1. religious indifferentism (that all beliefs are equal under the law):
Déclaration des droits Article X:
There are people (e.g., Muslims) who believe killing infidels is a virtue. Why should such a Muslim not "be disturbed for his opinions," even though the "manifestation" of his beliefs does indeed "trouble the public order established by the law"?No one may be disturbed for his opinions, even religious ones, provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law.
2. freedom of press:
Déclaration des droits Article XI:*Why should one have the freedom to spread falsehoods and lies?
The free communication of [true and false!*] thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: any citizen thus may speak, write, print freely, except to respond to the abuse of this liberty,** in the cases determined by the law.
**"[R]espond[ing] to the abuse of this liberty" is exactly what anyone who criticizes the dictatorship of the mainstream media does, yet this Article says they should be silenced! The Liberal press, lead by the Freemasonic philosophes (revolutionary French philosophers like Voltaire), is what instigated the French Revolution in the first place.
These Articles X and XI are combined in the U.S.'s 1st Amendment:
These documents are far more tyrannical and revolutionary than the kings and queens (e.g., King Louis XVI and Queen Marie-Antoinette, who the French Revolution guillotined) supposedly were. Yes, there are some good parts of these documents (like real natural rights, etc.), but religious indifferentism (which says beliefs don't matter) and freedom of press (which gives way to a dictatorship of the mainstream media, Hollywood, textbook publishers, et al., who know beliefs do matter and yet inculcate falsehoods) is the "drop of poison in the well."Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, …