> The next article in the Chinese constitution defines a right much in the same way as the the US constitution. With respect, that is factually untrue. The ful

> The next article in the Chinese constitution defines a right much in the same way as the the US constitution. With respect, that is factually untrue. The full Article 36 is: > Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of religious belief. No state organ, social organization or individual shall coerce citizens to believe in or not to believe in any religion, nor shall they discriminate against citizens who believe in or do not believe in any religion. The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state. Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination. Being more than mere spirituality and theology, religion provides a social environment for worldview development independent of the state. Across history, myriad outcomes arise from the exercise of religion: some good, some mixed, and some bad. The PRC, knowing that free expression of humanity creates much suffering, explicitly tries to control the expression of religion. To that end, the PRC only sanctions "normal religious activities" which do not "disrupt public order" or "interfere with the educational system of the state." Both of these restrictions work to subjugate the citizenry using a specific social control mechanism. As history will eventually show, these control mechanisms will both plant fear in the general population and push religion deeper underground. The US Constitution protects freedom of religion in the following way: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." That's it. The US does not attempt to curtail the nature or expression of religion in a constitutional manner. From my own recollection, the only time the various governments of the US will interfere with religious practice is if it causes harm to others in some way, be it physical, mental, or legal. The US approach is vastly different, and to even attempt to equate the US and PRC constitutions will ultimately fall apart. > No, if anything this proves that a constitution document doesn't really mean much just by itself if there isn't a robust system of protections build around it. Yes, a robust system of protections is important, but constitutionality determines how that system may act. Article 35 explicitly says PRC citizens currently possess freedom of speech. To challenge that fact is to challenge the validity of the PRC constitution, an action revolutionary in nature. At the same time, the world is well-aware that the PRC government engages in a vast censorship campaign and ensures its citizens know certain topics are not permissible for discussion under threat of penalty. If a PRC citizen disagrees with that position of the PRC government and seeks to speak out, the PRC government can simply point to the fact that the citizen indeed has freedom of speech and therefore no speech rights are being currently violated while the citizen is thrown in prison. The US Constitution does not say, "Citizens of the United States possess freedom of speech." What government has the authority to make such a claim? Rather, it says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Even if a federal law has the effect of "chilling" speech, it may be construed as abridging the freedom of speech if the effects are too pronounced. The constitution matters a great deal in the end.