Thread: Separation of Church and...

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 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 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.