Witnesses?

Am I allowed to carry a blade as well? No? Then neither should Sikhs.
Should I be allowed to intentionally deny my kids blood if they needed it? Absolutely not. Neither should JWs.


Religion should make absolutely no difference on how the law works.

[crazy canuck]

Am I allowed to carry a blade as well? No? Then neither should Sikhs.

That is the stupidest thing I have read on Languish in a very long time.  And given that Marti hasnt been gone for long, that is saying something.

[Eddie Teach]

Am I allowed to carry a blade as well? No? Then neither should Sikhs.

Are you at least allowed to carry a baseball bat?

[grumbler]

Research and statements. Same as the evidence on any other subject. If he can or can't give a get is an issue of fact. His opinion or belief doesn't matter.

Religious beliefs are a matter of fact, not belief?  Okay, if that's the fact (or, more properly, you believe that it is  ).   That kinda ends the discussion right there, though. 

[garbon]

I have a different question. Is there a problem if a get is "forced"? I couldn't find anything totally specific but there seems like there may be an issue there.

Here's the best I could find.
http://www.bethdin.org/docs/jbda_vol1.pdf (first paragraph of page 11)
"while being sensitive to the halachot that would render a "forced" get null and void."

Oh and then this:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/getart2.html

The Get Bill is constitutionally suspect as well. By inviting civil courts to impose financial consequences for the failure of a spouse to remove a religious barrier to remarriage, the law usurps the substantial body of religious law concerning when and under what circumstances a Get is appropriate. This is an encroachment upon religious law, and represents an erosion of our religious rights. For example, the husband may be entirely justified according to halacha in not giving his wife a Get and withholding support if the wife left the household without due cause.12 (This, then, is entirely different than the first Get Bill, which limited its effects to withholding the relief of the courts (i.e., a civil divorce) from a recalcitrant party who is himself or herself requesting it, an area obviously within the province and discretion of the secular courts.) Should a civil court judge be issuing a ruling designed to elicit an uncalled-for Get?

Now obviously that bit mentioned in 2nd blurb is a very different sort of law than that Canadian one, but it made wonder if there is not issue with the courts strong arming men into these gets.

[Malthus]

In these examples you have conflicts between religious laws and civil laws, in which the civil laws naturally prevail.  Here we don't have a conflict, the presence of absence of gets has no bearing on any civil matters.

The right to remarry without let or hinderance has been judged a legitimate civil purpose. That's what legislators are for, in part - to decide what is, and what is not, a legitimate civil purpose.

Those challeging the legislator's decisions have to: (a) indicate that their choice violates a protected right; and (b) show that the violation is unjustified.

I don't think so. I think a person would just have to convince enough legislators that keeping such a law wasn't politically viable.

That's much more difficult for an individual to manage than legally challenging the law. Most people are not really in a position to one-person-lobby for a legal amendment.

Besides, we're just discussing why we don't feel it is appropriate. I don't think there are standards on how our reasons have to be formatted.

Heh, last time I pointed out to DGuller that his position amounted to little more than 'I don't feel this is appropriate' ... 

My point here is that this division into stuff that is a matter for civil society, and what isn't, is a question of politics, and ultimately of opinion; legally, the division is a question of infringing rights. There is no way of objectively judging matters of opinion (other than the ballot-box); we can, however, judge matters of rights.

In short, the only way for this legislation to be objectively "wrong" is where it is shown that it violates rights. Otherwise, it is perfectly legitimate for society to determine that (say) the "rights" of religious women to freely remarry are something that exist and are worth protecting.

[garbon]

In these examples you have conflicts between religious laws and civil laws, in which the civil laws naturally prevail.  Here we don't have a conflict, the presence of absence of gets has no bearing on any civil matters.

The right to remarry without let or hinderance has been judged a legitimate civil purpose. That's what legislators are for, in part - to decide what is, and what is not, a legitimate civil purpose.

Those challeging the legislator's decisions have to: (a) indicate that their choice violates a protected right; and (b) show that the violation is unjustified.

I don't think so. I think a person would just have to convince enough legislators that keeping such a law wasn't politically viable.

That's much more difficult for an individual to manage than legally challenging the law. Most people are not really in a position to one-person-lobby for a legal amendment.

I think most people aren't able to do what you suggested either - in fact, I think that is even more difficult than what I suggested.

[Malthus]

I have a different question. Is there a problem if a get is "forced"? I couldn't find anything totally specific but there seems like there may be an issue there.

Here's the best I could find.
http://www.bethdin.org/docs/jbda_vol1.pdf (first paragraph of page 11)
"while being sensitive to the halachot that would render a "forced" get null and void."

