"dogma about the divine origin of man." is necessary for democracy. -- Could be, -- but I don't see that as needed in our Republic.
If you are talking about dogma in the sense of a (specific) religious doctrine, I agree.
Even in general, such a dogma is not needed imo.
I would indicate that the DOI, as our establishing document is predicated on a non-specific but absolute belief in an eternal creator to which all nature, humans and human institutions are subordinate.
Believe that if you like, but it simply does not say that. - The DOI makes perfect sense if all such references are ignored.
If rights are inalienable, they must also be eternal and immutable. The creator that bestows them must then, be likewise. It's inescapable.
As I said, if that makes sense to you, it's fine with me. But your conclusion is not inescapable, its arguable.
Take away "Creator," from the DOI and the remainder of the premise on which this nation was founded crumbles.
Hardly. That's a hyped up opinion to me, and to millions of others who do not believe as do you.
Where then, do inalienable rights come from? Who endows or grants them? What makes them inalienable? (i.e., why does the same premise apply to every human, whether or not he lives in a system that respects it?)
"That's a hyped up opinion to me, and to millions of others who do not believe as do you."
Millions of others agree with you and are free to do so. That is; however, the entire crux of my initial argument, which is when we lose site of moral absolutes, and the source from which they flow, we are undermining this nation's ideals. The problem is precisely THAT millions of people agree with you. You are free to do so, and our founders would agree that no government should pass a law which would punish or adversely affect you because of your beliefs. My two issues are that in this day and age, the atheist is using the force of law to impose their beliefs and that without a belief in a creator, one brings into question the "inalienability," of our rights and opens the door for situational ethics and moral relativism which is the tiny thread by which the entire blanket is ultimately unraveled.
I.e., The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (unless they're fully automatic because too many mobsters are using them, or they have a pistol grip and flash hider, or they are over .50 caliber.....etc.)