>>It doesn't matter. Whoever made the loophole to give one religious court's decisions a legal footing, has opened it for every other such court.
>
>I think you are overreacting to religious connotations of the thing. Arbitration by specialists in the field is possible around here, and sometimes I wonder if justice might not be served better by including a more solid influence of the dice gods (perhaps mitigated by the number of throws gvien to each side<g>).

Nothing wrong with calling an expert to be a witness in court - even I was one, once. It's just that giving any other institution, apart from the court, the right to make legally binding decisions in legal disputes... we could just as well announce that such decisions can also be made by figure skating judges, or the Cannes film festival jury, or panel of critics - they have the experience, don't they?

>The law itself is not really error free in its axioms

Um, axioms exist in civil law. The legal system in case is still a mix of common law, civil law and precedence; it's not deductional, but rather inductional.