955
submitted 1 year ago by narwhal@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Tyfud@lemmy.one 15 points 1 year ago

It literally couldn't be any clearer. I guess he's the shittiest constitutional lawyer ever. But nobody will care. They eat up his arguing from authority fallacy bullshit

[-] CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 1 year ago

It's an easy game to play actually. Strict contructionists will only recognize discourse that can be understood in 1790, or whichever relevant time. They use dictionaries from that time and the writings of the amerikan founders to make their points. You won't easily find anything from that era that implies "religion" is anything other than Christianity and it's various sects. To assert otherwise would be to legislate without congress. So they can argue that excluding non-Christians and non-Protestants is in line with the intentions of the authors regardless of article 6.

Is it a perfect line of thinking without contradictions? Of course not, but neither is the counter idea that America was designed to accommodate non-Christians.

[-] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 3 points 1 year ago

A lot of the founders were explicitly not Christian.

this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2023
955 points (97.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7307 readers
343 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS