hmm...

Rabbinical judges who sit on what are called "beth din" courts often handle cases that New York City Jews don't want in the regular judicial system, such as matters involving tax evasion or other illegalities.

State and federal courts have long recognized the rulings, which are mainly handled through voluntary binding arbitration. Decisions have been changed or overturned only due to major problems, such as blatant fraud or bias.

Right. Because America is a country founded on the rule of law.

What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

I'm neither anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim. I'm just wondering how this is different..if it should be treated differently as such or what?

Why are conservatives so scared of Teh Gubbmit!!1 interfering in rabbinical law, but equally scared of the U.S. allowing Sharia law?

Religious law is religious law is NOT secular law.

shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

interesting question, isn't it?

Big question... are they open on Saturdays?

shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

I had never heard of these before, but I don't see a difference. I didn't know they did this and it should be stopped, sometime around yesterday.

GAT_00: shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

I had never heard of these before, but I don't see a difference. I didn't know they did this and it should be stopped, sometime around yesterday.

Remember, Moooooslums are kinda brownish, and therefore are not actually people.

GAT_00: shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

I had never heard of these before, but I don't see a difference. I didn't know they did this and it should be stopped, sometime around yesterday.

HOW DARE YOU, YOU FARKING ANTI-SEMITE!!!!

bronyaur1: GAT_00: shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

I had never heard of these before, but I don't see a difference. I didn't know they did this and it should be stopped, sometime around yesterday.

Remember, Moooooslums are kinda brownish, and therefore are not actually people.

Which has what to do with anything? From what I can see he's saying that any religious court that takes the place of rule of law (and quite probably makes rulings counter to what the law dictates) should not be allowed. And I agree.

I don't care if it is a Sharia court, a Jewish court, a Christian court, a Pantheist court, a court of predominantly white people or black people... they are not above the law and their rulings (especially rulings that contradict the law) should not be held as untouchable by the law.

It makes sense for local community problems like Shlomo watching TV on the Sabbath or breaching a contract with someone in the neighborhood, but tax evasion??

Talon: bronyaur1: GAT_00: shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

I had never heard of these before, but I don't see a difference. I didn't know they did this and it should be stopped, sometime around yesterday.

Remember, Moooooslums are kinda brownish, and therefore are not actually people.

Which has what to do with anything? From what I can see he's saying that any religious court that takes the place of rule of law (and quite probably makes rulings counter to what the law dictates) should not be allowed. And I agree.

I don't care if it is a Sharia court, a Jewish court, a Christian court, a Pantheist court, a court of predominantly white people or black people... they are not above the law and their rulings (especially rulings that contradict the law) should not be held as untouchable by the law.

I agree with you. I was making fun of people that find one religion's laws acceptable substitutes for secular laws, but find other religion's laws unacceptable substitutes. These people are frequently also known as "True Murcan Conservatives."

For an extra bit of shiny: the dispute that was overturned was between a Jewish religious school (Hebrew Academy of the Five Towns and Rockaway) and one of its teachers (Rabbi Brisman -- and there's probably a few jokes in that), who was fired over "differences in matters of religious philosophy". The Beit Din noted he had achieved tenure, and that a higher standard was required. When the Beit Din court of arbitration went to secular court to get the arbitration ruling ratified, HAFTR filed an objection (rare), and the Judge threw it out (even more rare).

Some more details here and here; Brisman is appealing.

From where I sit, I find it interesting that the religious court had problems with what seems to be discrimination against someone for not being religious enough, and that the secular court did not.

Talon: Which has what to do with anything? From what I can see he's saying that any religious court that takes the place of rule of law (and quite probably makes rulings counter to what the law dictates) should not be allowed. And I agree.

Actually, the judge said that the ruling made no sense... but there is no indication he looked at the reasoning. (He also threw out the ruling on a technicality of time jurisdiction, saying the Beit Din's time of jurisdiction had run out.)

