The Bill of Rights of the United States

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Jan 07 - 11:46 PM

No, the modern British tradition would, I think, regard it as inappropriate to bring declarations about God into such a document. That's another one of the subtle differences between Canada and the USA. In the USA politicians go on and on about God in order to impress people with how pious they are and get a few more votes...and they try very hard to make it look like their opponents are less godly than they are. In Canada most people would be downright embarrassed by such tactics on the part of a politician and it would lose him a lot of votes.

There is one party that does go on and on about God...they are the Christian Heritage Party. They normally get less than 1/2 of a percent of the vote in any riding where they run, and are considered to be a bit crazy by most people.

British government is based more on rationality than it is on blatant appeals to emotion.

Still, I agree with you that the American concept of inalienable rights stemming directly from God is an excellent one, was very inspired and revolutionary in nature at the time, puts moral authority where it really belongs, and I essentially agree with it, but if I was in politics in Canada it is not an approach I would use much to win an election, God knows! ;-)

It has been viewed for a long time in the British tradition as the normal moral responsibility of a government to treat the public decently and justly simply because that is the right thing to do...and that's how Canadian politicians tend to approach the matter.

Unfortunately at the end of the day one thing really calls the shots on every vital decision, and that one thing is $$$ MONEY $$$.

Such is also true in the USA and everywhere else, regardless of what people say they believe about God.

Of course, money IS God in our present society, so there you are! ;-)

Freedom of religion is one of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed in the Canadian Charter, but religion in itself is considered to be a personal and private matter, not a government matter, and the government does not see itself as a representative of God, but of the people. (the real truth is, though, that it is a representative of big business and the banking system)

Individual politicians vary greater in their idealism and their loyalties. Some certainly try harder than others to represent the people who elected them. Some are just there to serve their corporate funders and collect their payroll and some are there for the glory.

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:15 AM

Well then, if the Canadian Charter doesn't mention the rights of the citizens as coming from God or a Creator, then Canadian rights are something of human creation. And if they are a human creation, then they can be given or witheld by those "in charge".

Sorry, Little Hawk, but you have privileges, not rights.

And THAT'S why Americans get so touchy on the subject of the Bill of Rights. No U.S. govt and no U.N. govt has any say whatsoever in whether I choose to speak freely or own a gun. And people in other countries, who weren't brought up swearing allegiance to the same principles of freedom described in our constitution, just don't seem to understand. The rights in the U.S. constitution are sacrosanct. They've been imbued with a power beyond the ability of government to corrupt. The founding fathers said they're a gift from God. And whether you're religious or not, that's pretty serious. Makes even us heathens get religion when we think about someone monkeying with our rights.

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:25 AM

But I've always known that I had privileges, not rights. That's the way it is when you're dealing with other people. Even in a family. That's just reality. Other people are flawed and changeable.

The thing is, God loves me (and loves everyone else), but God doesn't decide what gets done in human affairs here on Earth because we have free will! We decide what gets done. And I KNOW that other people will not necessarily respect my God-given "rights" under certain circumstances. Like I said, that's just reality.

So, yeah, of course I've got privileges, not rights, and no USA Constitution will ever alter the fact that that's exactly the same spot you are in, my friend. You also have privileges, not rights. Your government can always find clever and ruthless ways to deviate around whatever it says in your Constitution anytime they decide to...because governments are not like God. They are not that dependable. They do not love everyone.

Your government is entirely capable at any time of corrupting your Constitution, regardless of whether your rights come from God or not.

I understand how you feel about it...but that feeling will not protect you if your government decides you are in its way for some reason.

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:32 AM

It has always been crystal clear to me that my civil rights in this society (and in any society) were something of human invention. They may have reflected a divine will to some extent, they may have consciously attempted to emulate it, they may have (as in the case of your Constitution) given some official recognition to it, but they are of human invention.

God did not write down your Constitution on a piece of paper. A bunch of men did, and they chose to speak of God when they did so. Many other civil codes have been written in that spirit by men who chose to speak of God when they wrote them. Not all of them were codes I'd want to live under.

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:50 AM

The feelings of a hundred million gun owners on this topic are liable to make quite a bit of difference.

