[Rachel Bronwyn]

Originally Posted by kia252

I suppose I decided on the qualifier of "if properly done" to allow the ground that some men are not so just, and that there must always be due vigilance that they not undermine the efforts of man to secure its own rights.

This is why the government is obliged to listen and respond to us based on what we have to say, not what they or jeebus think. As sodacat said, "The problems arise when government starts listening to a small number of men while still enforcing itself on all men" OR when the government starts listening to no one at all or refers to religious scripture for answers.

How the hell is the government or gawd supposed to know what's best for anyone else without listening? God doesn't even talk to people so how the government could know definitively how to he feels, I don't know. The fact remains, our species is the deciding factor regarding what is right and wrong for our species. That includes how our government, an extension of us, is conducted. That's "government done properly"; a government that listens to the people.

Originally Posted by DalekSec

My point is that words mean things and ideas matter. While I am not a Christian, Jew or Muslim (Or much else than a confused possible Pagan or Militant Amish PERHAPS), the removal of the divine has consequences.

ZOMG, conducting one's behaviour based on what one can confirm exists? That's just bananas!

Every nation that founds law based on human intellect is due some great floods and famines and PLAGUES!

Wait a tick. Nations like Sweden and the Netherlands are very areligious. They rank extremely high in human development and output.

One of which is to remove the very source (As the Founding Father recognized it and TERMED it) of all the rights we enjoy.

Utter horseshit.

This notion was based on their conviction, not any amount of evidence of a big guy upstairs. The fact your founding fathers believed something irrational with conviction does not make it true.

Yes, one can rightly argue that codified law is codified law and even if we remove all references to the divine, or outlaw religion all together, it is still, codified law.

It stands for all the same things when you remove gawd from the equation too, without infringing on a person's right to reject the notion of anything supernatural.

However, what is that codified law regarding rights based on at that point? Aside from our desire to believe we still enjoy rights endowed to us by nothing in particular.

Rights are enforced by law, which is created by us. That's why laws are to be challenged.

Throughout the human experience, it became pretty obvious to our species that working together was to our benefit. We're self interested creatures. We want what's best for us as an individual.

Progress doesn't come without cooperation. Cooperation doesn't exist without everyone being granted certain respects by everyone else. No one is inclined to work with the dude who raped their wife or a puppy killer. Killing co-workers makes synergy hard to attain and stunts output.

With this conclusion, our particular society decided what our rights are.

Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Some people are, however, short sighted and selfish and don't pick up on how cooperation and respect for others will benefit them. They believe it is to their best interest to take as they please as it immediately sates their self interest.

This is why governments exist. They protect the freedoms and rights of the individuals within their region and enforce behaviours by which to ensure this. The rights themselves, however, remain the product of the human experience and something a society decides upon for themselves.

Lastly, and here is where it gets rather icky for many, once you remove ?Creator? from the equation, the only possible sources of our rights are nature (Which tends to be silent) and Govt. (Which tends to be not so silent) . You have then, replaced the Creator (God) with Govt. Spooky don?t you think?

No, I don't think it's spooky because it's illogical. The government is made up of people who are a representation of us. We decide what our rights and freedoms are through experience and our inherent selfishness as human beings and those of us in government enforce them if they are accepted by the vast majority of us.

Unlike god, the government is influenced and changes it's tune based on the evolving beliefs and desires of the people it's created to protect.