> mostly because mainstream Christianity does not currently have many restrictions which inconvenience people day to day.
Note however that Islam has similar restrictions but an entirely different way to deal with them (respecting the spirit as well as their letter). My pet theory about the approach of the three main Abrahamic religions to restrictions:
1) Christianity: (loosely) respects the spirit but not the letter;
2) Islam: respects both the spirit and the letter.
There do seem to be cases where Islam is more willing to adapt the rules, though. For instance, most halal meat in Europe at least is now slaughtered with stunning, and this appears to be acceptable to most local Muslim authorities provided that the stunning is done in a way that is unlikely to cause permanent injury (so, no captive bolt guns etc). This is arguably staying within the spirit of the rules (the animal isn't dead when slaughtered, and won't die if you don't slaughter it), but not the letter (in that it's an addition to the prescribed procedure). As far as I know this is _never_ acceptable for kosher slaughter.
> This is arguably staying within the spirit of the rules (the animal isn't dead when slaughtered, and won't die if you don't slaughter it), but not the letter (in that it's an addition to the prescribed procedure).
It's staying within the spirit and the letter. The letter never dictates NOT to stun the animal. As a matter of fact, there are narrations that order us to make it as easy as possible on the animal being slaughtered. This falls perfectly inline with the sprit and letter.
Note however that Islam has similar restrictions but an entirely different way to deal with them (respecting the spirit as well as their letter). My pet theory about the approach of the three main Abrahamic religions to restrictions:
1) Christianity: (loosely) respects the spirit but not the letter;
2) Islam: respects both the spirit and the letter.
3) Judaism: respects only the letter.