06-26-2022, 03:46 PM
(06-26-2022, 03:28 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I never asserted that it was "solely" because of religious belief. I've noticed that you have a habit of misrepresenting positions.
Or you have a habit of making poorly worded posts.
Quote:What I have asserted is that religious belief undergirds and motivates them to use and interpret the Constitution in ways that align with their religious ideology and serves enforce their version of morality on the population as a whole.
Yes, which is exactly what I said. If you want to make this argument, feel free to do so. You have yet to make the attempt.
Quote:If you want proof of what the Evangelical Republican movement wants and by what means they think is most effective in achieving those desires, simply listen to their own words and statements. They view the constitution as God inspired, which is why they place so much emphasis on it.
I know what evangelical conservatives want, they state it very clearly. What I am, again, asking you is to show that this decision was out of line with the Constitution and made according to religious belief. Again, you have not done this, nor attempted to do this.
Quote:Whether or not something is "grounded" in the constitution, it doesn't speak to the nefarious epistemological rationale that serves as the ammunition for weaponizing it to make their objectives a reality.
On the contrary, whether it is grounded in the Constitution is the sole point. If it was not then you could argue that religious belief motivated it. Whether the decision is in line with the religious beliefs of certain justices is immaterial unless the decision was made outside the framework on the Constitution. A decision can be completely in line with a justice's religious beliefs and on rock solid constitutional ground. The fact, in that case, that it was in line with said justice's private belief would be immaterial in such a situation. I'd say you're making a bad attempt at an argument here, but you aren't even making an argument.
