Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Rob Instigator
the constitution and analog instruments are not sacred. they are revered by me, but sacred means untouchable and implies infallibility. the moment anyone decrees that this or that is "sacred" they are exerting control over the thoughts and actions of those who do not view it as sacred or sacred yet.
|
Sacred is a contingency: what is held sacred by one isn't by another. The distinction between reverence and sanctity strikes me as being the difference between inside and outside that contingency. 'Infallibility' belongs to the category of the divine (outside of your own category) - I suspect you mean immovable. Again though, something is sacred only from within the context that defines it as such; I would maintain that individual interpretation of the sanctity of the constitution is immaterial to its absolute centrality to US politics. Similarly, I can slag off Christ and still refer to myself as a Catholic - this does nothing to remove the central orientation of Christianity towards Christ, and thus his sanctity. The opposite applies for the constitution to American politics. The dissimilarities in order fail to impinge upon the structure of 'sanctity', which (again) need only refer to the central edicts of a system.