The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously.

” Seldom do I receive such complement on any debating website. Recorded history about the social empirical outcome as a function of institutional configuration of governance is hard to refute. There is clear historical empirical outcome between an institution implementing Unalienable Rights (the institution of the USA) compared to an institution implementing many parts resembling the later defined Universal Declaration of Human Rights (the institution of the USSR). Before implementing a set of man-made rights, it would be prudent to search history of any institution attempting to do the same. Pro went on to say, “One cannot compare the UDHR's articles to only 10 articles of the USSR's Constitution. ” Pro should realize, there is not a one-to-one relationship between the articles. Those USSR articles cover a scope of 17 UDHR's articles, where the USA's Constitution covers none. It is interesting to point out the following Article 124 of the USSR's Constitution is in alignment with the USA's paradigm on the separation of church and state; however, such is not found in UDHR:“ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U. S. S. R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens. ”Without separation of church and state UDHR Article 2 will be impossible to implement, along with Article 3. In Article 3, how does one have the right to life, liberty and security of person in a theocracy? Just look at the empirical social climate in those theocracies today. The implementation of UDHR is dependent on the configuration of governance. Con is taking the position that what “must be taken more seriously” is not UDHR but the prerequisite to UDHR, and that prerequisite, being the configuration of governance! Con like Pro, understands the world would be a better place to live, if the world moves in the direction of UDHR. Pro is taking a 1948 position about the world should take UDHR “more seriously;” that is easy to say. Con is taking the twenty-first century position, and “seriously” examining the prerequisite to make it happen. Let's start with the fact that today's understanding of our Unalienable Rights are part of the physical Laws of Nature (Takac). We need not dwell on the metaphysical evolution of the concept of Unalienable Rights through the ages, but our current understanding of them is more important. Within our 10,000 character debate limit, let's focus on two data points: USA and USSR. The design of the USA, came from the people forming a contract (US Constitution) to define the configuration of governance. During the design of the US Constitution, Unalienable Rights were the “stake in the ground” (Amendments 5 and 9). The people defined what rights the government had to govern with the objective to protect and defend the individual's Unalienable Rights, no more, no less. The state governments did all the rest, competing with each other for the best and brightest to move to their state. In the USSR's case, the government dictates what man-made rights the people had. In summary, in the USA's case, the people defined what rights the government has; in the USSR's case, the government defines what rights the people have. Big difference! One should note, attention to the development of UDHR came from a set of governments (UN). The newly established USA having the mission to embrace and protect everyone's Unalienable Rights started with a difficult task relative to the cultural reality of the day. Cultural norms do not change overnight. In the beginning, slavery and woman's standing in society was deeply rooted in the culture. Jefferson, knew the “vagueness” (a term Pro used) of our Unalienable Rights will move those cultural ills of slavery, the treatment of woman, and today's treatment of gays, etc, in time during the evolution of culture as a function of our Unalienable Rights in the dynamics of Congress, representing the people, and the only branch of government to make law correcting such cultural ills. Life's Unalienable Rights are the engine controlling the evolution of life (Takac). It only stands to reason these Rights are also the engine for social evolution, if, and only if, the configuration of governance supports such an engine of nature at the social level. The Founding Fathers develop a configuration of government supporting Darwinism before Darwin came on the stage. Today, due to social evolution, UDHR is out dated relative to Article 16. Article 16 starts off with the following, “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry. .. ” There is no mention to gender preference, therefore, gays have no man-made rights pertaining to marriage. Also, there is no amendment process outlined in the preamble to make such changes. Pro's position is UDHR maintains the desired “finite declaration,” where Con takes the position, perhaps, UDHR is too finite, stifling social evolution of a culture's freedom of moral choice on their road to utopia. It is sad to find Pro does not support cultural evolution by stating, “Wilson seems to have the same views as I do when it comes to the Unalienable Rights being too vague. ”On the subject of Woodrow Wilson, too bad Wilson's slow cancer of “living constitution” is starting to metastasize. Today's Congress represents the lobbyist more than the people, while the President has a “pen” to make law, and also, the administration branch (not part of the US Constitution's three branches) that is made up of hundreds of departments (IRS, Education, NSA, Energy, EPA, etc. ). These departments employ hundreds of thousands of government employees, who are not elected, writing regulations, having the same power as law, to control us, etc. Today, the people are essentially out of the loop, except on Election Day, and look what choices we have. Too bad the US government educational system promote “living constitutional” concepts, to benefit the freedom of government, while reducing the freedom of the people, moving in the opposite direction from UDHR. If Pro is serious about, “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights must be taken more seriously,” then get serious in understanding the configuration of governance. Otherwise, and with all due respect to Pro and those like him, if you refuse to understand the prerequisite to UDHR, you are just shooting off a lot of hot air.