Nope...Example is blue laws.....holding everyone to a christian belief that things shouldn't be open on Sunday.
Sure. Bars closed one day a week, just like killing people for being gay, or getting raped.
It amazes me that more libs dont' die from accidentally eating broken glass, or drowning because they look up during rain.
Sharia is sharia....any law put in place for religious reasons. The severity is irrelevant. If you push a law because of your religion and you are trying to compell everyone to follow one of your religious rules, that is sharia. Period.
I think if you were to ask people if they saw a difference between not being able to buy beer one day a week, and being KILLED, that most people would see a relevant difference.
I understand that this distinction is too subtle for YOU.
There are severe laws and there are minor laws...but if any of them are created because of a religion's belief...it is a sharia law......Thank goodness our strong Constitution and secular traditions keep such sharia (of any religion) minor....for now. Not from want of trying for some religious groups.
Your interpretation of "not establish religion" is more of a desire of not allowing religious people to have full political participation.
Wanting one day a week to not be a business day for alcohol selling places, is not an establishment of religion or a theocracy.
You are an anti-Christian bigot.
Dear
bodecea and
Correll
If people AGREE to terms and conditions of law
such as "laws against murder" (while others believe in the Biblical
principle thou shalt not kill) then as long as people consent to
SECULAR laws on this, that isn't necessarily IMPOSING a religion.
Examples: the use of AD or CE calendar years can be argued
as founded in "religion" but CE/BCE is considered "secular."
Also if you consider the Govt slogan and principle of
"Equal JUSTICE under law" -- JUSTICE is still FAITH BASED.
But it is not considered "religious imposition" because people
AGREE to that principle (even though it's not proven to exist
but relies on personal faith which varies in degree and denomination)
The KEY
bodecea and
Correll is whether or not
people CONSENT to laws that respect their beliefs,
or whether the Govt is being abused to IMPOSE a
religious or faith based bias.
And by that standard, that's why we have people on both sides protesting:
* prochoice and prolife beliefs (including right to life and
right to health care as Political Beliefs not all people believe)
* beliefs for or against same sex marriage and recognizing
LGBT identity or orientation as a class, as a choice of behavior,
or as a faith-based creed or affiliation (still protected under law
from discrimination while govt can neither establish nor prohibit such beliefs either way)
bodecea we would have more consistent enforcement
if we RECOGNIZED these biases and political beliefs
equally under religious freedom and Civil Rights against
discrimination by creed. Both sides LOSE CREDIBILITY
and any leverage or authority to enforce laws and legal arguments
by arguing one side's beliefs OVER the other, which is
violating this very principle! We'd do better to defend rights
of citizens to protect and represent their own creeds by
recognizing BOTH sides as such, and agreeing to keep those
biases out of govt, and reserving public law, institutions and
policy to where we agree on terms. And keep the rest separate.