What part of “The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant” do you not understand?
But Jefferson did not believe in an interventionist god, so his god would not have directly given us rights. Rights would ensue from being created as human beings. If Jefferson lived today, I am sure that he would extend this to say that the rights we have are a result of the intelligence and self-awareness we evolved. If we can understand the lack of rights, then we have the basic rights.
Sorry, that ain’t the way it works around here. You make a claim, you back it up. That’s not doing “homework” for someone, that’s debating.
If you can’t or won’t do that, then… Buh-bye!
The SCOTUS is a group of people, appointed by people who were elected by people, with the advice and consent of some other people elected by people, according to the constitution and other laws written and ratified by people. Where does something else besides people come in? I’m not talking about the possibility that non-people show up some day and give us some rights, or take some away. I don’t see any evidence that anything but people have provided or removed rights since this nation was formed. So I don’t have any reason to wonder where the rights came from. They came from the people. And they don’t have to come from anywhere else.
You said “anything but the people”. The SCOTUS isn’t “the people”.
And there is a reason I didn’t write “the legislature”. I think it would be fair to call the legislature “the people”, since they are our direct representatives. We vote them in, and we can vote them out.
But not the SCOTUS. Not a group that is appointed for life.
OK, I’ll amend my contention to state that nothing but SCOTUS’ and people provide and remove rights. I don’t see your distinction though, because the SCOTUS is people who were appointed by people who were elected by people who could change how people become the SCOTUS. But there have been no other sources of rights since this nation was founded. No gods, no oracles, no aliens, no aeronautic pasta collosi. And there doesn’t have to be any other source.
If I believed that, why should I care about your rights? Or those of anyone I don’t know?
Or, that right is unrecognized and persistently trampled upon.
That’s really unfair. It’s true that some Founders defended the institution of slavery; others condemned it. The Constitution initially permitted the institution to continue, yes–but so what? The Constitution as initially written (nor at any time since) was not a perfect document, and the Founders knew it. They knew that it was only a legal construction, a product of committee and compromise and the human limitations of its writers. No doubt they felt they had done a pretty good job, all things considered–but a process was built in for the revisions to come.
I think if you look at the history of this country you’ll see that for much of our history certain people did not have unalienable rights, no equal rights. That is still true today. So, while those rights may exist out there some where on some esoteric level we haven’t made them a reality.
The good news IMO is that we are still working on it. In better words then I could mange, it’s here
The work of perfecting that union goes on. But it is we the people who have to claim and defend those rights, not only for ourselves, but for those who still do not enjoy equal rights.
Could you be more specific please? Do you mean the founders interpretation? Do you mean the founders are the human beings that tell us what rights we should have? So, we’re not missing any?
Do you think what was agreed on then needs to flexible in a changing world?
If God gives us our rights, then why does He hand them out so randomly? Why did God decide that American have a right to bear arms but Canadians do not? Why didn’t God give American women the right to vote until 1920? Why did God decide to give British women some limited voting rights in 1918 and then drop property and age restrictions in 1928? Did God decide to lower the voting age to 18 in 1971? Did God give us the right to religious freedom, including the right to not believe in him?
It depends on your theory. Under a natural law theory the inalienable rights that people have they have always had, whether or not they are recognized under law. It only became self evident that all white men with property had them during the Enlightenment, and as time has gone by it expanded to pretty much everybody. Even now we are seeing that more and more people are accepting that there is no logical reason why gay people cannot marry.
But that’s my point - those rights come from us, not God.
There were white women and black slaves in 1791 that would disagree with this.
The fact that we’ve made several (major) adjustments since then is evidence that it hadn’t been resolved.
Well, if they’re a legal construction, there’s a built in disincentive for you to not care about them. 
This.
If God had made some statements (e.g., in the Bible) that explicitly pointed out that people have certain rights, then there might be something to debate. Instead, what we have is people pointing out certain rights, and attributing them to God.
I have a hard time accepting that argument. To me an unknown right is a nonexistent right. So is a theoretical right.
Were slaves actually free but just trapped in a situation where nobody recognized their freedom? How is that any different from saying they were actually slaves?
If I confiscate people’s firearms can I still claim that they have a right to own them? If I cancel elections can I claim that people still have a right to vote? That these rights still exist even if I’m preventing people from exercising them?
To me a right only exists if it has some functional reality. A right has to have an effect on the way people live. Otherwise it’s not a right, it’s just a hypothetical opinion.
I’ve long felt we are all connected in some way, like cells in the same human body. We function better when we realize that and stop fighting. That led me through Christianity to a more general spirituality, so I have to aversion to belief. I don’t like the dogmatic versions. Still, lets try this as a concept.
Evolution moved us to survive and through a tribal period. As the centuries passed a new seed began to grow in our evolutionary pattern. The awareness that we are all one tribe and there’s no logical reason to constantly separate ourselves by race and religion for the purpose of conquest for available resources. This part of our evolved selves tells us that we need to work toward is spreading the one tribe concept in order to prosper and live in peace and safety as a race of beings.
So, I guess I’m suggesting that these unalienable rights we are talking about are really an evolutionary pull towards reason and survival through removing violence and conquest as a part of our makeup.
Of course this often conflicts with our lingering tribal selves and the natural instinct for survival when we are attacked.
That’s one of the historic documents I meant. Couldn’t remember their names or dates.
You are under no obligation to care about them, but you may find yourself facing legal consequences if you violate someone’s rights. How you feel about them is of no consequence, though.
The inconsistencies are in our human behavior as we find reasons to not extend the spirit of those founding principles to everyone equally.
You should be aware that people here aren’t going to read thousands of pages to check your conclusions. A couple of things trouble me,
from the web site you linked to;
1766? that’s about 30 years before the date you gave,and doesn’t seem to involve our founding fathers. . The statement that if we lose faith that our rights come from God we lose the basis of our greatness is troublesome. We have a very diverse society with many religions and a lot of people who do not believe in any god. We can make our judgement based on certain principles laid out in the Bill of Rights but belief on them coming from God is not required is it?
The founders couldn’t even conceive of the world we live in today. We can value the principles set forth , and work to live up to them , but science and a changing society presents new challenges in interpreting how those rights are applied in day to day life. It’s the principles themselves which we hold as valuable not necessarily what they thought about them Their society was much different and we owe them no particular allegiance.
It’s fine that such is your belief. That’s not the theory of natural law however. In the instance of slavery, people have the right to be free, regardless of whether that right has been discovered or is honored or dishonored. They were just doing it wrong and violating natural law. The Dec of Indp is pretty clear that they were referring to concepts of natural law.