Livia: Feldman and Marx

By

 

On Monday night, I attended Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman’s Athenaeum Talk entitled: “The Broken Constitution: Lincoln, Slavery & the Refounding of America”. Within Feldman’s talk, he argued that Lincoln repeatedly violated the Constitution throughout his presidency, and that these violations enabled Lincoln to rewrite the Constitution, and save its place in the American governmental system. The premise of breaking something in order to save it is a rather difficult pill to swallow. Thus, Lincoln appealed to his Christian audience and used a Biblical story to justify his actions. He spoke about the role of messiah, and how his coming imposed a transition from the laws of the Old Testament to a new law of the New Testament. Though the New Testament replacement of the Old Testament could have been viewed as the abolishment of the laws of the prophets, it was understood as a fulfillment of these laws and a transition to laws more pertinent to the needs of that present society. As one can see, the similarities between this religious story and Lincoln’s actions are pretty striking. Lincoln violated the Constitution and in doing so, rewrote it to be more pertinent to the standings of his present society. Thus, the use of religion served to legitimize his political actions. I am curious how Marx would remark on this crossover between religion and political society in this scenario. 

Throughout Marx’s “One the Jewish Question”, he reveres the United States for being a secular, democratic state, for it permits a society that “does not need religion for political consumption” for “it can dispense with religion, because in this case the human core of religion is realized in a profane manner” (37). Contrastingly, Marx disapproves of the Christian state where “religion serves as the supplement and sanctification of its imperfection” (36). During Lincoln’s presidency, it appeared that though the United States was conceived as a secular, democratic state, it became a Christian state because when Lincoln utilized religion to supplement the imperfectness of his actions. Though Lincoln broke the Constitution under extraordinary conditions, such a transition from a supposedly secular state to a Christian one makes me doubt the stability of a political society that resolves the tension between religion and politics.

 

 

Comments

  1. Ella SmithFebruary 22, 2023 at 9:38 PM

    Interesting post! However, I think that Lincoln's use of Biblical stories to supplement his actions is not an inherently religious political action, and definitely does not make the secular state a Christian one. It seems to me that Lincoln was simply using a Biblical story to appeal to his majority-Christian audience. Religious goals were not the basis of his actions—political goals were.

    ReplyDelete
  2. HurleyFebruary 23, 2023 at 8:50 AM

    It is important to keep in view that religion, for Marx, is a "defect," and a "snake skin" that will be shed in the journey towards real human emancipation. It is also crucial, it seems to me, to keep in view that for Marx the state can be politically emancipated from religion, while at the same time religion actively divides people and discriminates among them in their everyday interactions. A final question: Why can't an atheist be a viable candidate for president in a state that is politically emancipated from religion?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Livia: Táíwò and Economic Success in the Global South

By
  Reconsidering Reparations by Professor Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò illuminates the large extent to which racism and colonialism played in creating the current global economic structure, in which the global north dominates the global south. Additionally, this book highlights how current policies implemented by global institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank have further strengthened and reaffirmed this positioning. Taking into account this global historical perspective, we can better understand how “consequences flow from some other parts of the world to other parts, often across national borders, and in ways that complicate geographically and politically narrow ways of thinking about reparations” (24). Thus, some sort of international obligation of social justice must be exist. Táíwò’s emphasis on the role that slavery and colonialism played in establishing the current economic order makes me think about the signal which this sends to the Global South in the development of their p...
Read more

Carlos: Response to Henry's Conclusion

By
I've spent way too long trying to argue against Henry's point because it just seems wrong to conclude with "there is no current social framework by which we might call their lasting effects socially unjust–at least under the political conception of justice". Yet, the more I thought about it, the more I felt I had to agree with Henry's argument regardless of how strange it felt to do so. Still, I did have a few ideas as I was thinking of how to refute Henry's conclusion: -------------------------------------------- 1) With the hypothetical situation Henry provides, if we were to fully extend its logic to our current world, I think Prof. Hurley would have also created a division between the A and B group that would have maintained even into Tuesday. I think were that division were to have taken place, even after Prof. Hurley disbanded the government, the division would have remained and the hierarchy of power would continue into the rest of the week. It seems fa...
Read more

Smith, Locke, Harris, and Justice

By
 On page 79, Smith writes, "the violation of justice is injury: it does real and positive hurt to some particular persons," and thus it is a virtue that, unlike beneficence, warrants resentment if we fail to fulfill it. Upon reading this, I immediately thought, well how are you defining justice?  It became very clear in the following pages that Smith's conception of justice is nearly identical to Locke's Law of Nature. On page 80, he writes, "Among equals each individual is naturally, and antecedent to the institution of civil government , regarded as having a right both to defend himself from injuries, and to exact a certain degree of punishment for those which have been done to them." He continues to say that justice is only those transgressions which spectators would have the right to, and would be compelled to, punish whoever commits them. After this, he explains that no one has a right to advance their own happiness at the expense of someone else's...
Read more