You can be a liberal strict constructionist. You can support abortion rights and gay marriage. Those are perfectly defensible positions, even if I may disagree with them. Strict constructionism has the do with the adherence to the letter of the law. Like I've indicated before, I'd favor overturning Roe v. Wade even if I was pro-choice, because it's a hideous abuse of judicial power completely untethered from the written law.
Absolutely. This is why I roll my eyes when I hear the Left lament Trump's disregard for the rule of law. If you believe in the Left's method for interpreting law, you don't even believe in law, at least not in the sense of lawmakers getting together, working out compromises, writing down laws, and having them applied to the public. In the Left's world, there is no point in writing down laws at all.
As you're aware, there are different angles on religion. One angle deals with how we live our lives, and frankly, most religions have something to offer here. In fact, there's a lot of overlap. When it comes to how you live and treat others, a Christian, a Jew, and a Hindu are going to mostly agree. Stealing is bad. Lying is bad. Killing or injuring others is bad. Extreme envy and jealousy are bad. Caring for others and being generous are good.
What gets divisive is the theological angle, because it is per se rigid at least on the fundamentals. As a Christian, I believe that God created the universe, that sin is the path to eternal destruction, that all have sinned, and that Jesus Christ is the only way to be forgiven for sin. Though I respect those who don't hold that view, I'll never back down from it, as other people of different faiths wouldn't back down from theirs. It doesn't get much more divisive than, "if you disagree with me, you will burn in hell for eternity."
But here's what's so great about the Constitution if it's applied as it's written. By guaranteeing the non-establishment coupled with free exercise of religion, it's relatively easy to find common ground on how people should live their lives without having to compromise on theology. Why? Because non-establishment ensures that the government doesn't advantage one religious institution at the expense of another and ensures that politicians don't corrupt religious institutions. (Many religious people forget that the establishment clause was every bit as much about protecting the church from government as it was about protecting government from the church.) Free exercise ensures that the government won't interfere with how I practice my faith.
That leaves religious leaders with the authority to freely sort out and disagree on theological issues while allowing those same leaders and their followers to often find common ground on the "how we live our lives" issues, which actually turn into policy.
The system breaks down when someone wants the government to disrupt that balance either by using its power to exercise hostility to one or multiple faiths or when someone wants a government powerful enough that it will inevitably interfere with someone's ability to practice his or her faith. That forces people to choose between their government and their religion, and that will eventually lead to violence. If truly forced to choose between one's faith and one's government, most will choose his faith. How can he not? Government is temporary and flawed by compromise and sometimes corruption. One's faith is eternal and perfect.
-
Winner x 1
Last edited: Nov 18, 2019