Atheist's Inalienable Rights

[ZNFYRH]

I wasn't sure if this belonged in Politics or Religion.

If you believe the concept of "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence, can you also be an atheist?

Specifically, those rights are inalienable because they were endowed by our Creator. So if you don't believe there was a Creator, where does that leave you?

[Jamesmckinnley]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I wasn't sure if this belonged in Politics or Religion. If you believe the concept of "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence, can you also be an atheist? Specifically, those rights are inalienable because they were endowed by our Creator. So if you don't believe there was a Creator, where does that leave you?

Why couldnt you? For instance it might have been written that way but as every single christian I have the (displeasure) to know can tell you its all about translation, mostly theirs.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I wasn't sure if this belonged in Politics or Religion. If you believe the concept of "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence, can you also be an atheist? Specifically, those rights are inalienable because they were endowed by our Creator. So if you don't believe there was a Creator, where does that leave you?

It leaves me under the same law that all of my fellow countrymen live under.


I hope you're not suggesting that we should live under different laws than the "self professed" religious people.


It seems to me that the word "creator" was used mainly to get the support for the constitution from the religious people of the time. Sadly, they seemed a group that needed to be pandered to then, as they are now. ( Which in itself is kind of strange if you ask me.)

[ZNFYRH]

Recently, someone on VC wrote that those rights are inalienable because they were endowed by our Creator.

Which led me to wonder what someone thinks about that statement if they don't believe in a Creator.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Recently, someone on VC wrote that those rights are inalienable because they were endowed by our Creator. Which led me to wonder what someone thinks about that statement if they don't believe in a Creator.

Seems to me that some people change their minds aboout the existance of a creator on a fairly regular basis.


I know I have been on both sides of the fence at different points in my life.



While it is not hard for me to imagine being excluded form things for my beliefs, ( it happens already in the corporate world ) I don't think we need another Divide, annd Conquer routine to be played out in the US. We are already divided, and conquered.

[ZNFYRH]

I agree, but I'm not talking about a division of rights.

I'm talking about the apparent hypocrisy of someone saying they believe rights are inalienable but they don't believe in a Creator.

[Jamesmckinnley]

How is that hypocrisy?
Its humanism.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I wasn't sure if this belonged in Politics or Religion. If you believe the concept of "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence, can you also be an atheist? Specifically, those rights are inalienable because they were endowed by our Creator. So if you don't believe there was a Creator, where does that leave you?

Great Idea for philosophy or for the "human rights" forums, also poltical of course.

I think that the document was partly written so that it would be read by those over in England who claimed (at that time) that parts of the east coast belonged to the British, subject to their laws and supervision.

Being that England was influenced by the church of England those who drafted the document wanted to suggest that they were conducting the revolution and dratfing the document by a higher authority (Creator) rather then just for economical reasons, etc. To impress the British that they were therefore justified to do so.

They declaired in effect a "holy war". Which was in conformity with the traditional reasons for wars or land grabs.

Although the "God of nature" left open some room for expanding upon how England interpreted the word "Creator". (we have had that debate).

The documents were also written for those who had taken up residence here. Many who grew up in England were still believers in the Bristish religions and so the forefathers of those documents wanted to insure that the Chruch of England would not influence the politics here, or that areas here would not be ruled over by simular religious dogmas, but would be ruled only by the government the forefathers were creating.
Meaning that state government would not be controlled by the local religions that concentrated in a given area as the majority.

Although most of the originals who wrote the documents visioned that the country would be supervised by the intellectuals and those who could estabish the philosophy embodied in the laws in a wise, fair, and reasonable manner - logically. Or by whatever it is that inspired or created logical intellecturalism. The poltical ideas would be presented for peer review by the other intellectuals (educated men of good standing) and then, voted on. They expected that the farmers and others would vote for people who already were in good standing as educated leaders of the society, to represent them in the formulation of those laws and related political philosophies.

That is my personal persepective of the background for your question.

It is absolutly clear that the God of Moses who said "worship god with all your heart and soul" is not going to driect people to say "worship as you please, or don't bother to conform if you prefer". That would conflict with most of the Bible teachings. On the other hand they did not outlaw religion as Stalin did. Or even the "God of nature spiritualism" spoke about in some of the books which were being newly published back then.

If I may use a qoute from the lastest metaphysical movie "Ghost Rider" - re: "You can make a choice in life or let life make that choice for you"
Vote or don't vote.

Needless to say the Atheists play an important role in our society to insure we are never gain ruled over by a dominate religion. That is important, as long as they allow non-leaders to do "whatever" via a kind of "live and let live" attitude, as long as the non-leaders do not try to force their beliefs upon everyone else so that they in effect take on the nature of leadership.

So you have the right to take a black marker and to cross out the "religious sounding words" in your copy of those documents and to insert more secular concepts. Why? Because the Consitution said so.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Jamesmckinnley How is that hypocrisy? Its humanism.

Welcome to Volconvo.

It's hypocrisy in the idea that an Atheist believes rights to be inalienable, yet what it was that made those rights inalienable is something they don't believe in.

How can you believe your rights were endowed by the Creator if you don't believe in a Creator?

