If ever there was an advert for the perils of punishment and the malign interpretation of religion, this recent article on the nightmare scenario of one couple’s divorce is it.

The article tells us that Aharon Friedman, a Capitol Hill employee has refused to allow his wife a divorce in the Jewish tradition, by giving his wife a ‘get’, a Jewish writ of divorce. They are however, civilly separated; that is to say, the Maryland Civil court has granted them a divorce, so you might ask, what’s the problem?

Well, whilst we like to believe that the laws of our land have supremacy over customary laws in existence, largely due perhaps to the increasingly secular nature of our existence here in the West, the truth is very different: especially where the lines between culture, identity and religion are blurred. As Mr Friedman and his wife, Tamar Epstein are orthodox jews, they require another divorce, by a Beit Din, a Jewish Rabbinical court. Without this, Ms Epstein remains, as the article explains, an agunah, a woman in chains. As such, she is unable to ever remarry, or have children, bound to her husband out of spite or malice, forever.

Of course, if Ms Epstein wishes to distance herself from Orthodox practice, things become less fraught, but this is seldom an easy option, with strings attached not least of all the realisation that she would have to leave her life behind and start over in unfamiliar territory, in almost every sense of the word. Ms Epstein would also have to worry about the impact this would have on her daughter, the stigma she might inherit.

But this practice in orthodox Judaism raises some very interesting issues: very much like orthodox Islam, any laws which tend to discriminate usually point to the female gender – in other words, feminists have often had a field day, citing the lack of equality between the sexes in religion as a large bone of contention (think Adam’s rib, as another unfortunate example). Another point of fascination lies in the limits of the law as it stands, secular law, national law, or whatever you might wish to call it. America has always been very clear on religion: it has its place but not in government and discrimination is frowned upon – so why has this and other religious laws which discriminate and repress managed to remain part of orthodox life in America and elsewhere where human rights legislation is in force? That is not a question with an easy answer, but leads us on to another, equally intriguing question: can laws like those in Britain, pierce the veil and go beyond trying to set an example so that they protect as well as preserve our human rights?

Britain has battled with oppressive custom and continues to do so, struggling to find a way to cope with such devastating practices as Honour Killings. One way it has chosen to do so, is to tackle the issue from the symptom, not the source – offering services for families who have been affected or those who fear being affected. This may help, but perhaps one of the most powerful ways of dealing with oppressive custom in orthodox circles, or indeed any circles, is for those inside the demographic to respond.

Mr Friedman and Ms Epstein’s story has this powerful underpinning quality: enter Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, who told the New York Times “I don’t think the Messiah can come, as long as there is one agunah in the world.” Like all hostile divorce disputes, both the mother and the father have legitimate grievances, both want to see some give in the other, but neither is willing to extend the olive branch, for fear that that branch will be snatched, leaving only an empty promise, never to be fulfilled. Rabbi Herzfeld’s sentiment then, is perhaps a stark reminder that some customs don’t belong in our world, not even in an orthodox one and serves to remind us that not all practices can or should stand the test of time. In any religion.