In the last week or so, I have posted about originalism, “soft totalitarianism,” and constitutional arguments supporting minority rule by reactionaries. Is there a point of intersection among these three arguments?
Yes. All of them presuppose that, like their proponents, the Founding Fathers were militant Christians who would naturally support their position that they are entitled to frustrate the will of the majority in the culture wars. There is no historical evidence for this whatsoever. The most prominent FFs were Deists, not Christians, and one of the few things upon which they all agreed was opposition to any form of an established church.