Well if you call putting it into the constitution “settling” for neutrality, then so be it, have whatever terminology you want. They didn’t want a theocracy, but the fundies of today would like nothing more than that.
No, they definitely wanted a theocracy, but none of them had the numbers for it to be the theocracy they wanted, so thry settled on a solution and made damn sure it wouldn’t be anyone elses theocracy by putting it in the constitution.
Thats why it’s a ‘religiously neutral’ state with special privileges for religion, rather than a secular state with free exercise of religion where doing so does not violate laws-an idea proposed and shot down at the time.
AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 5 days ago
They were not even the same religions as one-another, so that makes no sense. Also, there’s no basis for that idea.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
Yeah but they each wanted to be in charge. Authoritarians always do. They settled for neutrality
AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Well if you call putting it into the constitution “settling” for neutrality, then so be it, have whatever terminology you want. They didn’t want a theocracy, but the fundies of today would like nothing more than that.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
No, they definitely wanted a theocracy, but none of them had the numbers for it to be the theocracy they wanted, so thry settled on a solution and made damn sure it wouldn’t be anyone elses theocracy by putting it in the constitution.
Thats why it’s a ‘religiously neutral’ state with special privileges for religion, rather than a secular state with free exercise of religion where doing so does not violate laws-an idea proposed and shot down at the time.