American Political Discussion as Secular-Theological Quarrels

So, yesterday, when I happened to catch a few minutes of the Mark Levin Show and he referenced the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, the idea for this post came to me like a jolt of lightening. Reading through the writings of Èmile Durkheim and Jonathan Haidt has given me the basic framework for thinking about the notion of sacredness in a secular community, and it is from their insights that I primarily base the following upon.  

Let me give an illustration of sacredness from within my own ideological tradition, before I deploy the notion as a critique against American Sacredness. Marxist literature is a very peculiar thing to read. It is a heavily bibliocentric tradition in that much of the literature is about interpreting what it is that Karl Marx actually meant in his writings and what he believed. Marxist literature is akin to a theological discourse that focuses on accurately deciphering what the sacred text truly means. So much of the Marxist discussion revolves not around proving the veracity of the philosophy, but rather purifying the beliefs to match Marx's original philosophy — I shall probably write a whole post on this in further detail in the near future, since the idea fascinates me. 

It is my contention that the Founding Fathers and the U.S. Constitution function as our secular saints and secular scripture, respectively — particularly within the Republican-party ideological apparatuses and with Republican-party-oriented citizens. However, it should be noted that most liberals and those who are oriented towards the Democratic-party also pay homage and deference to our secular saints and our secular scripture. In a word, the Founding Fathers and the Constitution are the center around which our deep political questions revolve.

American conservatives appeal to the words of the Second Amendment while arguing for the right to individual gun ownership. It finds its parallel in a theologian or a Priest discussing the nature of atonement, and opening the biblical literature to prove his point. Yet, American liberals also commonly appeal to the words of the secular scripture to justify their position. They note that the "real interpretation"of the text is to read it as supporting the notion of a state militia, and has nothing to do with the modern day right to bear arms. On the whole, it is a hermeneutical-exegetical debate around the same sacred text, and it is this quality that I believe defines the discussion. We have to read much of American political discussions as secular-theological quarrels. 

The reason I have chosen to call the Founding Fathers "secular saints" comes from the rôle that Saints play in Roman Catholic theology. Saints are interpreters of what the Word (sacred text) means. No text can be read in isolation. It is the early saints — the Church Fathers — who are the primary interpreters and those who have structured what became known as Christianity in the first centuries Anno Domini, creating a clear demarcation with Gnosticism and other heresies. In the same way as Roman Catholics look to our Saints for authority on the biblical literature and our own tradition, the Founding Fathers are looked upon as interpreters of the secular word. Academics on both sides scour the writings of the Founding Fathers for the true interpretation of the Constitution; whether or not they intended the Second Amendment to be a statement on the state-militia or whether it was about individual ownership.

I am not opposed to the idea of secular sacredness. I am quite fond of the sacred status that human rights occupies in our Western discourse. Yet, it appears to me that the particular sacredness of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution is one that is toxic to our political discourse. I say this because: 

(i.) the ideology of the Founding Fathers was heavily flawed. The grossest human rights abuses were supported under their tenure, including but not limited to slavery and the native American genocide.

(ii.) I tend to believe Thomas Jefferson had it right when he wrote to James Madison, "No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living." A society under late capitalism might not be best governed under the same ideology as an agrarian-economic society.

(iii.) The notion of the sacredness of the Founding Fathers and Constitution is brandied about as a weapon with which to accuse those who do not follow the same secular faith as being "Un-American." Real Americanism then becomes synonymous with these "sacred notions."  

I believe we can be grateful to the historical institutions the Founding Fathers and the Constitution have bequeathed to us, without transforming that respect into worship. Instead of sacralizing their lives and their document, we might adopt a more mature attitude to what is an imperfect and flawed legacy and a deficient and outdated document. In the same way it is dangerous to sacralize the Vatican and the Papal Office in my own Roman Catholic tradition, I believe it is dangerous to do the same with American traditions.

And, I apologize for the scattered thoughts in this post. There is so much to write on this topic from the hermeneutical, historical, political and philosophic traditions, that I was a little overwhelmed in maintaining a coherent train of thought in my writing.