Codifying something in law (or code, ie unit tests) tends to ensure it's durability. Information is something that can exist as an idea ephemerally. Once you write down a definition, it has perceived historical value. Later this can be used as an example of how things were done that might be tried again. Many people recognize this as self-evident.
Religious writings’ sole purpose is to establish & promote a belief system, based on subjective values.
Anti-discrimination laws’ sole purpose is to dissolve the practice of belief systems that objectively cause interpersonal harm.
These are conceptual opposites in many ways. But if I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”, then I am able to conflate the two.
You call it a "general concept", I saw it's a common understanding of reality. Hyperbole is used to poison further discussion.
eg I generalize the concept “writing makes ideas immortal”
Within your own post, there is misattributed hyperbole (sometimes called uncharitable discussion). Someone asked a question, I answered and all kinds of random assumptions were made about it.
Certainly writing things down can make it easier for concepts to stick around, but I don't think the dynamics are the same for something written down to call out that it's bad. And holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
> holy texts are a totally different ballgame.
They are not. Historically, written concepts endure longer than unwritten concepts. Again, this is commonly considered self-evident.
> I also don't think that speaking directly about a belief makes it stronger, particularly for discrimination
It may be worth it, but the hyperbole of denying the effect:
eg "How would it extend longevity?"
is the dissonance that I have pointed out.
I find that when people defend something as self-evident it often isn’t.
Note, I support the idea of adding castes to common discrimination clauses. That is incidental to the issue of codification, which I am interested in.
Shoplifting is shoplifting. No one is going to “forget” you can steal things so you need explicit laws forbidding it in perpetuity.
That's true. It's also true that there are plenty of professional contexts where people have to work together regardless of their personal feelings toward each other. Sometimes lives depend on it.
Seems that Ivy League education is being wasted on your friend.
This is not an argument I recall people making much in other ban discussions across the political spectrum such as (a) banning discrimination on sexuality, (b) banning abortions, (c) banning guns, (d) banning censorship, so I'm very skeptical without historical examples? Generally those have been hotly-fought battles where the "no action" course would not have resulted in it simply going away - see also the 100 years after the civil war and racial discrimination in the US persisting - so the claim of "ignore it and it'll be ok real soon now, promise" doesn't appear to have much merit.