• AbsentBird@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Hmm, that’s a good point. I was thinking that a unitary government would be paralyzed by conflict around religious laws. A hijab is part of the school uniform for Palestinian girls, but would likely be opposed by large numbers of present day Israelis (just as an example); I was thinking that having states/provinces that could set their own policies could help alleviate some of those pressure points.

    Though admittedly as an American I’m sure I have some level of bias for federated states, it just seems natural to me.

    • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Largely, much of this hyper-religious policy comes from a lack of material development and mass industrialization. Advancing mode of production generally results in a more secular society with more progressive laws.

      • AbsentBird@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        That’s true. Though some of the most economically prosperous nations still prefer to live with Islamic laws. The UAE has a higher per capita GDP than the US and still bases their legal system heavily on sharia law. I think sometimes it comes down to cultural differences more than material ones. Oman and Saudi Arabian also score very high on the human development index, but still prefer many ‘hyper-religious’ policies.

        In general I think the trend is towards secular society with improved material conditions, but it can get dicey to try and prescribe a secular state on people who aren’t ready for it.

        Regardless of the civil structure, if even just a fraction of what is currently spent on the IDF could go towards reparations and reconstruction, it would be amazing to see how quickly material conditions improve.