Man, if he is anything intrinsically, is not democratic. Morals are inter-subjective, but not subject to a consensus as you claim, but instead subject to the whimsy of the willful, the coercion of large groups setting the norm, historical contingencies, etc. Even the intention of morality changes, to bring peace, to evoke fear, to maintain control, to set standards, to emulate God, to get at the truth, etc. Rights are a concept set up to protect us from the whimsical nature of morality. They act as fences, encircling the cages bull we call morality.
Thankfully, for some of us, overcoming the obviously primitive concepts of morality and human rights is easy in this modern day and age. Our language has advanced far enough at this point where we can even start to discribe accurate models for pain and humiliation. Morals are out the window for most people, even people who might still profess morality never once make decisions inspired by morality--- I know I don't, I'm not a fucking moron. We can now eloquently describe and fulfill our intentions with morality through simple lawfulness and pragmatism. The archaic times are soon to be behind us, despite how much cow-towing man does to the church he does not think the same as he once did, even the church is losing its power. (I mean, we've been to space and split an atom, I think we've demonstrated the uselessness of idol worship.

I am a hell of a lot smarter than you T-shirt boy.

The Fouding Fathers were calling these rights inalienable . . . . look up what inalienable means.

Again, you don't have to agree with me or the Founding Fathers.

Not only do I not have to agree with you I am emphatically insisting that your perspective is fucking retarded, and perhaps so too were the misgiving philosophies of some of our founding fathers. They didn't have Wittgenstein, whats your excuse?

You tell me I am incorrect, and then go on to prove my point?
That doesn't make sence at all.

i was simply disagreeing with one aspect of it... dont be butt hurt

My 'perspective' as you call it is from understanding what the word inalienable means, what our Founding Fathers said, and what document we get our rights from. Not my fault if you know none of this.

The only rights a person has are those which he is willing to defend.

Our Founding Fathers were, almost to the last man, either Enlightenist rational thinkers, or Evangical Christians. To the last man, they realized exactly what occurs when the institutions of religion and governement are allowed to intermix.

This is why our Founding Documents, the Articles of Confederation and our Constitution, are completly secular in nature, and especially in the latter case, strove to build that wall of seperation between church and state within the Establishment Clause.

This is why "inalienable rights" does not appear within the Constitution.

Sorry Dom, the Declaration of Independance simply is NOT a founding document, or even a legal US document. It is a colonial document and no more "founding" then the Mayflower Compact, an important historical document to be sure, but one that has no bearings on our laws or government

We have at least one inalienable right, the right of choice (laws are only incentives and rules), to choose to love or hate, to obey or disobey, to believe or disbelieve, to live or die, on and on and on. No man, no man made law can take away your right of choice.

__________________
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes, that he also believes to be true. " Demosthenes

That is rich... Dom calling someone else dumb!!!! BWAAHAHAHHAHAH... By the way dommy boy you have proven time and time again that you know LITTLE about the founding fathers, so shut up and let grown folks talk.

__________________
BuildtheDream.org