Oh and then this:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/getart2.html

The Get Bill is constitutionally suspect as well. By inviting civil courts to impose financial consequences for the failure of a spouse to remove a religious barrier to remarriage, the law usurps the substantial body of religious law concerning when and under what circumstances a Get is appropriate. This is an encroachment upon religious law, and represents an erosion of our religious rights. For example, the husband may be entirely justified according to halacha in not giving his wife a Get and withholding support if the wife left the household without due cause.12 (This, then, is entirely different than the first Get Bill, which limited its effects to withholding the relief of the courts (i.e., a civil divorce) from a recalcitrant party who is himself or herself requesting it, an area obviously within the province and discretion of the secular courts.) Should a civil court judge be issuing a ruling designed to elicit an uncalled-for Get?

Now obviously that bit mentioned in 2nd blurb is a very different sort of law than that Canadian one, but it made wonder if there is not issue with the courts strong arming men into these gets.

Certainly, if the law violates religious rights, it would be reviewable on that basis. That's why the specifics of the law are important.

[Malthus]

I think most people aren't able to do what you suggested either - in fact, I think that is even more difficult than what I suggested.

People raise constitutional arguments in civil cases all the time - there is a substantial body of case law. I've done it myself a few times, for clients.

The limiting factor is legal fees.

[garbon]

My point here is that this division into stuff that is a matter for civil society, and what isn't, is a question of politics, and ultimately of opinion; legally, the division is a question of infringing rights. There is no way of objectively judging matters of opinion (other than the ballot-box); we can, however, judge matters of rights.

In short, the only way for this legislation to be objectively "wrong" is where it is shown that it violates rights. Otherwise, it is perfectly legitimate for society to determine that (say) the "rights" of religious women to freely remarry are something that exist and are worth protecting.

To me it is a completely irrelevant issue for the courts. Punish those who would force a get and that's it. If secular law allows you to remarry that that's all that should matter to the state. Getting involved in adversely ruling against someone in a civil case because they didn't grant a religious divorce seems like a completely unnecessary affirmation of religious practices - particularly given that no rights are infringed if the court were to not factor into whether a religious dissolution had been granted.

[garbon]

I have a different question. Is there a problem if a get is "forced"? I couldn't find anything totally specific but there seems like there may be an issue there.

Here's the best I could find.
http://www.bethdin.org/docs/jbda_vol1.pdf (first paragraph of page 11)
"while being sensitive to the halachot that would render a "forced" get null and void."

Oh and then this:
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/getart2.html

The Get Bill is constitutionally suspect as well. By inviting civil courts to impose financial consequences for the failure of a spouse to remove a religious barrier to remarriage, the law usurps the substantial body of religious law concerning when and under what circumstances a Get is appropriate. This is an encroachment upon religious law, and represents an erosion of our religious rights. For example, the husband may be entirely justified according to halacha in not giving his wife a Get and withholding support if the wife left the household without due cause.12 (This, then, is entirely different than the first Get Bill, which limited its effects to withholding the relief of the courts (i.e., a civil divorce) from a recalcitrant party who is himself or herself requesting it, an area obviously within the province and discretion of the secular courts.) Should a civil court judge be issuing a ruling designed to elicit an uncalled-for Get?

Now obviously that bit mentioned in 2nd blurb is a very different sort of law than that Canadian one, but it made wonder if there is not issue with the courts strong arming men into these gets.

Certainly, if the law violates religious rights, it would be reviewable on that basis. That's why the specifics of the law are important.

I think most people aren't able to do what you suggested either - in fact, I think that is even more difficult than what I suggested.

People raise constitutional arguments in civil cases all the time - there is a substantial body of case law. I've done it myself a few times, for clients.

The limiting factor is legal fees.

I think perhaps we are having very different discussions. I don't think it was ever my intention to build an argument on how to repeal that particular law - but rather just explaining why I feel the law is unwarranted.

[Eddie Teach]

In short, the only way for this legislation to be objectively "wrong" is where it is shown that it violates rights. Otherwise, it is perfectly legitimate for society to determine that (say) the "rights" of religious women to freely remarry are something that exist and are worth protecting.

People have the legal rights to get married and to practice the religion of their choice. However, they don't have the right to force their religion to recognize their marriage. Don't like it? Pick a different religion.

[crazy canuck]

Research and statements. Same as the evidence on any other subject. If he can or can't give a get is an issue of fact. His opinion or belief doesn't matter.

Religious beliefs are a matter of fact, not belief?  Okay, if that's the fact (or, more properly, you believe that it is  ).   That kinda ends the discussion right there, though.

I wont speak for Sheilbh, but the way I would put it is that the nature of the religious belief is a question of fact which the court must decide based on the evidence put before it.

If a person provides the court with evidence that they believe x and such a belief requires them to act (or not act) in a certain way then that is something the court can consider based on all the other evidence put before the court and it may result in a successful constitutional challenge of legislation which requires the person to act contrary to their religious beliefs.