• exanime@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    Strictly speaking, we don’t. Legislation has to be in line with the constitutional authority of the acting branch.

    Well, that is not where the USA is going if they continue down the MAGA rabbit hole. They are now even quoting the Bible as a reference for law writing.

    What are you going to do? Establish a religious exclusion test for candidates? For voters?

    No but you are taking it too far. All I want are laws that are not based on religious beliefs. If they coincide with some religious belief I have no issues, I just do not want religion doctrine to be the driving force.

    When large numbers of people engage in the same personal choices, they create an implicit policy.

    Which can objectively be avoided or mitigated.

    When state officials campaign, they appeal to the local customs and taboos. And those customs/taboos become laws

    Why should they? this is exactly what I am talking should not happen and something you just claimed “strictly speaking” does not happen.

    What prevents this snowball from forming? Are you going to forbid a plurality of people from propagating their views?

    Now you are just pearl clutching for effect

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      that is not where the USA is going if they continue down the MAGA rabbit hole

      “Strict Constructionism” is a central tenant of the conservative movement. A big chunk of their revanchist ideology is embodied in the slogan (Make America Great Again), implying we left the rabbit hole and we need to go back.

      All I want are laws that are not based on religious beliefs.

      That’s a shit basis for a legal system, as it does nothing to protect individual civil liberties or form an egalitarian basis of enforced legal standards. I can shave the serial numbers off all my religious precepts and implement a secularized fascist government without anyone noticing the difference.

      Which can objectively be avoided or mitigated.

      How do you mitigate majority rule in a democracy?

      this is exactly what I am talking should not happen and something you just claimed “strictly speaking” does not happen.

      Constitutional law is a secularized standard of customs and taboos. The legalism stands in for the religiousity, but yields the same practical results.

      Now you are just pearl clutching for effect

      We’ve seen this anti-religious hysteria in action within the US/UK before. It just got pointed at minority religious groups. Hell, Hitchens himself had no problem striking a common cause with UK sectarian Anglicans and Catholics when it came time to wage a Holy Crusade on the majority Muslim states of Iraq, Iran, and Syria.

      Secularizing your bigotry makes you no less of a shit.