The Huston Statement

Sounds good to me!

I see where they are going to contort these to imply that conservatives are somehow baby eating neanderthals.

But then they would do that to even a simple statement like "I am".

A good list, and easy to affirm.

I like this. Looks like something worth making into a poster. Also looks like something a Democrat would cringe at.

All that was missing was a dramatic music score and the american flag flying in the background.. Way too much pathos for me.

God is not mentioned once in the constitution, I checked. I have an american friend who sent me a pocket version "of the best document that was ever written" (his words), and godgiven rights and liberties are not mentioned anywhere in it. Why do you insist that it was god that grants civil liberties when it is infact a secular concept of philosophy that puts the individual in the center and where that individual is not predetermined by religion, gender or social status that he/she was born into? Personal freedom and liberty are no religious concepts and judeochristian values were the basis for the puritan society and their fun and free way of living. I doubt that the puritans would have had agreed with most ammendments, for one.

Other than that, I can mostly agree with your list.

 

Utemia -

It's an amalgam of principles from both the Declaration of Independence (which does mention 'our Creator') and the Constitution, as explicitly referenced in paragraph 2.

I agree, that would have made it better.

 

I'm curious, why do you feel this way? The guy is passionate about what he believes in. Do you not feel passionate about what you believe in? Taking your comment into consideration I would say you are just as passionate about pointing out that God is not mentioned in the Constitution. I would conclude that your comment has too much pathos as well, for me.

Forums went boom -> double post.

I have to agree that "godgiven" was not really necessary to point out that all people have these rights regardless what any Gov't around the world might say otherwise. Still, I won't hold it against him to add his religious belief to emphasize his words. He believes it's godgiven, be it in the Constitution or not. Does it matter he believe it is godgiven? I only care about the fact that it is my right as a person, godgiven or not.

Utemia,

Why carry around something when  you have the internet?   Go to this site for both the Constitution and Declaration: http://www.usconstitution.net/

And you are right, the music would add pizazz.

I find the style too melodramatic and in a way too cheesy/sappy. Touché. In fact I am a bit passionate about the secular principles of the Englightenment philosophy. I think that the american constitution is rooted in those principles and not primarily in juedochristian values, which is very often referenced. I did go into the philosophical debate someplace with Leauki - lol. (I don't think anybody read it though)

I read about the principles of the modern nation state in essays and historic journals, and they are rooted in those principles. The 18th century was quite an interesting time for that. Secularism changed the way states and societies are organized and THAT makes the free society in the US possible. Christian values are part of that, because ultimately the philosophers were christians, and for them life had intrinsic value because god created man - That is the judeo christian part. The part where individuals are persons (the kantian philosophical concept where a person has both rights and duties) that are born free and undetermined and can decide how to lead their life without outside influence of religion or society is not part of judeochristian value, at least not the way I remember the history of the 7th and 18th century. Of course, it would be difficult to interpret the values of the constitution without referencing the historic context and understanding of religion/church and philosophy at the time.

All in all, I believe that the american constitution is indeed a very great document and a prime example of how enlightenment philosophy influences society to this day.

I think my friend always carries one with him at all times. I mostly have mine in a deskdrawer. I prefer reading real paper to reading of a screen.

Add to the music one of those really baritone narrators.. sheesh, it could be the next republican campaign commercial. But it would be really melodramatic and sappy and cheesy if someone based a script on that. But then, most commercials are exactly like that - they play on patriotic feelings and "godgiven" rights and that america is the greates land on earth.

Utemia, I believe Brad could have said "self determination" and  it would have meant basically the same. His words are common vernacular in the US although the pc crowd do not want to upset atheists and agnostics. That's probably why the founding fathers used "Creator" in the DoI, that way if one believes their dog (big bang, earth, whatever) to be their god they can have it their way. I'd say 95% of Americans interpret it that way, with the other 5% ranging from dislike to bent out of shape when mentioned. The rest of the world might find it odd, South America much less so.

I didn't reference the DoI - and I just checked with the link from DrGuy again just to be sure: in the US constitution, the document that is the basis of the US government, neither God nor Creator are mentioned.

I don't disagree with what Brad said about what the government should do or "That our liberties depend on our civic virtue and that it is up to each of us to become informed citizens" But that exactly the rub, those civic duties clash with often cited judeochristian values, at least how I understand them. Maybe I just don't really have the same understanding that  most americans do. Civic duties are not based on religious values, but those two are often mentioned in one breath in american vernacular as you mentioned and that is strange IMO because they are very different from each other. 

It was an enourmous accomplishment to write a document that allowed for a republic of united states, radically new and an example for the rest of the world. But that development would not have been possible without a secular understanding of how a state should function and what role the government should play. I very much doubt that the founding fathers had no knowledge of that philosophy or that it did not influence them alot. Being proud of christians values might overlap occasionally with that, but they are not identical.

You didn't, but Huston did.  It's his statement of principles & he bases it on both.  Not to nitpick too much, but pointing out that God isn't mentioned in the Constitution itself is meaningless in this context.

It's difficult to completely divorce the reality of certain overlapping values in western religious beliefs from those in the Constitution, despite the absence of the words 'God' or 'Creator' in the text.  Obviously, the framers were very much opposed to any state-sanctioned or 'official' set of religious beliefs, hence the absence of such a reference in the Constitution itself, but acknowledged in the DoI the basis of the rights of free men being vested in them by their Creator.

no no nitpicking is good.. the details matter almost all of the time in issues as this.

So which document do you think is more important or relevant, the Declaration of Indipendance because it was well, the birth certificate of an independant new republic, or the constitution where that republic defined its political structure and how the government was to work etc. ?

I agree with your analysis, very succinct. It's untrue to state that the authors disregarded any religious beliefs. But could it maybe have been possible or argued that the authors of the DoI wrote "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." with a secular worldview in mind? Secular doesn't equal to atheist, and I believe I could make a good argument that liberty and pursuit of happiness were not part of the often cited judeochristian political values at the time it was written - and the DoI is a political document of sorts. That is maybe too narrow of me, because today the meaning evidently changed or is differently interpreted by contemporary americans. I don't think my argument would diminish any greatness of either the constitution or the DoI.

I don't understand the american tendency to mix secular principles with providence, shake, and then to declare the result as judeochristian conservative values.

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.