Thread: Separation of Church and...

Originally Posted by maddafinga

Sure they are.

Please explain why they are.

That's not how it works. Our rights are inalienable because our constitution guarantees that they are.

The preamble doesn't guarantee anything. Any diety or creator has nothing to do with it. The law does.


You are making the claim that without a diety, we as citizens have no rights somehow. That's an outrageous claim honestly. If that's your assertion, I'd like to see you, as the person making the claim, provide some evidence of that.

Originally Posted by honedright

Just that whole little thing about "Inalienable rights" is dependent upon a higher power. If there is no higher power, then where'd those so called inalienable rights come from? Who or what gave them to you? And if they didn't come from a higher power, then they aren't really inalienable, are they.

Well honedright - I don't know what you are rambling on about. The constitution gives me some inalienable rights, I guess. But those rights were created by men and have been provided to me and you (if you are in the States) by men who fought for them and many, have paid with their life to give me those rights.

Speaking of war... ask anyone who's been in one if there is really any such thing as inalienable rights. It's a construct... nothing more, nothing less. And in times of war, you tell me where those inalienable rights go?

Inalienable rights lol... too old, too bitter. But I try... we all try. It's called being civil.

The phrase "inalienable rights" is found in the U.S. Declaration of Independence, not the U.S. Constitution, and therefore has no force of law behind it. It was merely a turn of phrase suggested by Jefferson.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights (emphasis mine), that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
"...That to secure (emphasis mine) these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

These are merely ideas, suppositions if you will, not findings of fact. There is no evidence offered therein to support these claims.

That having been said, were he alive, I'd gladly buy Mr. Jefferson a beverage of his choice!

Originally Posted by maddafinga

That's not how it works. Our rights are inalienable because our constitution guarantees that they are.

The preamble doesn't guarantee anything. Any diety or creator has nothing to do with it. The law does.


You are making the claim that without a diety, we as citizens have no rights somehow. That's an outrageous claim honestly. If that's your assertion, I'd like to see you, as the person making the claim, provide some evidence of that.

Both documents were created by the same men and therfore it's unreasonable to think that both documents weren't inspired based upon the same principles. The Constitution is a piece of paper. Upon it are great words and ideas written by great men. But it's still just a piece of paper. Obviously it has been possible, over the years, to ammend that piece of paper, often by means other than legitimatley intended, and often contrary to the original intent of the framers. So, if the security of our rights rests on the strengths of a piece of paper, we're in big trouble. On the other hand, no court, legislator, or executive can ammend or take away that which is guaranteed by something outside of man. Call it God, Nature, higher power, creator, or whatever suits you. It's the belief that those rights which are considered unalienable are such because thay come from a higher source that provides the guarantee. Take that away and you've got just a piece of paper.

Originally Posted by honedright

Both documents were created by the same men and therfore it's unreasonable to think that both documents weren't inspired based upon the same principles. The Constitution is a piece of paper. Upon it are great words and ideas written by great men. But it's still just a piece of paper. Obviously it has been possible, over the years, to ammend that piece of paper, often by means other than legitimatley intended, and often contrary to the original intent of the framers. So, if the security of our rights rests on the strengths of a piece of paper, we're in big trouble. On the other hand, no court, legislator, or executive can ammend or take away that which is guaranteed by something outside of man. Call it God, Nature, higher power, creator, or whatever suits you. It's the belief that those rights which are considered unalienable are such because thay come from a higher source that provides the guarantee. Take that away and you've got just a piece of paper.

Yeah that's all good but you still haven't stated what those rights are! And you can't... because there has never been a right given to any man, that another man hasn't taken away...

The only thing you can't take away from a man is his faith and his education... until you kill that man. Which we do on a rather regular basis.

Originally Posted by honedright

Just that whole little thing about "Inalienable rights" is dependent upon a higher power. If there is no higher power, then where'd those so called inalienable rights come from? Who or what gave them to you? And if they didn't come from a higher power, then they aren't really inalienable, are they.

Really, you want to go there? Here's the quote you are referring to:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There is nothing inalienable with 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness', as was demonstrated by the exact same people who wrote those words. Good deal of those same people treated human beings with gender and/or skin color different than theirs as property and livestock, denying them any of those so called rights on a regular basis. They formed governments and their descendants fought bloody war with their fellow citizens just to preserve this oppression.

The only reason people have certain rights is because of the social compact that is being agreed upon. Which has been changing dramatically over the history of humankind as we know it, and thus there is is no evidence for the existence of some absolute 'inalienable rights'.

Even if there are some hypothetical higher power from which some inalienable rights derive, as long as that power is unable to secure them on its own, it is all nothing more than a thought construct with no bearing whatsoever on real life. And if that power was able to secure such rights all of its own, there would not be any need for governments, as the quote continues.

I'm still trying to picture all the kids who want to carry bibles to school and pray. I haven't ever personally met any of those kids.

A Governor making policy based on his personal belief in flying saucers is inappropriate and so to is his belief in miracles, angles, a virgin birth, a 2,000 year old planet, etc.

Some things need to be kept separate much like an insane asylum is kept separate from society at large. It's best for both populations.

Originally Posted by earcutter

Yeah that's all good but you still haven't stated what those rights are! And you can't... because there has never been a right given to any man, that another man hasn't taken away...

The only thing you can't take away from a man is his faith and his education... until you kill that man. Which we do on a rather regular basis.

Pretty bleak picture you paint there.

Originally Posted by gugi

Really, you want to go there? Here's the quote you are referring to:



There is nothing inalienable with 'Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness', as was demonstrated by the exact same people who wrote those words. Good deal of those same people treated human beings with gender and/or skin color different than theirs as property and livestock, denying them any of those so called rights on a regular basis. They formed governments and their descendants fought bloody war with their fellow citizens just to preserve this oppression.

And yet those words were the basis to end those atrocities which still occur in parts of the world where those words have never been honored.