Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
But that is not the question - I am not looking at partition. That is the solution we automatically default to. Nor am I looking to something like Northern Ireland where both parties agree to a common government. In certain respects I am looking at going back to a time before the Treaty.

What I am talking about it two peoples sharing the same territory living under different laws - one secular and one religious. Certain common services would be provided by the central government but the legal system that the people live by would be separate depending on which group you declare yourself a part of. For example, if I were secular I could make statements against Muhammad but if I were a member of the religious group that would be a crime punishable by law.
I'm not aware of any such construction in Western history at least. A possible exception was the division in the Middle Ages between secular and canon law. But this was not symmetrical--the clergy was outside secular law but the laity was subject to both secular and canon law as the conflict between Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and Pope Grepeory VII in the 11th Century shows. Gregory could excommunicate Henry; Henry could do nothing to Gregory. Perhaps something like what you want existed in those cases of imperial immediacy where a Prince-Bishopric coincided with a Church diocese, but again I think it was be limited to a division along the lines of the clergy and the laity with the same asymmetry noted above.