Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Interim Readings
>
Declaration of the Rights of Man
Thanks for the information! A most interesting choice (both historically and as to discussion of principles as applied today). I am also interested in the Coursera course on the French Revolution. Everyman, you alerted this group to the Coursera course on Kierkegaard some time ago which I took and enjoyed; it was a good learning experience and a totally new subject matter for me. In contrast, the topic of the French Revolution is one that has long intrigued me.
Just curious as to why you did not include The Declaration of Sentiments of Seneca Falls.
Patrice wrote: "Personally i consider myself a human being and being singled out and treated as a separate kind of human being, a woman, offends me. if we are truly to be equal under the law how can we ask for or ..."I am somewhat surprised you haven't heard of The Declaration of Sentiments. It is considered probably the most important document promoting the rights of women and arguing they must have equal rights under the law. It was created because women were disenfranchised and treated as second class citizens. Drafted in 1848, the document called for women to organize and petition to gain the rights and privileges they were denied. The purpose was to achieve equality in a sexist society.
Women did not get the right to vote until 72 years later.
It would be nice to believe that we have all been treated equally under the law. But historically, that has not been the case for either women or people of color. The Declaration of Sentiments is a valuable historical document that nudged us toward equality. In order to understand where we are today, surely we need to understand the struggles we went through to get here.
The link provides information about it in case you are interested.
http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/uhic/Refer...
Tamara wrote: "Just curious as to why you did not include The Declaration of Sentiments of Seneca Falls."Mostly because I had totally forgotten about it. I remember now having read it many, many years ago, but not since.
Revisiting it by your mention, on a brief perusal it seems that it doesn't add much (if anything) to the other declarations in terms of basic rights, but rather is an indictment of their application, or better their lack of application, to women. It doesn't seem to say "here are rights that all humans should have but don't," but rather says "women have been denied the basic rights that you assert for men, and we demand that woman be given equal access to these rights."
But everybody can read it for themselves at the link you provided, or here is another link:
http://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/halsal...
Patrice wrote: "Personally i consider myself a human being and being singled out and treated as a separate kind of human being, a woman, offends me. ."It seems to me that this is exactly what the Declaration says. It doesn't say "we want separate and different (maybe better) rights as women." As I read it it simply says, as you do, "we are humans but have been singled out and treated separately, denied rights which men have. This offends us. We demand that we be treated equally with men, given the same rights that they enjoy but deny to us."
Isn't that exactly what you were saying?
Everyman wrote: "Tamara wrote: "Just curious as to why you did not include The Declaration of Sentiments of Seneca Falls."Mostly because I had totally forgotten about it. I remember now having read it many, many ..."
Ok. Thanks.
I think I understand the first sentence, although I am not sure of the intention of the second sentence, and how is it commonly interpreted?1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.Who gets to determine what the general good is? It was once believed that part of the general good included not suffering a witch to live. Now, despite a more enlightened population, it seems some people still believe the general good includes not suffering a conservative witch to give a speech at a university.
David wrote: "Who gets to determine what the general good is? "That, of course, is the $64,000 question. (If you're too young to know the reference, go look it up! [g])
Isn't this basically a question that Plato tried to answer in the Republic? And that almost every political philosopher since has tried to answer?
Various groups at times have assumed the right to decide what the common good is. Kings, dictators, aristocrats, common people through democratic voting, clergy, imams, witch doctors, and that's only the beginning of a list.
For those who wrote the French Declaration, though, I think they would have answered the National Assembly. Though when one realizes that the successors of the National Assembly instituted the Reign of Terror, one has to wonder at this way of establishing the general good.
The $64,000 Questions only predates me by 10 years, but it was still fun looking it up.It seems everyone wants to get in on determining what is for the general good:
The Washington Post: Apparently repealing Obamacare could violate international lawMaybe Cicero can help us determine which general good is better than another general good?
http://wapo.st/2q4yoPt
#3 Would seem to indicate John Brown's actions might be met with dissapproval:3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body [including John Brown's Body] nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.
4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.Thomas Jefferson may have had some criticism for giving the law this much power:
[Thomas] Jefferson underscores the normative function of liberty in a letter to fellow republican Isaac Tiffany (April 4, 1819), in which he distinguishes between liberty and rightful liberty: “Of liberty then I would say, that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will, but rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often the tyrant’s will, and is always so when it violates the right of an individual.” The sentiment of those definitions is responsible free activity— that is, the freedom to do what one wants so long as one does not contravene the rights of others to do what they want to do.
