Is A Jewish Divorce A Threat to the Constitution?

For all the hysteria over Shari'a law in America there is not one instance of Shari'a law being recognized in America (a caveat to this is a moment).

mosque203 fFKix 19672

But there are religious courts for another religious minority in the States: Orthodox or Hasidic Jews. Some ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities in America do receive special recognition in family arbitration matters to be able to conduct them according to Jewish law (which is not a liberal and equality-of-the-sexes example, not unlike all other religious laws). Of course, there is nothing wrong with this and entirely compatible with a free society provided that they are voluntary and not binding on any one, including members of the faith, if they do not agree to court's jurisdiction, as it were.

But we do not hear about Rabbinical courts in America only the alleged threat of Shari'a or cleverly called in fear-mongering tones "Stealth Jihad". Ironically the people making the most noise about how Shari'a endangers the Constitution and is a religious imposition often themselves tend to be Orthodox views. Because the point here is not objection to any religious law, but solely a hatred of Islam and Muslims by neo-cons, Zionists and the Christian Right.

Imagine if this story involved a Muslim:

Instead, Mr. Friedman, an Orthodox Jew, finds himself scrutinized in the Jewish press, condemned by important rabbis, and attacked in a YouTube video showing about 200 people protesting outside his Silver Spring, Md., apartment on Dec. 19. They were angered by Mr. Friedman’s refusal to give his wife, Tamar Epstein, 27, a Jewish decree of divorce, known as a get. The Friedman case has become emblematic of a torturous issue in which only a husband can “give” a get. While Jewish communities have historically pressured obstinate husbands to give gets, this was a very rare case of seeking to shame the husband in the secular world.

Why don't the Islamophobes putting up bus ads ostensibly reaching out to be "trapped" in Islam offer some assistance to this wife actually trapped in a marriage due to a religious covenant in a secular country.

Only when Muslims do it is it an offense worthy of national attention.

Now recently there was a successful referendum in Oklahoma, a state known for its genius assay of policy, which banned Shari'a law from state courts. And soon enough because it was an impending threat. A judge issued a rightful injunction citing religious bigotry at play.

The claim that Shari'a is a valid threat to American law rests on a single federal court decision. A federal judge in New Jersey admittedly based a misguided decision to rule against a Muslim woman seeking a restraining order against her husband citing domestic abuse. The judge, in a bastardly act, ruled against her on the dubious logic that the accused was only acting in what he believed to be in accordance with his faith. Thus in this case the judge obliquely upheld a peculiar religious world view over secular laws protecting women. It was wrong, wrong and wrong. And a gift to the Islamophobes who argued that is was "proof" that the courts were liable to uphold Islamic law and thus we need an official ban on Shari'a. Does not the Constitution already serve that purpose: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

Anyway, this claim is empty: 1) the ruling was overturned by a higher court and nullified and 2) the judge was only following the precedent concerning a Supreme Court case were a Mormon man sought bigamy and declared that the U.S. government could not oppose his personal efforts on grounds of religious liberty.

So Mormons seeks bigamy and Jews have their own family religious courts and can trap women into marriages, but Muslims - who have an overturned single case - receive all the attention and constitute a threat in the manipulated public imagination.