3 ms·

This article is critical of the "cult" of the bill of rights. But look at China the other day and how their constitution was changed on a whim. Look at Russia w

This article is critical of the "cult" of the bill of rights. But look at China the other day and how their constitution was changed on a whim. Look at Russia which has Putin despite of a fairly modern and standard constitution. Constitutions and laws are mere pieces of paper until the society within which they live endow them with sacred status. Without the "cult" and the moral indignation at violations surely civil liberties would erode at a much faster rate. As another comment says "Unfortunately, pretty much all of the BoR is regularly under attack." If the BoR didn't have the same nearly religious status one of those attacks would have succeeded by now.

adrianratnapala 9y ago
Yes, people get these things arse-backwards. They notice that laws are just pieces of paper, and think that's a reason to disrespect them. But so long as the law is worth having, the fact that it is a mere defenceless piece of paper is the very reason while people have a duty to act them out in the real world. And what's worst is that the "it's only a piece of paper" argument seems to be trotted out mostly against laws, such as constitutions, which underpin important, time-tested rights. No one is so eager to point out that the latest act granting power to this-or-that official is also just a piece of paper.
freddie_mercury 9y ago
> If the BoR didn't have the same nearly religious status one of those attacks would have succeeded by now. I don't think this follows at all from the article. After all, one of the main points is that there WASN'T a cult until the 1940s...yet those rights were able to stand for 160 years without a religious status supporting them. Your argument that the Bill of Rights had a religious status for all 200+ years of its history seems a direct contradiction of one of the book's central claims and I don't see that you've presented any arguments in support of your counter-claim. If the Bill of Rights didn't have religious status for those 200+ years then your subsequent claim that the religious status is a necessary part of keeping it intact would seem to wither.
- tlrobinson 9y ago
  Perhaps the religious status evolved in response to increasing attacks on the BoR?
  - freddie_mercury 9y ago
    Sure, that's a possibility but is yet another variant that wasn't claimed and provided with no backing evidence.

adrianratnapala 9y ago

Yes, people get these things arse-backwards. They notice that laws are just pieces of paper, and think that's a reason to disrespect them. But so long as the law is worth having, the fact that it is a mere defenceless piece of paper is the very reason while people have a duty to act them out in the real world. And what's worst is that the "it's only a piece of paper" argument seems to be trotted out mostly against laws, such as constitutions, which underpin important, time-tested rights. No one is so eager to point out that the latest act granting power to this-or-that official is also just a piece of paper.

freddie_mercury 9y ago

> If the BoR didn't have the same nearly religious status one of those attacks would have succeeded by now. I don't think this follows at all from the article. After all, one of the main points is that there WASN'T a cult until the 1940s...yet those rights were able to stand for 160 years without a religious status supporting them. Your argument that the Bill of Rights had a religious status for all 200+ years of its history seems a direct contradiction of one of the book's central claims and I don't see that you've presented any arguments in support of your counter-claim. If the Bill of Rights didn't have religious status for those 200+ years then your subsequent claim that the religious status is a necessary part of keeping it intact would seem to wither.

tlrobinson 9y ago
Perhaps the religious status evolved in response to increasing attacks on the BoR?
- freddie_mercury 9y ago
  Sure, that's a possibility but is yet another variant that wasn't claimed and provided with no backing evidence.