Sharia is Islamic sacred law, it cannot be Christian, or Shinto, or , heaven forbid, Jewish.
While there are indeed people who believe that our laws should be based on Judeo-Christian principles (and to a certain extent they are), none of the conservatives Max cited believe that our laws should be taken literally from the Christian holy book, the Bible.
None of them are looking to codify the Ten Commandments as the law of the land.
Not so with proponents of Sharia.
The vast difference is that there are no serious political figures or parties; no significant social organizations in America (or anywhere in the West, for that matter) who wish to use the text of the Bible as the literal source of our laws.
Make no mistake about it though, Sharia is intended to depend on the interpretive skills of the Muslim priest class, not only because the Koran is subject to interpretation, but because Sharia is also based on the life and actions of The Prophet.
I have no problem whatsoever with a people looking to their religious principles to guide their law making. This is perfectly natural. It is not, however, the case of Sharia. The Faithful believe that man cannot, nor should he try, to incorporate Koranic principles in his civil laws, because that implies that man is capable of deciding which of these principles should be codified and to what extent. That amounts to blasphemy.
I have a tremendous problem with anyone who wishes to use any sacred text as the literal source for our laws. The fact of the matter is that this is not a serious threat from Christians in this country.
It really is stunning how so many liberals are desperate to cast American Christians as religious bogeymen, while not only calling for tolerance of fundamentalist Muslims, but deriding any expressed concern for them.
There is a pathologically induced illogic to it.