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.)
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.
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?)
Its self evident to me that our rights evolved from our ability to reason, to our ability to apply the golden rule as a basis for a moral life. No 'Creator' is needed to realize that 'do onto others' is in our self interest.
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 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.
I agree that there are moral absolutes, based on the reason of the 'golden rule'.
The problem is precisely THAT millions of people agree with you.
That's only a problem in YOUR mind joe.
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.
Big of you to say so..
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.
Joe, that line may make sense to you, but please, read it again. I'm baffled as to your point.
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.)
Are you trying to say that my position on our "creator" somehow leads you to think I'm for gun prohibitions? Get real.