Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law?

Are these truly the only options of which you can conceive?And your OP is truly flawed in other ways. Have you even noticed the efforts of some religious people in the US to enshrine their personal beliefs and practices into law. Do you know, for example, what 'Blue Laws' are?Perhaps it turns out that despite being religious, people value the benefits of secular law. Perhaps it turns out that getting along with other people is more important than excluding them by enshrining stuff into law. Perhaps it turns out that in non-homogeneous societies it is practically impossible to get religious laws enacted regardless of your religious zeal.Perhaps you should think these things through before posting them. I noticed that your threads seem to gather a dozen responses or so before you lose interest in responding.

I think it's pretty clear that the ten commandments do not characterize what most people would think of as Christian Law. The ten commands are a short list of items mostly covering ground which is equally well covered in the Koran. I am not going to do any work to demonstrate that, but you can evaluate my statement yourself. Here is a suggested link. Or twoComparing the Ten Commandments with verses from the Qur'anhttp://www.islam101.com/...gions/TenCommandments/tcQuran.htmMore importantly though, the ten commandments are just a short list of do's and don'ts. If we want to compare Christian law to Sharia law, surely it is not the simple list that is the glaring difference. The more important issues are how justice is served, fairness, what are the penalties, and what is the level of observance. None of those things are covered in any way in the ten commandments.A more apt comparison might be between Sharia law, and the rules in Leviticus and elsewhere in the Torah. Seriously. How can it be that when that "history" serves a desired outcome (e.g. Adam and Eve is the way God intended marriage to be) then it is okay to treat that as if it were promotional. Bottom line, if the Supreme in all of the universe approved, or condoned, commanded, or even performed an action, then that activity is promoted.In any event, the idea that Christians do not promote Christian law and society is ridiculous on its face. Surely someone here remembers Faith's recent thread in which she tried to find a legal way to establish a state within the US in which people who did not share her religious views would be banned from participating in state government.

I have to give marc9000 a nod for having the sac to address this question, because it is indeed a quagmire. There is no question that women, minorities, and pretty much everybody except rich, WASP males was not more free in the fifties than in the seventies or eighties.Most of the posters who come here, and who express a longing for the good old days have enough savvy not to fall into the trap of specifying the exact period they are nostalgic for. I can recall, for example Buzsaw ducking this question repeatedly.I have to presume that those who express a preference for the 50's and even for the early nineteenth century as some commentators on American Family Radio are wont to do, have a very crabbed view of what freedom means. It is certainly not a view that requires any respect whatsoever.But more to the point, the absence of law suits for major causing major casualty and injury makes you free to do what? Be absolutely reckless and careless with the life and limb of others with impunity?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So you disagree specifically with the proposition that the joining of Adam and Eve means one man/one woman marriages for the rest of us?I don't disagree with that. I assumed, though, that you would. Obviously many people do make that argument.

Marc9000, I hope you understand that this statement illustrates exactly how poor a showing you've made here. Yes there are some particularly bad secular governments that are worse than one particular religious ones. What point does that make? Anyone can easily cite a counter example. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The real reason not to argue with you is that you are oblivious. People have indeed cited examples of threats to liberty by religion in the US, but you pretend not to have seen them or to take them seriously.I generally avoid exchanging more than a message or two with you on any topic for exactly that reason.