Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Leaving aside whatever aspects of sharia they may be pushing for, or whatever aspects of sharia may be debatable -- do you find it at all disturbing that people would suggest that a subset of the population should be judged by a different set of laws?
|
The Supremes read the first amendment as doing this right now, within a limited field. Thus, courts don't step in to judge ecclesiatical matters within churches, but leave them to be resolved by whatever canon law applies - and this has been extended to cover all sorts of disputes that might, in an ordinary business, be a matter of civil suits. Likewise, churches are read as tax-exempt under the constitution - no 501(c)(3) application required. In the criminal area, freedom of religion is regularly pled as a defense to stuff (chomping on peyote, for example). I think the question is, how broad is the field where we defer to ecclesiatic authorities, not whether we do it.
