Re: Biblical literalism vs. Constitutional original intent

[YOhio]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Somebody here (I'll protect him from embarrassment by not disclosing his name) likened the strict construction doctrine under the Constitution to Biblical literalism. The concepts of Biblical literalism and Constitutional original intent have nothing to do with one another and are in no way related.

While I largely agree with you, I think you may be downplaying the possibility that the approaches toward interpreting the text of the Bible and the Constitution may have some similarities.

I'm swimming in deep waters on this point, but I wonder if Biblical Literalism could be likened more to a strict textualist approach to Constitutional/statutory intepretation. Intentionalists have a certain degree of flexibility, allowing themselves to use non-textual sources to divine original intent when necessary. An example would be looking to a conference committee report to determine intent. Textualists take a plain-meaning approach to interpretation and theoretically prohibit the use of any non-textual source for clarification. While the approaches towards interpretation are closely related, I think the nuance is worth pointing out.

If a someone were to examine the story of the creation using an original intent approach they could allow themselves the flexibility of seeking historical and cultural context to determine if seven days actually means seven days, or if it means seven thousand years or some other amount of time. If the same person were to use a textualist approach, there would be no dispute as to whether seven days means seven days. The textual approach seems much more in line with what you see in Biblical literalists.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

Go fuck yourself. Please.

Exhibit A to woot's lack of civility.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by YOhio

While I largely agree with you,

I thought this was the worthwhile part of your post. Good work.

[woot]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Exhibit A to woot's lack of civility.

What I said wasn't any less civil than what you said, unless you have an irrational disgust for "naughty" words. I know you're a lawyer, but if you could at least pretend not to be a smug, self-righteous asshole I'd appreciate it.