> should serve as a hint, but it doesn't seem to be

Beliefs, unlike theories, are not subject to disproof. There's a well-understood human tendency of people to react to dissonance by denying reality and intensifying their beliefs. This is a large part of why rational science was viewed with such hostility by the church: adopting the scientific method as a belief is a memetic immunization of sorts against belief cults, which depend greatly on self-reinforcing processes triggered by doubt. Teaching people to doubt belief without intensifying it is the ultimate heresy.

The U.S. in specific does an atrocious job of teaching critical questioning of beliefs, for various reasons that are subject to their own independent arguments. The U.S. in specific also churns out a great many techies who believe that the law is code, and many of those launch into an Icarus parabola under the unyielding sunlight of judicial discretion. One might evaluate a theory of causation between those two factors by studying whether Stanford explicitly teaches how to apply the Scientific Method to beliefs to Business and Finance graduates, and then contrasting the crash and burn rate of graduates among a representative sample of colleges divided along that line.

There's also many countries with no clear laws for things as specific as say recording in public or open pit mining so local lawyers have to string together a bunch of tangentially related laws to make a point. And then each of these laws can be seen as subjective.