Holowchak, M. Andrew. Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision (Kindle Locations 1287-1292). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.
Patrice wrote: "And again, if the document had little impact on society I don't see its importance. "It was a significant step along a the process of raising awareness of inequalities. It took a while (is still not done) to get through, but it, and Wollstonecraft's work were all, I think, part of a growing tapestry.
Patrice wrote: "..They pointed to the proposed nazi march on skokie as an example. apparently no one realized that that case went to the supreme court and the march was approved...."I didn't know that and had to look it up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...
I particularly like the concluding paragraph. Free speech at its best:
In the summer of 1978, in response to the Supreme Court's decision, some Holocaust survivors set up a museum on the Main Street of Skokie to commemorate those who had died in the concentration camps.
Patrice wrote: "I can think of so many groups that haveseparate grievances, but the beauty of america is that we are united by the principles that apply to all of us. if each group has its own document and principles then we stop seeing ourselves as one people and we stop seeing the universality of the principles. .."
The principles are universal and should be applied universally. However, the point of documents that highlight the grievances of a group is to raise awareness that the application of these universal principles is not universal. We cannot assume that because the principles are universal, the application is universal.
Once the universal principles are universally applied, these documents would no longer be relevant except as historical documents of a time when application was not equal.
Codifying the limits to an individual's rights as stated in section 4 as well as the punishments required for different transgressions mentioned in section 8 seems necessary to me to ensure an equal application of the laws among all people. A good example for that is falsely yelling "fire" in a crowded theater to cause unnecessary panic. This was decided in Schenck v. United States where speech that is deemed both dangerous and false is not protected while dangerous and true is. This is why I think that the ruling to allow the Nazi march was correct despite me not agreeing with their sentiment. We cannot silence people just because we disagree with what they say.
Yet freedom of speech is to protect the right to speak ---especially to protect the right to speak --- views and opinions that are controversial, or unpopular, or even considered "false" or "hateful" by the majority. (Quotes are there to label "false" and "hateful" as non-factual. The "false" and "hateful" are opinion labels.)
Yelling FIRE! in a theater... the yeller KNOWS that that is false.... if the yeller believed there was a fire, yelled, and it turned out there was NOT a fire, his belief that there WAS would be a mitigating factor, would it not?
If someone truly believed there was a fire, wouldn't the responsible action be spreading the word, alerting others to the danger?
The freedom of speech of Nazis, Ann Coulter, others, Iran's president, I think, some years back, M Amadinihad (sp), is protected by the 1st Amendment.
If we don't protect freedom of speech for all, then aren't we ceding the determination of who CAN speak to ... someone (who?)... to majority opinion (not principle)... to the most vocal or violent opposition?
Should our rights be downgraded to privileges determined by the most vocal or violent, or the most well-organized?
#4 and #10 in The Rights of Man seems to back this up.
Sorry. I can't seem to paste #4 and #10 here.
Or is there another interpretation?
Yelling FIRE! in a theater... the yeller KNOWS that that is false.... if the yeller believed there was a fire, yelled, and it turned out there was NOT a fire, his belief that there WAS would be a mitigating factor, would it not?
If someone truly believed there was a fire, wouldn't the responsible action be spreading the word, alerting others to the danger?
The freedom of speech of Nazis, Ann Coulter, others, Iran's president, I think, some years back, M Amadinihad (sp), is protected by the 1st Amendment.
If we don't protect freedom of speech for all, then aren't we ceding the determination of who CAN speak to ... someone (who?)... to majority opinion (not principle)... to the most vocal or violent opposition?
Should our rights be downgraded to privileges determined by the most vocal or violent, or the most well-organized?
#4 and #10 in The Rights of Man seems to back this up.
Sorry. I can't seem to paste #4 and #10 here.
Or is there another interpretation?
#4 Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
#10 No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
#10 No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
John wrote: "We cannot silence people just because we disagree with what they say. "I have found so far that letting them speak also allows them to take full advantage of making their ideas look foolish. Of course this involves placing a lot of confidence in the people that are suitably educated and well informed.
