There are all sorts of legal arguments about what the Establishment Clause means now, but it's just a fundamental philosophical category error to say that a normative premise can support a law if & only if the person holding it has no religious basis for it.
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I guess we'll have to get rid of those pesky laws against murder and theft, as well.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
All those items can exist separate from religion
-
But not apart from philosophy which is often part and parcel to religion and its application. The law is to philosophy as engineeeing is to physics, so the idea of grappling with inherent human dignity is not just a fundie Christian view, but core to our entire law system.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Religion and philosophy (no matter the discipline) are so interwoven that it's nearly impossible to unwind the two. If you throw out philosophy that has grounding in religion it feels like what remains is Utilitarianism.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Even lawyers get this wrong. If politicians on the Left support expansion of social programs because "WWJD?" (See Buttigieg) that in no way calls into the constitutionality of their proposals.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
His interpretation of the Establishment Clause (which only regards an ESTABLISHED church, ie the Church of England) would effectively turn the Religious Tests clause into 180 degrees from what it means.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.