You ignored the question. What law is violated by agreeing to a dispute settlement?
Yes, I ignored the question because the question is strawman. No one has claimed any law to be violated by CHOOSING an arbiter to settle a dispute. Therefor asking what law is violated when people choose, or when an arbiter agrees to arbitrate is pure strawman bullshit. Hypocrite.
You are completely wrong. You do not have to follow any law in forming a settlement or agreement. You may not violate a law (e.g., you can't agree to shoot the wife) but you don't have to follow a civil code.
LOL You really need to go into politics professionally. Not even Obama can split a hair so fine as to claim a difference between not violating the law, and not having to follow the law. Dufus. If you do not break the law, you ARE following the law. Civil codes are not a straight jacket outlining every tiny possibility in contractual agreements. Most civil codes are statements of what you can NOT agree to in a contract. If you do not violate the restrictions, your are following the law.
You failed to make your point. I said the settle disputes arising from as contract. It certainly implied that meant a legal contract. If you did not understand then I am sorry I failed to realize that you are a moron that needs things spelled out.
Riiiiight.
You can agree to many things that are not enforceable as a contract.
Yes, one can make an agreement. (if they are stupid). But by your own words, it is not ENFORCEABLE as a contract. If it is not enforceable, then neither a court of law NOR AN ARBITER can enforce the agreement. As I stated before, women can AGREE to be chattle. But the moment they CHALLENGE that agreement (ie: take it to the courts OR an arbiter) then the agreement, if it is not enforceable under contract, MUST be ruled void by law. Sharia law can NOT be used in the stead of our laws, and therefore IF the agreement is challenged, it cannot be legally enforced no matter who is settling the dispute. You keep trying to split hairs about agreements and the freedom to agree to anything. The fact that we are talking about DISPUTED agreements escapes you. If someone DISPUTES an agreement, then they are no longer voluntarily agreeing to it. Add to that fact that the agreement is not enforceable under civil law, then the dispute will automatically be resolved in favor of the one challenging the agreement. As such, an Imam settling a dispute cannot use Sharia law if Sharia conflicts with civil law. (which it does in numerous instances.)
Additionally the process of settlement must conform to law. The Sharia ideal that discounts female testimony in favor of male testimony violates our equality laws and any judgement which is based on such would be void.
I did not agree with you. You made a straw man argument. I am not arguing that a woman can contractually agree to being stoned to death. She does have the right to agree to a less than equitable settlement in a contractual dispute based on religion. You are wrong on that point.
While some contracts like prenups can agree to settlements that would be less than under standard contract, there is a limit. Like I said, a prenup that gave one partner nothing is very unlikely to be upheld unless that provision is coupled with a performance clause. And religion has nothing to do with it, nor, constitutionally, CAN it have anything to do with it. If an agreement under dispute is TOO one sided, and the defense of that inequity is religion, it will be overturned in court. And if it would be overturned in court, it cannot legally be arbitrated otherwise.
Bottom line: yes, theoretically two people can make any agreement between themselves. A college kid CAN sign the lease of a slum lord saying they accept that their water source is a garden hose from the neighboring house. Shit, they can even
agree to kill each others' spouses.
Where the problem arises is when an agreement butts up against the law. In the extreme case above, criminal law is violated and both go to jail when/if they get caught. In the case of civil law, if the agreement violates civil law, then it cannot be enforced if/when challenged. The lease mentioned above would be voided and the college kid would be awarded any costs sustained under the lease including any rents paid because the lease was illegal to require him to accept a condition that was not up to code.
A woman CAN agree to ridiculous limitations under her religion. But the law will not ENFORCE that agreement if she later decides to challenge it. And, should she agree to use an arbiter, that arbiter cannot use religious code in preference to civil law to decide the dispute. As such, since Sharia law is known to conflict with our civil code in numerous instances, setting up a court which uses Shria is not legal, nor constitutional.