Quote by: Technosoul That is my personal persepective of the background for your question.

I agree. Involving God makes it seem mandated, somehow.

To answer both of you, one "out" I saw for the Atheist is that they were created by their parents, not God. As such, they are endowed the right to life by their mother when she chose to carry the baby, for example.

[Zhavric]

1) The Declaration of Independence, while a document of monumental importance, is not the law of the land. The Constitution is.

2) On the issue of god and the Constitution:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

3) Remember the audience of the Declaration of Independence. It was intended to be a rallying call to Americans, but it was also going to England which did have a state religion.

4) There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution suggesting those who don't believe in a creator are exempt from having rights. (There are in other governing documents which is horrible)

5) I know you're trying to spark debate, but imagine the precedent you're setting. "If so and so doesn't believe such and such then some law doesn't apply to them." While I can think of a few exceptions* that's almost never the case especially for rights / protections.



*The only thing that comes close is consciencious objectors not having to fight in wars.

[Jamesmckinnley]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Welcome to Volconvo

Thanks.

Quote by: ZNFYRH How can you believe your rights were endowed by the Creator if you don't believe in a Creator?

The correct question is how can you? I believe in no higher power, and no universal truth. I do however feel that humanisticly speaking we must grant certain (as they stated) unalienable rights. I do not believe that they were granted by a creator.

Besides since when did anyone in the United States actually believe this drivel? It has been over 200 years and amazingly people still fight for their rights DAILY. Amazing really.

[Jamesmckinnley]

Quote by: Zhavric 4) There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution suggesting those who don't believe in a creator are exempt from having rights. (There are in other governing documents which is horrible) .

Well put, awesome.

As for the last section in (para) it is absolutely correct and truly unfortunate. The good thing is most if not all of those documents (federal not state) are very recent and a direct result of the (wave) reformation movement of the mid to late 40's and on into the early 60's.
Basically they are changeable! (want to vote people?)

[ZNFYRH]

Jamesmckinnley

I don't believe they were endowed by a Creator, either. Never have. But as I wrote before, I'm not saying there are groups of people for who these rights shouldn't apply.

I'm wondering about the dichotomy. You explained your stance on it, and I understand it.

[arielmessenger]

have the inalienable right to be stupid just like everyone else who makes their obsession, in this case denial of "God", a religiously pursued mindset and behavior pattern.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Welcome to Volconvo. It's hypocrisy in the idea that an Atheist believes rights to be inalienable, yet what it was that made those rights inalienable is something they don't believe in. How can you believe your rights were endowed by the Creator if you don't believe in a Creator? I agree. Involving God makes it seem mandated, somehow. To answer both of you, one "out" I saw for the Atheist is that they were created by their parents, not God. As such, they are endowed the right to life by their mother when she chose to carry the baby, for example.

I think that the fact that you have life, and are here living that life, is what gives us those rights, Often, religions, governments, or peer groups (even parents) will try to control how we live the life we got. But it is our life and not theirs and that is reflected in the "pursuit of life, liberty, and happyness". But we got life and do not have to seek it, what we seek is that right to live that natural life in a way that is liberated from those who try to make life unhappy for us. Who try to force us to "live the right life" when we believe we can live our life from out of our personal understanding and reasoning abilities. Abilities that normally manifest at some stage of maturity. A coming of age right - no more Nanny, independant and liberated.

Like in that song by the English group called the "Animals". "It's my life and I'll do (with it) what I want". That is the "right" of life. Of course we must not live that life in a way that prevents another form doing the same with their life. And that is the "tricky part" when we dwell close to one another.

[Jamesmckinnley]

Quote by: arielmessenger have the inalienable right to be stupid just like everyone else who makes their obsession, in this case denial of "God", a religiously pursued mindset and behavior pattern.

Sad, after all I am not attempting anything other than the defense of my right to decide to think without some gay, drug using, preacher telling me how too.


All you have to do is actually prove your assertion god exists or do one better. Never attempt to argue the myth again.

[Jamesmckinnley]

Quote by: ZNFYRH ] I'm wondering about the dichotomy. You explained your stance on it, and I understand it.

Gotcha that makes sense!~

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: ZNFYRH I wasn't sure if this belonged in Politics or Religion. If you believe the concept of "inalienable rights" in the Declaration of Independence, can you also be an atheist? Specifically, those rights are inalienable because they were endowed by our Creator. So if you don't believe there was a Creator, where does that leave you?

Nature can be a creator. The suffix "er/or" implies something that operates, not exclusively a being.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: ZNFYRH Welcome to Volconvo. It's hypocrisy in the idea that an Atheist believes rights to be inalienable, yet what it was that made those rights inalienable is something they don't believe in. How can you believe your rights were endowed by the Creator if you don't believe in a Creator?.

The Founding Fathers agreed on that language not me.


My birth right grants me the same liberties it grants any other American born here.


This flaw in their logic ( which again, I reiterate which was caused by pandering to the religious ) still should not preclude us from the using the pholosophies they actually did get right.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Nature can be a creator. The suffix "er/or" implies something that operates, not exclusively a being.

Yeah, and what he said.