- Messages
- 171
- Reactions
- 2
This is not a religious argument on my part. Believe what you wish.
For those who believe there is no God, then it seems to me that it would be hard for them to accept the idea the there are "inalienable rights" "endowed by our Creator."
IMHO that leaves the rights subject to man, probably a government. It seems to me that makes the rights permissive rather than inalienable.
Again, not an argument for or against, just an observation.
$.02
I would assume that inalienable rights would be easy to understand for most. For example, is breathing something that should be a right? Or is it a permission granted by the government? Religious or not, I would guess that most would understand that breathing is a basic right not controlled by the government regardless of weather they believe in a god or not. I would argue that self preservation is along the same lines.
I get what you are saying about the religion part of things. My use of "God given" was more taken from the founders mouths rather than a concious thought about religion. That being said, about 92% of people in the U.S. still believe in a god or a higher power of some kind. That leaves a relatively small percentage that wouldn't understand god given right. I guarantee that the small percentage of people who don't understand a "god given" right would quickly understand it if their family was under attack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/23/ST2008062300818.html