>I think the current state of separation between church as stated in this country is just skin-deep (enough to shut the aclu fans up).
>
>Back in 1992 I learnt about rabbinical court hearings held here in the US. At least back then, if you chose to have a cased heard in such a court, the decision of the judges (a panel of 3 rabbis in this case) was legally binding. Right now, with all the hoopla about state and church, I guess it flies under the radar by considering the non-state-based court to be a form of arbitration, which is a legally acceptable and accepted mechanism of conflict resolution.
>
>Of course, something like a murder case would definitely be picked up by the government's courts, not by Sharia or Rabbinical court. Rabbinical court, I guess, has jurisdiction only over civil matters.
>
>I really don't buy much of the "church-state segregation" concept in a country where a marriage performed by a religious leader is legally binding.
>
>I'm not saying that it shouldn't be, but if the state wants to come really clean on this, they should implement the requirement of civil marriage, like in Venezuela and I'm sure in Argentina and Bolivia, among others.
>
>Alex


Interesting. Yes, Argentina and Bolivia, like Venezuela only require (and absolutely require) a civil ceremony before a civil servant. Religious marriage is optional. The civil one is not.