What are the similarities between the " US Bill of rights " and the radical reveloution in france ?

Answer 1

"The Declaration [of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, basic document French Revolution EVT] also put forward several provisions similar to those in the United States Constitution (1787) and the United States Bill of Rights (1789, adopted at approximately the same time as the Declaration). Like the U.S. Constitution, it discusses the need to provide for the common defense and states some broad principles of taxation, especially equality before taxation (a striking difference from the pre-revolutionary era, when the Church and the nobility were exempted from most taxes). It also specifies a public right to an accounting from public agents as to how they have discharged the public trust."

"The declaration prohibits ex post facto application of criminal law and proclaims the presumption of innocence, prohibiting undue duress to the suspect. In pre-revolutionary France, while technically one was considered guilty only after having been sentenced by the appropriate authorities, the royal courts, known as parlements, made ample use of torture to extract confessions, and gave few rights to the defense — ergo, it would have been very likely that one would have been convicted and sentenced, if one had been suspected."

"It provides for freedom of speech and of the press, and a slightly weaker guarantee of freedom of religion — "provided that [...the] manifestation [...of their religious opinions] does not trouble the public order established by the law". It asserts the rights of property, while reserving a public right of eminent domain:"

" "(From Article XVII) - Property being an inviolable and sacred right, no one can be deprived of private usage, if it is not when the public necessity, legally noted, evidently requires it, and under the condition of a just and prior indemnity [that is, compensation]." "

"The Declaration is largely individualistic, not addressing freedom of assembly, liberty of association, or the right to strike. These principles did acquire a constitutional value, from the provisions of the Constitution of the French Fourth Republic, under which, unlike at the time of the Revolution, they were understood to extend to women and blacks."

"Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen

Answer 2

Right and wrong are often defined operationally. Good and evil are often harder to define. For instance, you were taught as a kid that it was wrong to run out into the street after a ball, or from between two parked cars. If it wasn't obvious to you as a kid why you shouldn't do these things, it must be now. 8^) Those things are -wrong- for obvious reasons. Crossing at the crosswalk, waiting for a light to change, looking both ways, that's the -right- way to do it. To me, 'good' and 'evil' are the same. Something can't be just 'good' in and of itself, it's good because something demonstrably good comes of it. But some religious people believe there is an abstract 'good' in some things. Often this has to do with 'the will of God'. If something is The Will of God, then it's good period, because he said so. God might know the reason, or there might not even be a reason except that it's what God wants. But, perhaps sadly, I am not privy to the will of God. Also in the ecclesiastical sense, evil can be just the absence of good (as dark is the absence of light), or it can be another force entirely, The Devil.