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: Cluin
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 12:55 AM

*click*

"Yew jus' git yer fuckin' hands off'n thet thar Consteetooshun, boy!"

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:10 AM

As a young Christian lawyer riding into Culpepper, Virginia in March of 1775, Patrick Henry had witnessed the brutal public flogging of a preacher. Tied to a whipping post in the middle of the town square, the preacher's back laid bloody and bare with the bones of his ribs showing. He had been scourged mercilessly like Jesus, with a leather whip laced with metal.

What heinous crime, what foul act had this man committed to deserve such barbarous torture? He was one of twelve who were locked in jail because they refused to take a license from the Crown. Three days later, the martyred minister was again flogged -- this time, to death.

This was the incident which sparked Patrick Henry to write the famous words which later ignited the Revolution: 'What is it that Gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know no what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!' He later made this a part of his famous speech which he delivered at Saint John's Episcopal Church in Williamsburg, Virginia.

http://www.rense.com/general26/codep.htm

That story illustrates the difference between a right and a privilege. The preacher had the right to preach, but the Brits wanted him to pay for what they considered a privilege.

"One of his most important contributions to the founding of our nation was his steadfast refusal to ratify the Constitution until it included our precious Bill of Rights. These first ten amendments clarify the rights - the inalienable rights - of every American citizen."

http://www.thepatrickhenrycenter.com/

America may not have a long history, but we do have some historical principles to uphold. The matter of supporting my constution is beyond my control. I've sworn to uphold it, so that's that. I just hope more Americans start to realize what they're at risk of losing before it's too late.

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:10 AM

It's possible to pick out some rights as universal human rights. (Universal Declaration of Human Rights But it seems to me Little Hawk is right about the somewhat dishonest way that constuitutiion writers can sometime sneak in other things that aren't anything like universal human rights.

Stuff about guns and militias are an obvous example - and any declaration of human rights that was consistent with the existence of slavery has to be seen as a somewhat defective.

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:13 AM

lol. Damn right on the consteetushun.

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:24 AM

The second amendment supports the first. Without the second amendment, the first could not be guranteed. It's fine for politicians to sign a constitution promising the right of expression, but what's to keep that right from being taken away? The power of an armed citizenry. It's just common sense. Patrick Henry was a lawyer and he KNEW how unscrupulous lawyers and politicians were. Without the Bill of Rights, we'd have had an American monarchy within a generation. The right to bear arms wasn't inserted into the constitution by accident or connivance...it is integral to the whole.

Buenas noches.

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: GUEST
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 01:19 PM

"To pretend that nothing has changed in the last 230 years is just asinine.

We do not have a society now that even resembles the situation that prompted those men to write that amendment as they did."


All very true- the "press" used to be just on paper, and the idea that a news report ( or news of anything) could travel around the world in a few minutes was unthought of. At the time, the "freedom of speech" was insured, because the victim of false speech had a chance to make comment or deny it before the entire world had heard of it- Since this is now no longer the case, I am sure you will all agree that we can get rid of that primitive, un-needed "right" of freedom of speech and of the press.


( sarcastic comment to LH)

Subject: RE: The Bill of Rights of the United States
From: Little Hawk
Date: 09 Jan 07 - 02:41 PM

Good point. I agree with it. It's one of the many, many things that have changed since 1776.

How are you going to get your hundred million gun owners to forget their innate selfishness, work together in a united fashion for the public good, and fight for human rights? It seems far more likely to me that a good 3/4 of them would rather go and shoot whoever the government tells them to, specially if the government pays them to do it. Historical precedent indicates that that is the case. They will be particularly willing to do it if the people they are shooting have dark skins, facial hair, and speak a foreign language.

Nowadays you can give people freedom of speech, but still render them basically helpless by simply ensuring that not too many others get to hear what they say...because it doesn't get reported on NBC, CBS, ABC, or CNN. Simple. That's the power of corporate money. They can come on the Internet like you and I do and talk all they want, but who will give them credence? Most people who are aware of what they say will ignore it or ridicule it, because most people believe whatever is the standard line that is pushed by the media mainstream, and the media mainstream is controlled by the corporate bosses who run the system...and their main concern is selling product and making more money.

Your government is just as bad as the British were in 1776, in my opinion, but its tools of mind control are far more effective.