emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
The principle of unalienable rights is grounded in the concept that rights are God given and exist prior to formal government. It is the principle that liberty can exist only when people can be who and what they are with impunity short of infringement on the rights of others. It is the right to think, to believe, to profess, to imagine, to envision, to breathe. The Declaration of Independence described it as, among other things, as the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the Constitution condensed that into 'blessings of liberty'.
And it is the concept that an unalienable right is whatever we think, say, want, or do that requires no participation or contribution by any other.
And what if the population has a large segment who does not believe in a Creator? Or that Fate determines what happens to us and what we do is irrelevant?
Could we establish a system of thinking about political/legal ideas that does not make an appeal to a Creator?
I think it is plausible, though I have talked to a number of reasonable atheists on the topic, they don't usually go much further than the 'one shouldn't harm one's neighbor' argument which is too much a matter of convenience, IMO.
I found that even nontheist people who believe in "laws of nature" or "justice"
can agree on how to establish agreement on truth, justice and principles/standards
without referring to the SOURCE of where these laws/truth come from as a
"personified Creator"
You can do as well believing that the laws of science, nature including human nature, and truth were "always self-existent" and look at the world that way. Many Eastern or Earth-based followers of natural laws see the Creator and Creation as one. Where God/Life is "eternal" with "no beginning and no end" or infinite and undefinable by man's limited perception, language and timelines.
We can agree that some people personify the source of creation or universal laws
as a personal God, and some do not see the world that way. Does not have to be
a condition or sticking point.
And everyone is going to have their own languages and terms anyway!
So why insist on one language for all? leave that part to their subgroups when
they work on local interests or issues. Does not have to be a requirement for the
whole group.
Again if we agree on religious freedom and equal inclusion, then ask those
groups to respect and understand that each other has different ways of
talking about the universal laws and principles. we can still agree on what is central.
Last edited: