Stop playing politics with human rights

I do like this subject, though I make no claim to be as knowledgeable as some.


With this I cannot agree, I can find no evidence to support that the founders were not devout religious men. The only evidence I can find to the reasoning behind the "separation of church and state" is that the people in the USA at that time comprised of numerous different religious followings and the fledgling government did not want any future government to impose a religious following onto it's people .. in fact the first recorded idea of a seperation of church and state is mentioned in 1657  by a group of English citizens in America who were affronted by persecution of Quakers and the religious policies of the Governor of New Netherland, Peter Stuyvesant. Stuyvesant had formally banned all religions other than the Dutch Reformed Church from being practiced in the colony, in accordance with the laws of the Dutch Republic. The signers indicated their "desire therefore in this case not to judge lest we be judged, neither to condemn least we be condemned, but rather let every man stand or fall to his own Master." Stuyvesant fined the petitioners and threw them in prison until they recanted. However, John Bowne allowed the Quakers to meet in his home. Bowne was arrested, jailed, and sent to the Netherlands for trial; the Dutch court exonerated Bowne.

Given the wide diversity of opinion on Christian theological matters in the newly independent American States, the Constitutional Convention believed a government sanctioned (established) religion would disrupt rather than bind the newly formed union together.

This in no way alludes to any of the founders not being followers of their own religion, but only that they were wise enough to see that trying to enforce a statewide religion would have disrupted the newly formed union, perhaps even to the point of it falling apart.



To take a step back to the DOI, the creator used in it, to me, is the embodiment of any and all God's regardless of the one each person worships. There were few, if any, atheist or agnostic people at that time so to extrapolate that the "creator" doesn't have religious teachings just doesn't fit with what is known of that period. I cannot think of a single prominent religion of that time that does not adhere to a "god"-like supreme being and all that-that embodies.
I feel that the creator usage is more to do with enveloping all the religious beliefs of that time in the US so none would be alienated and create difficulties for the fledgling United States. ie it was a political decision, not one brought about by any rejection of religious teachings.

Can you provide any links to show that the founders rejected religious teachings?


I understand the difference .. however that simple does not work with the right to life, if I take away or violate your right to life then you are dead .. dead people do not have rights and so you have lost the right to life, legally and physically. The right to life is therefore not Inviolable.



If I kill you then for you the existence of the right to life does not exist anymore, other people can judge on your behalf, but nothing they do can return the right to life to you and neither will you care one way or another. Any other rights I can see your point and agree, however the right to life (or right to self) is as you said the fundamental first right from which all other rights come into existence. If that first right can be removed, which it can, and as far as you are concerned it's existence is gone then all other rights fail.


This is confusing a physical action with a physiological belief (sorry I may have added to that confusion) one is measurable the other is not.
To your quarks analogy, a right is different from a law of nature because a right is a protected option not a diktat. A right to life does not mean that one will live, it means that one’s life is protected. However, a law of nature is only a law of nature because it is a diktat and is always true. Hence, E cannot have a right to equal mc2 since it always does, and hence why quarks have always existed, they do not require a right to exist, they always have whether we have had knowledge of them or not, the same cannot be said for the right to life or right to self.

Natural Rights may be conferred by ‘Nature’ herself – an idea implied by the term ‘Natural Rights’. Before proceeding, it is important to understand exactly what is meant by ‘Nature’. It is simply the whole universe, excluding any Supreme Beings that might exist. Nature is this self-perpetuating construct that can never be destroyed, except by a supra- Natural Supreme Being. Hence, in order to discover whether Natural Rights have been conferred by Nature, one must ask if there is anything that can be deduced from the workings of Nature that indicates a morality? Aristotle argues in Book 1 of Politics that “Nature does nothing in vain” and few would doubt that there is order in Nature. This does not, however, imply that there is a morality or ethical structure within the natural world. Nature certainly works in accordance with the laws of natural science but, as demonstrated earlier, scientific laws cannot be equated with rights. Nature must have morality to be able to confer rights.

Darwin in The Descent of Man and On the Origin of Species proposes and produces empirical evidence to support the claim that the natural world is based on survival of the fittest through Natural Selection. This suggests that the natural world is entirely amoral and that the only inherent and fundamental – that is, Natural – principle is that of survival. Obviously, Darwin’s work is only theory based on fact and not fact itself. This implies that, just as with a Supreme Being, it is exceedingly difficult to prove that Nature is essentially amoral. However, if one accepts what is currently the most likely explanation of the facts, then it implies that the natural world cannot have conferred any Natural Rights except, arguably, a right to survive. This is arguable because whilst it is true that the natural world enshrines the desire to survive in its structure, it is difficult to claim that the natural world did so based on a moral or ethical value judgement. Nature is a only quasi-living organism which, although containing sentient life within it, is not truly sentient itself.

Furthermore, since rights are based on moral value-judgements they cannot be the same as factual scientific laws. Molecules have no morality.

Can you show that the right to life or right to self is based in factual scientific laws?

Then in this matter I bow to a better, knowledgeable person .. with having learned something along the way as well .... however, I still don't see ANY right as inalienable