So Hungary’s new constitution has just gone into effect. And believe it or not, the Hungarians have actually erected a system of law which respects the historic Christian roots of their nation, conceives of marriage as between one man and one woman, and even protects human life from the moment of conception.
[Preamble:]
God bless the Hungarians
…
We are proud that our king Saint Stephen built the Hungarian State on solid ground and made our country a part of Christian Europe one thousand years ago.
…
We recognise the role of Christianity in preserving nationhood. We value the various religious traditions of our country.
…
We do not recognise the suspension of our historical constitution due to foreign occupations. We deny any statute of limitations for the inhuman crimes committed against the Hungarian nation and its citizens under the National Socialist and Communist dictatorships.
We do not recognise the Communist constitution of 1949, since it was the basis for tyrannical rule; therefore we proclaim it to be invalid.
…
Article L
(1) Hungary shall protect the institution of marriage as the union of a man and a woman established by voluntary decision, and the family as the basis of the nation’s survival.
(2) Hungary shall encourage the commitment to have children.
…
FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY
…
Article II
Human dignity shall be inviolable. Every human being shall have the right to life and human dignity; embryonic and foetal life shall be subject to protection from the moment of conception.
The NY Times, outraged at the failure of the Hungarian people to conform to the cultural diktats of these United States, flings aside all pretense of concern for multiculturalism and the right of other nations to order their internal affairs as they like and brings the hammer down, declaring the Hungarian constitution “unconstitutional“. All that stuff about imperialism is wrong when other countries do it. But our elites really do know what’s best for those funny little foreign people.
All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by “our” side. – George Orwell, Notes on Nationalism
Hi,
The article you linked to actually doesn’t say anything about the marriage between man and women. Its a guest column by Kim Scheppele, law professor at Princeton on how one party gained 2/3 control of the Hungarian parliament and is now jury rigging the constitution so this party stays in control forever. There’s a bunch of heavy slogging about bank regulations and packing new judges in while forcing old judges out. They also decertified all but 14 religions. The other (almost 300 denominations, including the benedictines, marists, buddhists, methodists, islam) lose their state approval-whatever that means. Then I read in the comments about how Scheppele is relying on leftist journalists, so I wonder about the ultimate source of the information. Krugman/Scheppele are commenting on Hungary’s slide into authoritarian dicatatorship, which they think is bad.
Man from reading Shea’s article you’d get the feeling the NYT was objecting to Hungary’s support for traditional marriage and pro-life government policy, rather than taking over the banking system and the criminilization of dissent (the Soicalist party being responsible for the crimes of the old Communist party). Certainly the official recognition of 14 religious organizations at the expense of the others is quite a concern as well.
Framing your blog like this is misleading and comes a lot closer to bearing false witness than I would prefer to do.
Yeah, I have to agree with the two commenters above. From the linked article, it sounds like Hungary’s new constitution is very, very bad – and unless the Princeton prof is straight-up lying about all the facts (not that it’s never happened), I agree with her. Decertifying all those religions seems like a huge step backward, for one thing.
I work with a lot of Hungarians and I’m going to have to get their opinion on this to be sure, though.
I always take Krugman with a a large grain of salt but in this case I think the commenters above have raised good points. Bully for the Hungarians for formalizing marriage as part of the constitution as well as protection for all from the moment of conception. That said, the rest of these actions seem quite troubling. I can’t remember who said it but it has been said that a good prince can be more dangerous than a bad prince because a good prince isn’t going to be questioned as much as he takes greater and greater power to himself.
The proof’s in the the pudding (figgy pudding perhaps?) so we’ll see if these new laws actually protect the basic freedom rights of people (life, speech, assembly, property etc.) in practice and also how future governments utilize their powers.
It was John Locke.
About all I can add to your previous commenters is this…I wonder how long it will be before you begin criticizing the Hungarian government for their actions under this new constitution. When you do, I trust the Holy Spirit will remind you to recant your harsh and unfair criticism of the Times.
Until then, God bless.
Actually the author does criticize the Christian aspects of the constitution in a linked earlier piece:
“The new constitution also accepts conservative Christian social doctrine as state policy…the fetus is protected from the moment of conception.Marriage is only legal if between a man and a woman….” etc. etc.