There's a real can of worms in this one.

globalwarmingpraiser:

Not much to say. This thread will bring out three types of people (and a special subset).

1. Sane and rational people who realize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with private individuals accepting as binding over each others a mediating court made of private individuals, as long as the rulings do not attempt to supercede rulings from the legal court system, and are delivered regarding limited fields.

ie: fine for a monetary dispute between two community members, wrong for a murder trial.

2. Anti-religious people who will foam at the mouth when they realize that something like this has been happening in America for centuries, and will scream from the rafters that this is totally unacceptable, private individuals should not have such rights if they are involved with urgh spit disgust religion and their civil liberties have have HAVE to be curbed otherwise the very fabric of America is threatened and they will be forced to attend mass on a daily basis while having the Bible shoved down their throats if it doesn't stop RIGHT. THIS. SECOND.

3. Anti-Semites (with the special subset that will bash Israel, will bash this, bash Jews who follow the Torah, bash everything related to Jews yet launch into a self-righteous indignated tirade of "Anti-semite?! Moi? How dare you!" if you point it out to them)

So, really, what's the point?

This has been happening for centuries, this is perfectly constitutional, there's nothing wrong about this as long as it doesn't attempt to circumvent the legal system and apply its laws or rulings in areas that should be reserved to the legal system (murders, rapes, assaults and so forth).

There's absolutely nothing shocking or controversial here, aside that the school should be ostracized for going around the Beis Din and having a secular court rule in their favor instead.

Its a disgrace to fire this man because they think his religious philosophy goes against what the school wants to teach their pupils, yet they publicly desecrate G-d's law and openly go against a Beis Din and use a public court because they are not satisfied with the ruling.

Tatsuma: ie: fine for a monetary dispute between two community members, wrong for a murder trial.

An ordinary employment dispute clearly falls into the former category; but adding the Civil Rights component fuzzies that a bit.

On the other hand, they're firing the man for not being religious enough, and then trying a secular end-run around the Beis Din's ruling. I wonder if that could bring in an "unclean hands" element in the secular appeals....

Tatsuma: Its a disgrace to fire this man because they think his religious philosophy goes against what the school wants to teach their pupils, yet they publicly desecrate G-d's law and openly go against a Beis Din and use a public court because they are not satisfied with the ruling.

Interesting point, but I see no difference between a beth din and an arbitration proceeding.
It is common for arbitration proceedings to be challenged in courts if a party is left unsatisfied by the outcome. I fail to see why the beth din's ruling should be any different. Especially since they were in a secular court to validate the ruling of the beth din and the court chose to invalidate it. Also, a private school IMHO has every right to fire a teacher if their teachings go against the school's views. Interpretation of religious text is not concrete and the school has eery right to take on a more moderate, liberal or fundamentalist view. Parents shell out good money to insure their children are taught in accordance to these views. I'm sure the school does not want their students going home talking about points of view that fly in the face of the views they had promised the parents they would teach.

Talon: Which has what to do with anything? From what I can see he's saying that any religious court that takes the place of rule of law (and quite probably makes rulings counter to what the law dictates) should not be allowed. And I agree.

I don't care if it is a Sharia court, a Jewish court, a Christian court, a Pantheist court, a court of predominantly white people or black people... they are not above the law and their rulings (especially rulings that contradict the law) should not be held as untouchable by the law.

If they're sticking to religious questions, I don't see the problem with it. If it's financial transactions IN the community and both parties agree, again, no problem - all the court is doing is negotiating a settlement "out of court" from the POV of the actual legal courts.

I am surprised that TFA says they deal with tax evasion questions though, because that IS very much an issue around there and I'd be amazed that the regular courts are going to let any ruling stand that doesn't agree exactly with the normal real tax laws.

Beis Din, Sharia court, same opinion, as far as I'm concerned.

And yeah, if the community in particular should be hating on anyone it'd be the school, which agreed to abide by this special court and then reneged.

abb3w: On the other hand, they're firing the man for not being religious enough, and then trying a secular end-run around the Beis Din's ruling. I wonder if that could bring in an "unclean hands" element in the secular appeals....

