It reminds me of the vampire in Terry Pratchett’s “Feet of Clay”. From the wiki:
…there is a running joke of one particularly unlucky vampire complaining to the City Watch about his various jobs—jobs which happen to subject him to the myriad perils of vampirism: a pencil factory and a fencing firm (wooden stakes), a sunglasses tester (sunlight), a garlic stacker, and a holy water bottler.
As some comedian said, if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married! I’ve never understood why this is even an issue.
the translation of the bible some people use apparently has a passage that must read something like “the use which other put their genitals to shall be your main preoccupation.” i’ve never found anything quite like it in any of the translations i’ve read . . .
For some of the purposes to which ‘originalism’ is put even that is arguably crediting it with too much intellectual consistency and honesty.
It certainly isn’t in favor of the facets of modernity not of use to corporations or cops; but as an ideology it has a lot in common with the shabby fundamentalists who bang on about how their holy writ is immutable revealed truth; and how the version provided by people who are in denial about the fact that they, too, are engaged in textual interpretation and mediation is way more authentic than the stuff peddled by the filthy relativists who admit that they are engaged in textual interpretation and mediation.
I’m not expecting an "error, error, does not compute"shower of sparks moment; but I’ve always wondered how ‘originalists’ explain the (plainly evident) difficulties of applying the relevant law in its original intent to a given situation; or the ongoing disagreement between various courts and individual justices on assorted points; as well as the whole arrangement of having a multi-tiered court system.
If the original meaning were so accessible why isn’t it handled by a paralegal-level agent at the county courthouse? If it’s sufficiently inaccessible that people consistently get it wrong; how can you banish the doubt that you might be engaged in interpretation of your own?
I have the sneaking suspicion, in the American context, that the plan is " Cuius regio, eius religio"; and shrill cries concerning America’s loudly alleged status as a ‘Christian nation’(eg. mostly evangelical protestant; papists are OK if they focus on thinking gays and uppity women are gross; jews get tacit acceptance so that we can use the smarmy phrase “judeo-christian values” and because some of them are actually pretty good at oppressively patriarchal monotheism)
Shockingly, people in favor of fusion of church and state generally don’t plan on being in the losing sect.
If they’d be willing to recuse themselves when a case crossed into their religious beliefs, then I’d be fine with them being on the Supreme Court. However, I don’t believe they can be impartial with their religious beliefs if they can’t be impartial with their financial interests, like when they recuse themselves if they own stock in a corporation before the Court.
