DRAGINOL WRITES:

UTEMIA POSTS:

To be quite frank, the Huston Statement arouses patriotism in me.

 

Lula, I am just not used to that sort of patriotism and it appears that way to me as I already said - a bit over the top. I prefer a more toned down rhetoric.

Generally, germans are sort of wary of too much display of patriotic sentiment, it always paints you in a farright white power corner if you do - unless there are sports events involved like the FIFA worldcup or the Olympics etc. Otherwise you never hear nor see it here.

UTEMIA POSTS #4

Don't confuse civil liberties with inalienable rights as listed in the Declaration of Independence.

An inalienable right comes as an endowment from the Creator God and cannot be violated, taken away or abridged without coming under the judgment of God.

IMO, the US Constitution is the best legal document in the history of the world governments. The Founders believed the basic reason for the purpose of government is to protect the inalienable rights of the people. The government is to provide "liberty under law" which means that no law should be passed unless it is specifically designed to protect the freedom, liberty, and well being of the people.

 

I associate inalienable rights more with Emanuel Kant.

Hard to assign 'degrees of importance' to the two documents, utemia, though from a strict legal standpoint the DoI carries no force and the Constitution has 'all' the importance.  Even the Supreme Court, however, has taken the DoI into consideration when deliberating the intent of the framers in writing certain constitutional provisions (if I'm not mistaken - I could be wrong about that).

Now this is the kind of debating I like.

utemia,

 

I understand your point about keeping religion out but you have to take into consideration that while these documents may not refer to any particular religion or God, people have their own way of expressing their feeling about things and in many cases their religious beliefs makes them put God as responsible for a lot of it even if the document itself doesn't mention God or religion. The fact that God was kept out of these documents does not mean those who wrote it did not have any religious influence while writing it. You should be more concerned with the concept of religion being used by officials when applying these documents as part of our system than how some people are patriotic towards these documents with a religious touch to it.

As the writer pointed out, it's freedom of religion, not freedom from it. You can't take away a person right to add a religious twist to their understanding of these documents. That does not make them  religious documents.

You're right, I never meant to say that one is not allowed to view the DoI that way. But I think it is a very simplistic way that neglects the history of ideas that surrounds the formation of it, namely the new concepts of state and person and individualism, natural law etc. that were tossed around by the great thinkers of that time.

What exactly is commonly meant with  "freedeom of religion, not freedom from it"? It must be an important catchphrase, and I would like to know more how it is interpreted because that debate isn't really in the centre of german media.

I don't think I said that they weren't christian or not influenced by it. But the general concept that an individual is born free to do what he wants with his life is not part of official christian doctrine back then. Look at the Puritans, they would have had never agreed that. Calvin firmly believed in devine providence - you were born exactly into the place and lot that god wanted for you. That a person had the right to pursuit his or her own happiness doesn't compute with that at all, at least I can't see it.

Do you mean Evangelicals and/or Republicans with that "You should be more concerned with the concept of religion being used by officials when applying these documents as part of our system"?

I don't understand why patriotism is always connected with a religious touch. Can you explain that to me?

Because it serves a purpose, especially during wartime. Everyone wants to improve moral, both soldiers and civilians, by stating that God supports the cause they are fighting and dieing for. Think of it as comfort food, it resonates with a large demographic. BTW this is not unique to the US (example: "Gott mit uns" on the belt buckle of German soldiers in WWII). You can't just turn it on and off as needed, or it loses it's effect. Also it is a benefit in the civil arena for similar reasons as well. 

I don't think james Earl Jones does political ads.

You are correct about the Constitution, however, it is but one of the "founding Documents", with the DoI being another very important one.  The laws (when courts rule on intent) look at all the founding documents, since the Constitution is a restriction on government, not a governing document.

 

You are indeed correct.  The constitution is used when it is a case of The Peopel vs the Government (as that is what it is), but when it is the people vs the people, or some other legal issue not dealing with direct limitations of government, they use the DoI and Federalists papers (among others) to assist in their ruling.  Occassionally, you get a moonbat like Buzzy Ginsberg that wants to use another country's document, that is clearly outside of their jurisdiction.

Thanks for the explanations. I could probably research most of what I want to know by myself but it is much more interesting to get a more personal answer.

Actually, in my opinion, to attempt to remove anything related to religion when talking about the DOI or the Costitution is neglecting or ignoring that back then people may have also used their religious beliefs as a guide line to create these documents.

My understanding is that as an individual we have the right to believe in any form of religion we chose and no one has the right to take that away from you, but as a group our Gov't can not represent any single religion because of the multiple beliefs found in those the Gov't serves. That is why we are free to believe in any religion we chose not freed from religion. It's not the Gov't or anyone elses job to supress a religion, it is it's job to represent all religions by not representing any in particular.

No, but it is part of life itself, something that those with religious beliefs believe God is responsible for. You have to look at it this way, a religious person will believe that everything has divine intervention in it because it's their belief that God created everything and everyone and therefor God was responsible for the creation of these documents and the freedoms it gives to the US citizens. Why? Because many if not all of those responsible for creating these documents were religious people.

It's as Nitro put it, you can't just turn it on and off when it suits you. Is the aws against taking property that does not belong to you (stealing) a religious concept or non-religious? Interesting to see this is a law that applied everywhere in the US and just happens to be one of the 10 commandments.

That looks like circular reasoning to me. I don't know the biographical background of the authors of the DoI and constitution. It would be interesting to know what influenced their ethics, I am sure there is enough literature about that available - but I can't delve into that too much, sadly, don't have the time.

You know, I have never thought about that. I suppose it is one of the most fundamental laws that emerged in every human culture and society. The 10 commandments weren't supernew rules that hadn't been known beforehand - they're pretty fundamental or basic and can be found in different ancient societiies. I would say that respecting property or property rights is a political concept, not religious.

 

Hey!  You know more than most Americans!