Heh. Also gotta love this angle :)

damageddude: It makes sense for local community problems like Shlomo watching TV on the Sabbath or breaching a contract with someone in the neighborhood, but tax evasion??

Who knows better about money than jews?

/and i pronounce it "evoision"
//it's in the dictionary, people!

If you want to read up on some weird Jewish traditions, do a search on their circumcision ritual. The rabbi sucks on the boy's penis (new window) after circumcision. How is that legal?

abb3w:
(Rabbi Brisman -- and there's probably a few jokes in that)

Came for this, leaving satisfied.

"Rabbinical judges who sit on what are called "beth din" courts often handle cases that New York City Jews don't want in the regular judicial system, such as matters involving tax evasion or other illegalities."

UBS clients must have consulted with these guys before the IRS got involved.

If only Jews became lawyers, we wouldn't have this problem.

Isn't this the same as Judge Judy? I mean, don't folks who agree to go on that show basically give up the right to a civil trial and agree to accept her judgement? What's the difference?

/Isn't Judge Judy a Jew?

Kozaru: Isn't this the same as Judge Judy? I mean, don't folks who agree to go on that show basically give up the right to a civil trial and agree to accept her judgement? What's the difference?

/Isn't Judge Judy a Jew?

She knows judo. Worst time to be on her show is July.

While I have no problem with this with regards to civil matters and most aspects of family law if all participants agree I do have one question: how the heck does a Rabbinical court get jurisdiction over a tax evasion case??

Kozaru: Isn't this the same as Judge Judy? I mean, don't folks who agree to go on that show basically give up the right to a civil trial and agree to accept her judgement? What's the difference?


Exactly my thinking. It's The People's Court, except that Wopner is a dozen old bearded guys.

Did you know that Rusty the Bailiff was also the court bailiff during the Manson trial and the trial of Patty Hearst?

Kozaru: Isn't this the same as Judge Judy? I mean, don't folks who agree to go on that show basically give up the right to a civil trial and agree to accept her judgement? What's the difference?

There isn't. Evidently, the article was also incorrect in that these can't handle actual criminal matters, such as the tax evasion mentioned in the article.

There are also, effectively, no difference between these courts and the "civil mediation" clauses many employers require employees to sign.

/Their similarities to Sharia courts are an issue I leave to others to debate.

r1niceboy: If only Jews became lawyers, we wouldn't have this problem.

I lold

Arbitration is a good thing. We do not need to tie up the courts with petty bullshiat. Go to someone that both parties trust and agree to let them decide the matter. It saves us tax money in the end. These courts are not hearing cases of criminality. They are not going after murderers, child molesters, bank robbers, or drug dealers. They settle arguments between individuals. If Shlomo owes Ari $500 and he isn't paying would you rather they settled it among their own community or would you rather pay a judge with your (and their) tax money to decide the outcome? I hate all religious superstition but in this case the religious community is providing a service to the greater community by keeping the courts free of bullshiat and encouraging people to solve their own problems. Good on them for a change.

So basically "Someone sued, had it overturned in another court" and now the Jewish legal world is ending?

Sounds like a can of hubris to me.

If I understood the article properly, this court could ajudicate tax issues. That seems to violate the obligation for due process, ie the due process under the civil and criminal courts.

These religious courts should only have non-religious power as granted to the court by mutual agreement of the people who voluntarily submit to it, as an arbitrator of choice.

Nobody should be able to "game" our system of laws by usurping it by a religious court. As a fundamentalist Christian, I shudder at the concept of submitting to the legal judgement of any religious church that I don't voluntarily approach for arbitration. I would not like myself or others to be involuntarily forced to forgive debts, for example.

As for matters of taxation, petty crime and felonies, religious courts should also have no jurisdiction. Such religious law must not have the legal force of civil law. This would violate the establishment clause.

shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

First thing that crossed my mind too.