The writer also object to a flat tax and the new system of appointing the head of the Hungarian central bank (which happens to be nearly exactly the same as the US system). I bet it they added a clause requiring that the Head of the Hungarian Central Bank must always be an ex-Goldman Sachs employee.
Mark Shea is welcome to link to that piece if he wants to provide an example of Americans criticizing the Hungarian constitution for it’s conservative Catholic principles. But then he might not be able to target the NYT.
I bet IF they added a clause…then the NY times would applaud their liberality and financial wisdom. Damn smart mouse….
Don’t have time to read the full story, but yes bully for Hungary for formally recognizing their Christian heritage, protecting human dignity and understanding the centrality of traditional marriage & family in the survival and thriving of their nation. Sounds like a good foundation.
Having had time to read the entire story I found this quote interesting. Building on what Mark Shea quoted…
“While most of the denominations are tiny, many are not. Among the religions that will no longer be able to operate with state approval are all versions of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Baha’i, as well as many smaller Catholic orders including the Benedictines, Marists, Carmelites and Opus Dei, and a number of major Protestant denominations including Episcopalians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Methodists, and all but one of the evangelical churches. One each of the orthodox, conservative and liberal Jewish synagogues are recognized; but all other Jewish congregations are not. ”
Interesting that the constitution claims to embrace the country’s Christian heritage and founding, but then denies so many Christian faiths the opportunity to exist openly in this “Christian” nation. This sounds to me more like what was happening during the Communist control of the nation.
Looks like the Catholics will have company as they head back underground.
The one thought that occurred to me when reading the article was, that the critique about amending a constitution that had not yet come into force seems a little hypocritical for an American since the Bill of Rights were amendments made to the Constitution to get it ratified by all the states.
That is good news. The audacity of Hungary to not toe the line of the NY Times speaks of their experience under Communist tyrants, and their desire to remain out of the clutches of tyrants of all stripes.
Speaking of King St. Stephen, he wrote some great letters to his son. They didn’t prevent silliness, alas, but they are amazing letters, nonetheless. Check ‘em out.
Aren’t there real concerns about freedom of speech or freedom of religion?
This constitutional power-grab is just the sort of power-grab by the Hungarian central government that Ron Paulites fear could happen in the United States. Obviously, we have a different polity than Hungary, and historically, Hungary was a monarchy. However, if they are going to have an autocracy, they might as well bring back the Habsburgs.
OTOH, the liberal freak-outs over fascism and ultra-nationalism in Hungary seem overblown – they have mistaken a Dollfuss for a Hitler. Until Hungary starts molesting her neighbors or welshing on its sovereign debt, I think Hungary’s internal government structure is not our business.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16356039
Perhaps the markets see something you are missing?
“The one thought that occurred to me when reading the article was, that the critique about amending a constitution that had not yet come into force seems a little hypocritical for an American since the Bill of Rights were amendments made to the Constitution to get it ratified by all the states.”
Yes, but the Constitution was ratified and THEN the amendments were introduced. The Constitution was ratified in June of 1788. The Bill of Rights was not adopted until September of 1789, and adopted by the necessary state legislatures in December of 1791, in accordance with the Constitution’s provisions for amendment.
Apples and oranges.
This should be interesting to American Catholics. Hungary was not the sort of country with as large a Catholic majority as Poland or Slovakia of late. Most nobles in the past were very influential Calvinists…and Transylvania, Hungary’s once “second fatherland” had a Unitarian nobility. (Hungary was once home to lots of Jews too.)
UPDATE:
Turns out that in a monumental mis-translation of the notoriously difficult Magyar language, what was thought to be a new Constitution was in fact a newly compiled cookbook of traditional Hungarian cuisine.
They must have used Monty Python’s Hungarian Phrasebook to translate the constitution… if it mentions scratched records or hovercrafts full of eels, we’ll KNOW for sure!
Wouldn’t the NYT need an army–or at least propose the use of some sort of force–for this to be imperialism? Otherwise, you would have to class Pope Benedict’s objections to the EU constitution as imperialistic, too.
As for the new changes, aside from what seems to be a very troubling narrowing of room for debate and dissent, the constitution impinges on freedom of religion.
Better watch that diabetes, Mark! According to Dick Johnson, your eyesight is worse than a
Modern mythical creature he cited : the Mar-ket!!!
Let me try again. This ended up in the wrong place. Aren’t there real concerns about freedom of speech or freedom of religion?