Take the case of Shari'ah laws. Just whose laws would the government accept? Sunni Law? Shi'i Law? Which school of Sunni or Shi'i jurisprudence -- Maliki, Hanafi, Jafari? Conservative, Traditionalist, Progressive, Salafi interpretations? Would we really want to put our judges in the position of having to determine which of two disagreeing parties has the more authentically Islamic interpretation? Which is the truer Muslim?

Would all judges then have to be trained not only in state law or federal law, but also in the various religious legal systems they would be empowered to rule on? Or if we go the route of having judges specified to deal with one religious community in particular, how will we certify them? Will they have to get degrees from accredited Islamic universities, which are all located overseas? Will they even have to study American law? And do we really want the government to be in the business of determining what qualifies a person as a Muslim (or Jewish or Mormon or Hindu...) scholar and what doesn't?

The global Muslim community is currently in a ferocious debate over what Shari'ah is -- from the level of whether it is immutable Divine Law or man-made, changeable laws that attempt to understand God's will, to the level of whether individual rulings made in the 7-9th century under vastly different social conditions and assumptions about human nature still apply in today's world. Many Muslim countries have abandoned aspects of those ancient laws for rulings which are more appropriate today's culture (for instance, setting minimum marriage ages far higher than what was customary in the 8th century); others have codes which take the worst of classical legal rulings and combine it with reformist interpretations which are downright draconian. It would be a disaster for the American (or Canadian or British, etc) government to get embroiled in those conflicts.

For good reason the Constitution prohibits the government from making laws vis a vis the establishment of religion. Incorporating religious law into the legal system is in effect establishing one interpretation of those religious laws over another -- a recipe for creating discontent and disunity.

Incorporating religious tribunals, separate courts, or exceptional laws for particular religious communities also violates the principle that all citizens should have equal rights, responsibilities, and protections. If a law is good for one citizen, it is good for all citizens. If aspects of Shari'ah law are superior to secular law, then those laws should replace our secular law -- why would we accept an inferior law for the general populace? If, on the other hand, secular law is superior to aspects of Shari'ah, then why would we accept a secondary, disadvantaged status for some of our citizens, those who happen to identify with a particular religious community?

Would we allow non-Muslims access to shari'ah courts? Or would that resource be reserved for Muslims only? And on the other side of the coin, would all Muslims be required to use shari'ah laws? Or would they have access to secular courts?

As a woman, I have to say that not only would minority religious communities be at a disadvantage, but women in particular would be endangered under any multi-tier system. The communities that push for religious law, generally speaking, offer far fewer protections and rights to women than we enjoy under secular American law. Are we willing to accept second class status for some American women? And how will we deal with community, family, and spousal pressure on women to use religious laws that may not offer them the same benefits rather than avail themselves of secular law?

Similarly, children and members of the glbt community would be disadvantaged or endangered under many religious laws. Would we accept interpretations that call for executing anyone who is openly gay, or that automatically assign custody to the father in cases of divorce? Or are we going to get into the business of cherry picking which religious laws to incorporate into our legal system?

All too often, the call for incorporating religious law into secular laws is a thinly disguised attempt by patriarchal powers within a minority community to maintain and extend their control over women, children, and those who are minorities within that minority. It is an attempt to enforce certain normative standards on the community, and to stop forces that work toward assimilation and integration of the community into the fabric of American society. I am supportive of a vibrant, pluralistic society that celebrates diversity of culture and religion, but not at the expense of women, children, etc.

Finally, I believe that institutionalizing religious law into our legal codes is not necessary. If I want to follow Maliki rulings on spousal support and custody, I am free to do so under collaborative divorce procedures. If I want to avoid taking and giving interest in my business transactions, I can write contracts that do so. There are no laws that require me to drink alcohol, eat bacon, or engage in extra marital sexual relationships. There are no laws that prohibit me from praying on a particular schedule, or giving charity according to the percentages recommended by my prophet.

In America, we enjoy tremendous religious freedom. Incorporating religious law into our legal system would, on many levels, threaten the very freedom that proponents of religious law proclaim they are trying to exercise.