Rejoice not at thine enemy's fall - but don't rush to pick him up either.

-Jewish proverb


/Got nothin'...

//...except that fall of Berlin thing.

///Try to follow me here.




mazel tov

This seems more along the lines of Judge Judy. Both parties simply agree to abide by the ruling of the Jew-court. It would work for civil cases, but not criminal.

Am I right?

The article was kind of vague (surprise surprise) regarding the tax evasion thing. These courts don't hear cases of tax evasion or any other criminal issue. If, however, I was afraid that my illegal dealings would come to light in a traditional court, I could opt for the rabbinical route.

Kozaru: Isn't this the same as Judge Judy?

I probably should have read the thread first.

shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

I'm neither anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim. I'm just wondering how this is different..if it should be treated differently as such or what?

None. Kind of the point, for me, as well.

GAT_00: shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

I had never heard of these before, but I don't see a difference. I didn't know they did this and it should be stopped, sometime around yesterday.

Wow, you're uninformed.

shivashakti: What's the difference between this and fundamentalist Muslims setting up their own shariah law here in America?

I'm neither anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim. I'm just wondering how this is different..if it should be treated differently as such or what?

Well, we have an institution for "binding arbitration" for CIVIL complaints. AFAIK the arbitration cannot be binding for CRIMINAL complaints, a victim who does not like the outcome can still ask for criminal charges to be pursued in the public court.

In fact, in some cases the will of the victim is not required (statutory rape) and charges will be processed without regard to the victim's requests, including the reasoning that it was already handled in one of these extragovernmental entities.

And that's only for situations where the criminal charges overlap. The question's more often about the right to try and give punishment for things which are not even a crime by outside law- be it working on Sunday, or "adultery". They have no legal authority to imprison, deprive of property, or whip someone. It is not unusual for a person indoctrinated into the community to accept such punishment voluntarily; the court wouldn't exist if that didn't work. The question arises as to whether the cultural pressure to accept the punishment is "fair", or something dark and malicious, with vague threat of terrible retaliation if you were to do something unthinkable and simply walk away from the cultural court's ruling.

Amish have courts which can hand out rulings, but it's often just periods of "shunning". Note that the defendant's complicity is not required to be shunned, but the community's. In any case the person is free to simply walk into town and have a beer and talk with whomever they like if they so pleased.

Opposite end of the spectrum is "honor killings", where those (generally women) who have simply walked away from cultural taboos may be killed, and that's considered acceptable. As such the situation maintains a superficial appearance of voluntarily compliance with cultural expectations, but the underlying threat of death negates all that.

Fjornir: While I have no problem with this with regards to civil matters and most aspects of family law if all participants agree I do have one question: how the heck does a Rabbinical court get jurisdiction over a tax evasion case??

If it is strictly for religious matters, what do I care? They want to argue about how to act to their sky wizard, it is no skin off my nose. Even as an alternate form of arbitration, I don't have much concern. The less things in the legal system, the better.

However, I do object to it on all family law matters. That is a key aspect of cult control. It makes it nearly impossible for anyone truly unhappy to leave, and will always rule against a party looking to leave the community over a party looking to stay, and that is fundamentally unjust.

/The tax evasion mention seems to be a lazy reporter issue.

I worked with a group of mormons (not in Utah) for a couple of years and got to know some of them quite well. One of the them told me that a member of the local Temple had stolen a considerable sum from the church. Had it been a non-mormon they would have had him arrested but because he was a mormon they were handling it within the church. I lost a lot of respect for them when I heard that. Same here.

redsquid: Arbitration is a good thing. We do not need to tie up the courts with petty bullshiat. Go to someone that both parties trust and agree to let them decide the matter. It saves us tax money in the end. These courts are not hearing cases of criminality. They are not going after murderers, child molesters, bank robbers, or drug dealers. They settle arguments between individuals. If Shlomo owes Ari $500 and he isn't paying would you rather they settled it among their own community or would you rather pay a judge with your (and their) tax money to decide the outcome? I hate all religious superstition but in this case the religious community is providing a service to the greater community by keeping the courts free of bullshiat and encouraging people to solve their own problems. Good on them for a change.

