They wanted to ensure that the people were free to form whatever sort of society they wanted while being restrained from denying anybody else their unalienable rights. So the people themselves WANTED those theocracies and that is why they formed them. Nobody was prevented from going where there were no such rules/laws imposed on them. Those who wanted no religion at all were also allowed to form a society reflecting that.
This is what some don't understand. Self governance allows us to form the society we want to have. Freedom means nobody can tell us that we can't have the sort of society we wish to have. So if we want a narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community, we should be able to have that. If we want a pretty much lawless town in its hellfire days, we should be able to have that.
The Founders knew that a free people would be far more likely to get it right with trial and error than would ever be accomplished via an authoritarian government.
So why all the rightwing fuss against Sharia Law? Isn't that just another form of "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist community" as any other "narrow minded restrictive fundamentalist Christian community"?
Yes it is, and there is no Constitutional basis for denying the practice so long as it is confined to the community who adopts it. But just as narrow minded restricted Chrsitian theocracies in some of the colonies were still subject to the law of the land, federal and state, so are those who want Sharia law and neither are authorized to impose religious law on the non consenting anywhere else.
The point being is that nobody should be excused from requirements of federal law. Christians have not asked for any exemption from federal law or state law. Those promoting Sharia Law want to be subject ONLY to Sharia law and, when they have have the ability, achieve sufficient numbers, invariably force everybody in the country to be subject to those laws..
Christianity on the other hand, wherever it is the predominent religion in a country, has evolved to the point that it allows complete religious freedom for non Christians and non believers.
My point, however, though I will defend Chrsitianity when it is unfairly or dishonestly attacked, is that, in my opinion, God's Law, however we imperfectly understand or obey it, is ultimately the law of everything and nobody can escape the consequences of it. No human has authority or power to define it or enforce it, and no human power has ability to escape it.
