[BlueStreak]

With that, there is nothing wrong.

Except it was originally designed to restrict the exercize of laws based on tenets of a specific religion, the target not really being the foreign laws but the religion itself. This why the Jewish have joined in the suit. Some rules of the Jewish faith are law in other countries (Such as Israel.) as I understand it.

Consider the current flap going on here in the U.S.. Conservatives are trying to claim it is an attack on religion to require the Catholic Church (Based in Italy) to pay for insurance policies that include coverage for contraception devices and drugs. Even though not all of the Catholic Churches employees are Catholic and most Catholics in this country really pay little attention to the Vatican pointy hats these days, anyhow. Bear in mind that under the "Faith Based Initiative", the Catholic Church receives public funds. And AFAIK, that subjects them to financial regulation under our laws.

Yet we can pass a law making it illegal for a judge to consider the religious implications of faith when hearing a case, because the basic tenets of a given religion were formed and are backed by written law in foreign countries? (Last I checked, Italy is still a foreign country.) Also consider that the only difference between this latest bill and the previous bill is the fact that the previous failed bill singled out a specific religion, Islam. Omitting the singular name of Islam only makes it applicable to all religions. Hence the objections now eminating from the Jewish Community.

What are we doing here? Are we trying to keep judges from enforcing foreign law? Or, are we attempting to use the power of the government to favor one religion over others?

That's the question.

Dave