Well, since you asked.... I would rather pay a judge with my (and yours) tax money to decide the outcome.

Tatsuma: globalwarmingpraiser:

Not much to say. This thread will bring out three types of people (and a special subset).

1. Sane and rational people who realize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with private individuals accepting as binding over each others a mediating court made of private individuals, as long as the rulings do not attempt to supercede rulings from the legal court system, and are delivered regarding limited fields.

ie: fine for a monetary dispute between two community members, wrong for a murder trial.

2. Anti-religious people who will foam at the mouth when they realize that something like this has been happening in America for centuries, and will scream from the rafters that this is totally unacceptable, private individuals should not have such rights if they are involved with urgh spit disgust religion and their civil liberties have have HAVE to be curbed otherwise the very fabric of America is threatened and they will be forced to attend mass on a daily basis while having the Bible shoved down their throats if it doesn't stop RIGHT. THIS. SECOND.

3. Anti-Semites (with the special subset that will bash Israel, will bash this, bash Jews who follow the Torah, bash everything related to Jews yet launch into a self-righteous indignated tirade of "Anti-semite?! Moi? How dare you!" if you point it out to them)

So, really, what's the point?

This has been happening for centuries, this is perfectly constitutional, there's nothing wrong about this as long as it doesn't attempt to circumvent the legal system and apply its laws or rulings in areas that should be reserved to the legal system (murders, rapes, assaults and so forth).

There's absolutely nothing shocking or controversial here, aside that the school should be ostracized for going around the Beis Din and having a secular court rule in their favor instead.

Its a disgrace to fire this man because they think his religious philosophy goes against what the school wants to teach their pupils, yet they publicly desecrate G-d's law and openly go against a Beis Din and use a public court because they are not satisfied with the ruling.

You forgot:

4) Obnoxious Zionists who never shut up, run away from a real argument, and really and truly believe that people of their religion and/or ethnic group (it's never clear which) have - and deserve - a privileged place in the world.

So, Tats, you'd support sharia courts in the US? Right?

tuckeg: I worked with a group of mormons (not in Utah) for a couple of years and got to know some of them quite well. One of the them told me that a member of the local Temple had stolen a considerable sum from the church. Had it been a non-mormon they would have had him arrested but because he was a mormon they were handling it within the church. I lost a lot of respect for them when I heard that. Same here.

Does this also apply to Muslims drowning a girl who had the audacity to get raped? What if she wants it to "preserve her honor"?

Tatsuma: Sane and rational people who realize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with private individuals accepting as binding over each others a mediating court made of private individuals

I was pretty cool with that subject, til I read this part in the article...

"courts often handle cases that New York City Jews don't want in the regular judicial system, such as matters involving tax evasion or other illegalities"

Those kinds of cases should not have ANY component of "don't want in the regular judicial system" allowed.

Slartibartfaster: Tatsuma: Sane and rational people who realize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with private individuals accepting as binding over each others a mediating court made of private individuals

I was pretty cool with that subject, til I read this part in the article...

"courts often handle cases that New York City Jews don't want in the regular judicial system, such as matters involving tax evasion or other illegalities"

Those kinds of cases should not have ANY component of "don't want in the regular judicial system" allowed.

Yeah, if it involves tax evasion, then these courts are engaging in illegal conspiracy, maybe even racketeering.

@sseye: I think an "Obvious troll is obvious" pic is appropriate for you...

He said nothing of the sort. Given that sharia courts often hand down sentences regularly hand down things that would be civil rights violations, as well as criminal punishments, no, those forms wouldn't be allowed in the US.

just more evidence of jews being exclusionary and thinking they operate on a magical level above the rest of us

WE ARE ALL THE CHOSEN PEOPLE YOU DOUCHEBAGS
BECAUSE WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS

/fuhk rabbinical law
//fuhk sharia law