Jefferson trusted the people, suitably educated, to govern themselves. “Wherever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government,” he writes to philosopher Richard Price (January 8, 1789). “Whenever things got so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” Yet the addendum “wherever the people are well-informed” is critical.I must admit in the race between the number of steps forward vs. the number of steps backwards it is difficult at times to meet challenges to maintaining confidence in the people with as much optimism as Jefferson did.
Holowchak, M. Andrew. Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision (Kindle Locations 3778-3781). Prometheus Books. Kindle Edition.
This was written while Louis XVI was still alive with the monarchy and aristocracy still firmly entrenched. The sentence in section 1 concerning social distinctions may have been a slight nod to the king that they were not trying to remove him...yet. As a side note, I would recommend listening to the "Revolutions" series about the French Revolution by the same guy who did The History of Rome podcast.
Going back to the freedom of speech issue, perhaps the most worrisome new laws I see being enacted around the world are those that legislate a right "not to be offended."You being offended by what I say in no way gives you the right to prevent me from saying it. Nor does your offense require me to apologize or be sorry in any way. If you are never offended then you are probably never having your ideas challenged in a way that will make you grow intellectually.
John wrote: "Going back to the freedom of speech issue, perhaps the most worrisome new laws I see being enacted around the world are those that legislate a right "not to be offended."You being offended by wha..."
I've not heard of these laws. Where are they being enacted? How are they enforced?
Surely someone somewhere will be offended by a statement someone else makes, regardless of how innocuous that statement may be. I have no idea how this can be legislated.
#10 No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.There's a problem as I see it.
If I have the right to express my views, and someone misinterprets my views and/or takes them to what he/she thinks is their logical extension and then commits an act of violence, am I to be held responsible for that act of violence?
At which point do we say it is ok to express your views, and at which point do we say you are not free to express your views because they may incite others to committing violent acts?
For example, some people argue pornography and pornographic images incite violence against women. Others argue it's a freedom of speech issue and should be protected. Where do you draw the line? Feminists are on opposite sides of the spectrum and continue to debate the issue.
Tamara wrote: "We cannot assume that because the principles are universal, the application is universal. "Good point. It seldom, in fact, is.
Patrice wrote: "How do you define false and dangerous?"Excellent question.
It implies, as it should, that false speech which is not also dangerous should not be forbidden. It may arise from honest ignorance, or from a legitimate disagreement on what is true. After all, things believed true at one point in time may well be proved false at another, and vice versa. To ban speech which we now believe to be false may be to ban speech which is actually true.
Everyman wrote: "After all, things believed true at one point in time may well be proved false at another, and vice versa...."Couldn't the same thing be said about what is considered dangerous?
For example, an advocate of human rights living in a country with an oppressive government is deemed "dangerous" by that government and its supporters and thrown in jail--or worse.
But if that government is toppled and replaced by a democratic government that respects the rights of all people, that advocate will no longer be considered dangerous but a hero.
John wrote: "You being offended by what I say in no way gives you the right to prevent me from saying it. "That, of course, is an absolutist free speech position, but one that many colleges and universities today reject. They are quite willing to forbid certain speech which is considered offensive, and to punish students for engaging in it.
While both the left and right have over the years tried to prohibit speech they believe is unacceptable (Nat Hentoff's prescient work Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee pointing out numerous examples from both political sides is as essential reading today as it was when published twenty-five years ago), I find it fascinating that the primary defenders of free speech are shifting, in political terms, 180 degrees. From the end of WWII until perhaps ten years ago, the defense of free speech was primarily in the lap of liberals.
But in the past decade or two the movement to limit freedom of speech and to prevent certain speech deemed unacceptable or even repugnant has shifted dramatically, so that today it is people who generally define themselves as liberal who are often most ardent about prohibiting speech they disapprove of, and those who generally define themselves as conservative who push the right to freely speak even the most unpopular ideas.
@tamara I was actually mistaken. What I had read about were old blasphemy laws that could be used to prosecute people for offending religious sensibilities. For a while they were ignored but a recent example of their use happened in Denmark when a man burned a Quran.
John wrote: "@tamara I was actually mistaken. What I had read about were old blasphemy laws that could be used to prosecute people for offending religious sensibilities. For a while they were ignored but a rece..."No problem. Thanks for the clarification.
Let someone speak against free speech it is free speach?
Technology inserts itself in this discussion at some point. You can blaspheme someone on twitter and within minutes its shared by millions. Big difference from 50 years ago when the audience to the average person's nasty comments was limited to the immediate surroundings. Problem is our values, politics, etc. lag behind technology creating a gap. Some would say these rather ancient (by today's standards) principles suffer the effects of time and must be updated to address present realities. So some want to fill the gap by controlling certain types of speech, but I think they chase their tail. Access to media in its varied and numerous forms is so easy that censoring any one thing is impossible unless you control everything.
And shutting someone down has the unintended consequence of making the silenced more interesting than they otherwise would be. People want to know what you thought too dangerous for them to hear, and maybe, just maybe, some will wonder if they aren't being lied to for their "protection" or for the censor's politics.
Adelle wrote: "#4 Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else..."I think, however, that the concept of injury has changed over the past 200+ years. For example, I think in 1789 nobody would have said that burning your household trash was an injury to others. However, with toxins in many household products, with clean air issues, in my community, at least, it is illegal to burn household trash, and the justification for the law, if challenged, I'm sure would be that such burning injures others.
Isn't there an argument to be made that almost everything humans do in cities or in other populated areas could be construed as injuring somebody else? Driving a polluting vehicle (whether car or horse), keeping chickens in a residential area, spreading manure on your lawn, things which it would never have occurred to the drafters of the Declaration to constitute injuries under the meaning of this clause have become potential injuries today. (Indeed, some of the call for limiting conservative speech is that speaking negatively about members of a gender or race or disability or whatever injures them psychologically.)
Tamara wrote: "I've not heard of these [right not to be offended] laws. Where are they being enacted? How are they enforced?."
From the English Communications Act of 2003:
"127 Improper use of public electronic communications network
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a) sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; prohibits " "sending a public electronic message that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character "
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2...
Notice that simply sending a message that is grossly offensive is a crime.
Patrice wrote: "good point tamara. maybe there is a lawyer here who can clarify. iv never understood how charles manson was jailed when he killedno one. i am glad hes in jail but did he do anything more than tell..."
There has to be a direct and intentional nexus. Just saying to your friend "I wish XX was dead"won't convict you if your friend kills XX. But if you tell the friend to go kill XX, and give her money or other support to do so, such as providing her a gun you intend her to use to kill XX, you are as guilty of the crime as she is.
Rafael wrote: "Let someone speak against free speech it is free speach?"Why not?
Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "good point tamara. maybe there is a lawyer here who can clarify. iv never understood how charles manson was jailed when he killedno one. i am glad hes in jail but did he do anythin..."
It would be the same case if someone defended Hitler or Stalin because none of them killed nobody. So, they are innocents? Surely not.
Everyman wrote: "Rafael wrote: "Let someone speak against free speech it is free speach?"Why not?"
But what would be the point in allowing these kind of speech??
Rafael wrote: "It would be the same case if someone defended Hitler or Stalin because none of them killed nobody. So, they are innocents? Surely not. "They ordered the killings. That is murder in any legal system.
Rafael wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Rafael wrote: "Let someone speak against free speech it is free speach?"Why not?"
But what would be the point in allowing these kind of speech??"
Because suppressing it would be worse. Stupid or logically inconsistent speech is still entitled to be said. Or course, nobody has to listen.
And that, it seems to me, is the point. If nobody listens, nobody gets hurt.
Patrice wrote @16: "i agree with everyman point that the declaration of women's rights is a criticism of application...."But it should be clear that for the writers and editors of the Declaration not everybody was equal - this is already reflected in the title, with the distinction between men and citizens. Women did, like servants, certainly not qualify as citizens.
Moreover, the word men is and was vague, maybe so on purpose. The Declaration is after all, as all committee documents, a compromise. Compromises generally can't do without a little ambiguity allowing different readers different interpretations.
In the historical context this meant different groups of more or less moderate revolutionaries trying to find a common basis for a constitutional monarchy. Hoping also that their document would weaken the popularity of their more radical republican opponents.
When these radicals came to rewrite the document in 1793 the citizens disappeared from the title, meaning that servants would no longer be disqualified on principle (though most likely they would be in practice). This change of mind did however not apply to women.
So Olympe de Gouges' 1791 satiric Declaration of the Rights of Women and Female Citizens remained actual and for that (or for her dubious republicanism) she had to pay with her head.
David wrote @11: "I think I understand the first sentence, ..."That seems quite advanced: I already start to feel overwhelmed with questions in the first sentence. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights.
From the Preamble I take it that this is understood as a Natural Right - more than just an opinion. But how can we know that there is such a Natural Right? The US Declaration of Independence declares this same Right a self-evident Truth, but is it, really?
The idea (or hope) that there is some rational order in the Universe, a Natural Law that can be translated into an objective moral order must have been immensely attractive for revolutionaries. It enabled them to counter the accusation that their rejection of the existing order would lead to Anarchy (or justified demands by even less privileged elements). But are such ideas more than wishful thinking? (those inclined to dig in this can of worms, see for instance: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/na...).
The second sentence does not help to clarify the first - it appears that this fundamental equality (less than a fact, more than an opinion) can be overruled if that serves the 'general good'. Apparently some males are born constitutional king in the name of the 'general good' (which is by the way more or less how I feel about the monarchy in my own country - the concept is crazy, but it actually serves unity and stability). But others are born less than equal, as woman for instance, also in the name of the general good?
Who decides about the general good? Here at least we can ask history:
"Having created an all-embracing concept of citizenship in the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the deputies subsequently decided that some were more equal than others. Only French males over twenty-five who had had an established domicile for over a year, who were not domestic servants or dependents of any kind and who paid the equivalent of three day’s labor in taxes were entitled to vote in primary electoral assemblies. At higher levels of the electoral hierarchy these limits became even more restrictive. To be a member of an electoral assembly required a tax payment of the equivalent of ten day’s labor, and to be eligible as a deputy in the legislative itself required the substantial sum of the silver mark, which was equivalent to fifty day’s labor." (Schama, Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution, p.498).
Yet, I should add that, "… the electorate that was created numbered well over four million - much the broadest experiment with representative government attempted in European history" (and maybe also that where I live every working person pays today at least something like two months labor in taxes).
The first three articles are fundamental, while #4-17 elaborate the first three.Art. 2 enumerates the basic human rights anno 1789: liberty, property, security and the right to oppose oppression (a bit redundant after stating right to be free).
Security must refer to the rule of law, not to economic security. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_g.... 'Red' rights were at the time only discussed by the extreme left.
To declare the preservation of rights the sole purpose of political union seems dangerous. It could serve as a pretext not to allow political union (opposition) unless its necessity is proven.
Art. 3 states the revolutionary idea that God nor tradition, but only the nation (society, the general will, the body of eligible citizens) is the source of political authority.
As said, the remaining articles elaborate the first three, specifically # 2.
#4, 5: Liberty and its limits
#6: Democracy (elaborates #3)
#7, 8, 9: The rule of law (security)
#10, 11: Freedom of speech (oppose oppression)
# 12: The armed forces
#13, 14: Taxes
#15: Transparency
#17: Property
Article 16 feels like a rhetoric finale, except that its effect is spoiled by #17. This last one is most likely an afterthought (property was not mentioned after #2, though it does not really add anything).
When Adam delved and Eve span,Who then was the gentleman?
Fr. John Ball, 1381
How Bible support equality of all men if the Bible supports (or not condemn) slavery?
Patrice wrote: "I believe the fundamental equality of all men derives from the Bible."What about the suggestion that the fundamental equality of all men was derived not from the Bible but was reasoned from the progressive philosophies of the Enlightenment on, which are often at odds with certain biblical teachings?
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/con...
There are the inconsistent interpretations of the Bible that make it such a difficult book to work with. While one may find passages in support equality of abolition of slavery as suggested:
Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.Patrice wrote: "The Hebrew Bible created man ie humanity, as a he/she.
http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
Two halves of a whole, so at least in theory if not in practice women were equal to men."
This is a good example of the type of enlightened thinking I am referring to above, more than traditional Biblical interpretation. It has been my impression the Bible is traditionally somewhat oppressive towards women in a way I think Hollingsworth would approve, and that is stating it mildly.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/say...
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/con...
