> If a group of citizens banded together to form a city, and then, collectively passed a law prohibiting people from walking outside after sunset on Friday - is that wrong?

Yes, it is wrong - it infringes basic human rights of that person. Israel and Saudi Arabia are wrong and in violation of obvious human rights for some of their religious laws, as are Iran, India and many other countries.

> Why can't Christians form together and make laws to align with their religion?

No one should be allowed to do so, because it infringes natural human rights.

No it isn't, laws are made for the people.

There is no such thing as natural human rights. It's something that gets redefined by the dominant cultures constantly.

If Christians want to live under Biblical Law, let them. if Muslims want to live under Sharia, let them. If Jews want to live under Jewish Laws, let them.

There absolutely is such a thing as natural human rights. Some are known since ancient times, some have been discovered more recently, and some are probably not well known or understood yet. But there are certain rights that humans and other beings musg have for any society to function well in an objective sense.

Most religions trample on most of the rights that we now understand to be fundamental, so theocraies are something to be despised and feared.

To be very clear: religious belief and practice, as long as it is not imposed on non-believers, is not a problem. The imposition of your religious beliefs on others - theocracy - is the problem.

Technically, the poster is still correct: there's no such thing as "natural" human rights. Rights do not exist in material reality, they're entirely cultural and thus made up.

Not even the international declaration of human rights is signed by all countries. Rights are not given, they are political and need to be declared and defended, constantly.

If people voluntarily give up their rights in order to feel a sense of belonging with a religion that is their prerogative. It is not fine for those people to attempt to enforce those restrictions on people outside of their religion.

If those people are causing actual harm to the community then it should be brought up through the secular legal process where lawmakers will weigh the harm to the community vs. the harm to personal liberty before deciding if the law is worth it.

My neighbors are observant Jews. They obey lots of rules and check in the uruv before leaving their homes when applicable.

They don’t make me follow their rules. But they are still subject to civil laws.

That is a good point. Maybe America really could use a peaceful separation. There seems to be a large part of the country that would be happy and content to live in a Christian nation.

I mean a lot of America's origins are English's religious rejects. Since before the constitution they probably we pretty happy to be in a Christian nation. There's a reason the 1st amendment is the 1st amendment and not part of the original constitution (some states felt their neighbors were going to force their puritanical believes upon them and so wouldn't ratify the constitution amongst other reasons).

> But Utah also has plenty of laws that are influenced by Mormons- and no one is complaining about the liquor laws there.

You've never talked with people from Utah have you?

Not op nor do I know which laws you are thinking of.

But, while I was in Utah for a ~week I saw plenty of (probably tourist) people be very surprised that there was a big distinction between the bar area and restaurant area of restaurants as those seated in the restaurant area _must_ purchase food if they're having alcohol.

From what I've heard instead of bars you have to go to "member only clubs" to get around the blue laws. I think they shut down liquor sales pretty early in the evening as well. It has been awhile since the subject came up with my relatives from Utah, but mostly because people don't want them to get started. They are also a state with a fair number of dry counties I believe.

Part time Utah resident here: you can only buy liquor/beer/wine > 5% ABV at state owned liquor stores and restaurants/bars draft beer has to be < 5% ABV but for some reason canned beer can be > 5% at restaurants (Makes zero sense to me). I believe there is like a 1 drink limit max per person at a time (maybe just liquor, I forget) and the state owned liquor stores are closed on Sunday too.

> But Utah also has plenty of laws that are influenced by Mormons- and no one is complaining about the liquor laws there.

What are you basing that on because I live there 3 months a year and I assure you I bitch about it nonstop!