The Declaration tosses a bouquet in the general direction of "the Supreme Being" [not in the sense of Creator] as the source of "the rights of man and the citizen." It appears to be within the Natural Law tradition — at least nominally.
Notwithstanding, an analysis of its provisions makes plain that the Declaration envisions a system of society that tops out in the State, and bottoms out in the State. There is nothing outside of the State, which has become a quasi-sacred repository of the General Will. The rights of man and the citizen are actually contingent on his "playing ball" with the State, which can change the Law in response to changes in the purported General Will. There is no higher authority than the State as the repository of the General Will.
The contingency of human rights is shown, for instance, WRT religious liberty. See item 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." But what constitutes both the public order and the law is determined by the State. Law is conceived to be the very expression of the General Will, and as such is subject to change as the General Will changes. Indeed, the State is virtually unlimited in its scope for effecting such change; for enterprising political operators can always gin up support for whatever their proposals may be by invoking the principle of the General Will....
Law is everything. Justice is not even mentioned. The British and American idea was that the law is the handmaiden (to to speak) of Justice. Where laws do not serve the interest of Justice, they are no laws at all, they are illegitimate usurpations of God-given liberties. The French Declaration's view of law does not answer to the problems of justice. Law is the highest authority there is; it has no standard or criterion beyond itself that it has to measure up to. It is justified by nothing outside of itself, except the fictional General Will....
The French Declaration is offered as a consummation of human reason with respect to the affairs of men in political society. The rights of man are abstract rights, and moreover grants of the State; they are not personal rights: if they were, the State could not rescind them by passing new law.
The same way law is detached from the idea of justice, the French idea of Reason is detached from its Logos. The loss of its ground in the Logos makes reason just one more abstraction....
Well, just a few thoughts for now, FWTW.
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear xzins!
Great points.
Thx for the ping.
“Where laws do not serve the interest of Justice, they are no laws at all, they are illegitimate usurpations of God-given liberties.”
Which illustrates precisely the cause for the virulent resistance we encounter when we praise the Judeo-Christian traditions supporting our founding documents as well as those documents themselves. What frightens our opposition is that they know they cannot compete either with our founding documents or the Judeo-Christian belief that is those documents’ foundation. It is the same fear that drove Thomas Paine to launch a virulent attack on the Holy Bible, which he absurdly entitled The Age of Reason, in the hopes that he could sway the American people, like the French, to turn against their republicanism and their religion. He failed . . . and died in disgrace, scorned by the very people he had sought to betray.
Oh, that all 0bamatrons should suffer the same fate.
The French Declaration is offered as a consummation of human reason with respect to the affairs of men in political society. The rights of man are abstract rights, and moreover grants of the State; they are not personal rights: if they were, the State could not rescind them by passing new law.
Thank you oh so very much for your outstanding essay-post, dearest sister in Christ!