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.
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 3 days ago
Could you cite some sources for this please? Seriously.
outhouseperilous@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 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.
AndrewZabar@lemmy.world 3 days ago
Yeah that’s what I thought. Lol.