I think that's because the people who are most vocal in their opposition to Sharia law also happen to skew ideologically towards the kind of ultra-conservative viewpoints that would exclude groups like homosexuals or feminists anyway. I've touched on this in other threads, but treating Sharia law as an evil that must be avoided at all costs has the potential to be twisted in order to permit anything that could possibly "stop" Sharia law, even if it infringes on the individual rights of others - including those who would have been punished under Sharia law in the first place. That's without getting into how focusing all the attention on the potential threat of Sharia law or whatever means that occurrences of Western extremism and/or religious fanaticism get overlooked because they're not
quite as bad as what happens (or would happen) under Sharia law.
That's why these liberal groups would oppose anti-Sharia protests - because just being against Sharia by itself is not good enough. Since the anti-Sharia groups would be more immediately concerned with opposing Muslims who are either living in America or attempting to enter the country after fleeing from Sharia countries, one can understandably question where the fear for one's personal safety ends and the excuse for openly practising anti-Muslim bigotry begins. As noted earlier, there's always the concern about whether or not these anti-Sharia groups really do have these other groups' safety in mind or if these liberal groups could also be targets. If we're going to be throwing quotes around, have you heard of the poem that goes
"First they came"? One can't always assume that one will be safe even if they are not immediately being targeted.
Yeah, that's just a symptom of how messy Christian fundamentalism and its intersection with politics can be. Christ's actions and teachings don't come across as inherently conservative, yet there are so many conservative Christians for some reason.
That was a thoughtful post. By your remarks of and in themselves, I cannot discern what you personal opinions are as you seemingly write analyzing the views of the two disparate parties my OP references and their respective seemingly illogical—indeed, one might say bizarre—political behavior. Therefore, I shall address only your analysis and not your personal views.
Regarding gay and feminist groups, you are basically asserting on their behalf: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” argument, an alliance of convenience. However, when one’s newfound “friend” holds to views so inherently antithetical to one’s own, then such a stratagem is suspect. Comparing how women and homosexuals were treated in the West fifty years ago to how they are treated in many Muslims countries
today, if hypothetically
forced to choose it is difficult to believe that in one’s heart one wouldn’t choose the lesser of two evils and accept reverting to the former case. Allying with people who want (in some cases) to stone one’s self to death or forbid one to drive a car because such might “damage one’s ovaries” for the seeming sake of expediency seems absurd to the point of insanity.
As opposed to your stated analysis, I think I could make a better case for rationalizing away the evangelical Christian embrace of Trump. After all, they understand his history of far less than exemplary behavior. However, Christians love converts, don’t you know. Yes, he’s late to the game, but there is Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son, after all. He appears now to be in a stable marriage to a woman with an unblemished personal history with whom he has an eleven-year-old, clean-cut son. He’s now pro-life and embraces other social positions compatible with their moral views. Although his past can never be forgotten, it can be forgiven. After all, that’s what true Christians do.
Closed Thread
). 