Sixteen instances of the use of "law" or "legally." Fifteen instances of "right." (In German, Recht translates as law.) Six instances of forms of "free." Two instances of "liberty." Zero instances of any form of "just." Zero instances of "conscience."This mode of thinking seems to resolve into a mystification and reification of statist control. "Law" is mostly a mask worn by wealth and power. Which laws get enforced, and against whom?
Maybe somebody sniffed the winds of change and really got shook up over what was on the near horizon?
Article 3 looks like a cornerstone assumption.
So much wrong here. Corrective? Book of Daniel.
Patrice wrote: "lots of contradictions in the bible but isnt the story of exodus a condemnation of slavery? Roger, i dont understand your post."
It's saying of a fourteenth-century renegade priest who preached the equality of all men, based on their equal state at creation. He was hanged, drawn, and quartered, of course.
It seems to me that chattel slavery is clearly incompatible with Jesus's teachings of the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. The New Testament is perhaps surprisingly tolerant of the institution. We should remember that many slaves in the ancient world were household servants, not brutally exploited laborers as in the old South. Paul tells the owner Philemon to receive back his runaway slave Onesimas not as a servant but as a brother in the Lord.
I've never quite understood the equality of all men. Equal in what exactly?What exactly is objectionable about slavery?
If slavery is the buying and selling of people as property, isn't the modern practice of buying and selling players among sports franchises a form of slavery?
Patrice wrote: "granted one can find anything in the Bible."That, and contributions from the enlightenment were the only points I wished to make. There is no need to defend any translations of the Bible because I think we can all commonly agree today that slavery (people as property) is morally wrong, regardless of how the bible may be or have been interpreted. That is another example of enlightened reasoning that transcends the morals from the Bible's authority, however they may be derived. This is because if the Bible was ever interpreted to protect the institution of slavery, as we admit pro-slavers had the ability to do and did, some would either simply deny that authority and refute the arguments while others would feel compelled to apologize (defend) the questionable passages with respect to the authority. :)
About mention of the Creator, certain men of the enlightenment, Jefferson, Adams, among others in particular, were Deists who who believed in "Nature's God" and were opposed to what they called the corruptions of Christianity. Jefferson in particular was a strict materialist, including a a belief in a non-divine Jesus, and a material Creator. Jefferson called himself a Christian, but admitted that many would not accept that assertion based on the traditional, corrupted, definition.
Of course it was John Adams who wrote in Article 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. . ."
Patrice wrote: "i would say that everyones life is precious, none worth more than anothers. That also explains the immrality of slavery. each life is infintely valuable, it cant be measured in dollars. ."If no human life can be measured in dollars, why do we measure everything concerning human life in dollars? I have to admit this whole thing is incomprehensible to me.
Classics and the Western Canon
Books mentioned in this topic
Second Treatise of Government (other topics)Second Treatise of Government (other topics)
Mulieris Dignitatem: Apostolic Letter Of The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II On The Dignity & Vocation Of Women On The Occasion Of The Marian Year (other topics)
Citizens: A Chronicle of the French Revolution (other topics)
Today we will look at the principles of the French Revolution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, published in 1789.
We will also compare this document with the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, adopted in 1787.
One reason I have chosen this reading for this time is that Coursera has just started a free six week course on the French Revolution. Reading the Declaration of the Rights of Man may lead you to want to learn more about those turbulent times, and this course may be part of an answer to that curiosity.
It’s hard today to realize how revolutionary the principles of these documents were in their time. The idea that ordinary men and women had social and political rights that superceded the rights of kings to rule them had been slowly being suggested by political philosophers, but was certainly not a part of accepted social and political reality as it is today in some (but not all!) countries. As we read these documents, and they won’t take but a few minutes, we might want to consider how well we are (or are not) living up to these principles today. Which are still fully intact, which are limited or under attack, which are in the process of being abandoned or even totally abandoned?
If you were casting a Declaration of the Rights of Man and Woman today, what you would add or delete?
How much would your Declaration have in common with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948?
Links:
Declaration of the Rights of Man
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_centu...
Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_centu...
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_centu...
Coursera course on the French Revolution
https://www.coursera.org/learn/french...
You will be nudged frequently to buy a Certificate for the course, but there’s no need to; the entire course is yours free if you choose to by pass those nudges. I haven’t found a way to close those nudge screens, but it’s easy enough just to use the left hand contents strip to move from section to section, video to video.