religious courts
[Updated!]
I've been pondering a post about the Establishment Principle since a conversation about a week ago - this isn't it, but it's a stepping stone on the way.
This article in the BBC magazine raises the question of the place of religious courts alongside (in their case) English and Welsh law. How far can a religious court reach into the lives of the followers of that religion?
Within Scottish presbyterianism, there used to be (1600s-1800s) a well-worked out model of the relationship between church and state, whereby church courts were meant to have jurisdiction over spiritual matters, and civil courts had jurisdiction over everything else (including property and divorce, if I understand right). The two spheres of church and state were meant to co-operate wherever their jurisdictions overlapped (eg presumably a convicted criminal would undergo church discipline), but at the same time they had to mutually recognise that when there wasn't an overlap they would each defer to the other. The state wielded the magistrate's sword, and the church held the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The state couldn't dictate which liturgy the church should use or which ministers should be inducted into which pastoral charges, but the church couldn't meddle in political matters either.
They called it erastianism when the church was meant to be subservient to the state, and they called it romanism when the state was meant to be subservient to the church; both options were regarded as sub-optimal, but the use of that latter term only shows how unimaginable it was for them that islam would ever be a force to be reckoned with - how inconceivable that sharia law might ever be invoked in the civil sphere in the western world. The church does have the right to a voice in society, and an authoritative voice at that, but only within its own jurisdiction. I don't know if it's really adequate to talk about 'the church' in Islam, but the Establishment Principle does have something to say about Islam's locating of the interface between religious authority and secular authority; and what it says is that religious courts have no business encroaching on civil issues. That's as far as I understand it anyway.
If anyone is more clued up than me on the Establishment Principle I'd be very interested to know how sharia law could be implemented in the Scottish situation.
UPDATE: Thanks to all you readers who *didn't* spot the deliberate mistake in the second paragraph. At least in the Scottish situation, marriage and divorce does fall into the jurisdiction of the Church, as well as (?) that of the State. A better example of things within the remit of civil courts would presumably be property and financial matters, or something. But will this egregious error prevent me from speculating further about the usefulness of the establishment principle in contemporary Scottish life? I think not.
I've been pondering a post about the Establishment Principle since a conversation about a week ago - this isn't it, but it's a stepping stone on the way.
This article in the BBC magazine raises the question of the place of religious courts alongside (in their case) English and Welsh law. How far can a religious court reach into the lives of the followers of that religion?
Within Scottish presbyterianism, there used to be (1600s-1800s) a well-worked out model of the relationship between church and state, whereby church courts were meant to have jurisdiction over spiritual matters, and civil courts had jurisdiction over everything else (including property and divorce, if I understand right). The two spheres of church and state were meant to co-operate wherever their jurisdictions overlapped (eg presumably a convicted criminal would undergo church discipline), but at the same time they had to mutually recognise that when there wasn't an overlap they would each defer to the other. The state wielded the magistrate's sword, and the church held the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The state couldn't dictate which liturgy the church should use or which ministers should be inducted into which pastoral charges, but the church couldn't meddle in political matters either.
They called it erastianism when the church was meant to be subservient to the state, and they called it romanism when the state was meant to be subservient to the church; both options were regarded as sub-optimal, but the use of that latter term only shows how unimaginable it was for them that islam would ever be a force to be reckoned with - how inconceivable that sharia law might ever be invoked in the civil sphere in the western world. The church does have the right to a voice in society, and an authoritative voice at that, but only within its own jurisdiction. I don't know if it's really adequate to talk about 'the church' in Islam, but the Establishment Principle does have something to say about Islam's locating of the interface between religious authority and secular authority; and what it says is that religious courts have no business encroaching on civil issues. That's as far as I understand it anyway.
If anyone is more clued up than me on the Establishment Principle I'd be very interested to know how sharia law could be implemented in the Scottish situation.
UPDATE: Thanks to all you readers who *didn't* spot the deliberate mistake in the second paragraph. At least in the Scottish situation, marriage and divorce does fall into the jurisdiction of the Church, as well as (?) that of the State. A better example of things within the remit of civil courts would presumably be property and financial matters, or something. But will this egregious error prevent me from speculating further about the usefulness of the establishment principle in contemporary Scottish life? I think not.
posted by cath at
1:39 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home