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 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.
AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Could you cite some sources for this please? Seriously.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
No, don’t care enough, and studies have shown rigorous citations tend to reduce persuasiveness of an argument in most contexts.
But you can look if you want.