![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Another religious article
Slactivist (whose LJ feed is unsurprisingly, ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
slactivist) has an interesting article comparing fundamentalist attitudes towards the Bible to the "strict constructionalist" judiciary. Basically, the thesis is that the attitude that the Bible is literal, clear, and not subject to any change or interpretation is being applied to the Constitution, which is equally considered literal, clear, and not subject to any change or interpretation. This the root of the complaints against "activist judges" - ie, those who do not hold modern society to what was "clearly intended" by the 18th century founding fathers. An interesting read.
slactivist) has an interesting article comparing fundamentalist attitudes towards the Bible to the "strict constructionalist" judiciary. Basically, the thesis is that the attitude that the Bible is literal, clear, and not subject to any change or interpretation is being applied to the Constitution, which is equally considered literal, clear, and not subject to any change or interpretation. This the root of the complaints against "activist judges" - ie, those who do not hold modern society to what was "clearly intended" by the 18th century founding fathers. An interesting read.
no subject
no subject