>>And how about the children of whom the parents adhere a certain religion? Should the tribunal also apply to these children? Before answering, think of the fact that these children have not voluntarilly chosen for that religion.
>
>You can come up with all sorts of scenerios (probably mostly based upon how awful we think Muslim law is) and I'd mostly agree with you. Depending on circumstances, if the case involved the children, I certainly could agree. On the other hand, we routinely give parents the right to make religious decisions for their children. Attendance at religious schools, going to church/synagogue/mosque, being circumcised, etc. are forced upon childen who have not voluntarily chosen that religion.
>
>Am I agreeing to so many exceptions that administration of such a system becomes impossible? Perhaps so. But in many situations
>
>There is a series of books by Harry Kemmelman called "On (insert day) the Rabbi (did something)." These are mysteries in which the main character is a rabbi of a conservative congregation in a small city in MA. This gives the author an opportunity to expound on various topics Jewish.
>
>In one of the books two of the congregants are having a quarrel over who is responsible for damage to an automobile. Rather than go to court, they agree to let the rabbi decide according to Talmudic law.
>
>What's the problem with that????

There is no problem, because there is a difference. The decision (at least if it were here in Ontario) has no standing in law. It is merely an agreement between the parties. It's no different than if I and my neighbour agree to allow a third neighbour to settle a dispute. If the Sharia law enactment passes, it will have standing in law, and that is a bad thing. Religious law in a secular society should never replace secular law.