How do you understand inalienable rights, endowed by a Creator, without believing in a Creator?

Question

Serious thoughtful answers, please. This is important to me.

Answer 1

Belief in unalienable rights and belief in a Creator go hand in hand. One cannot exist without the other - practically. Our founding fathers understood this, who were overwhelmingly creationists, of course.
With this document, they were freeing themselves from a monarchy where a human King decided the rights of the people. In other systems of government, the rights of the people are decided by the dictator, the oligarchy, or majority vote. In a pure democracy, the majority can vote to kill the minority, and nothing can stop them.
The wisdom of the founders of the US was impeccable. They understood that in order for humans to have rights beyond that which might be granted by man, they must be endowed by a higher power. Without the endowment of that higher power, the existence of any rights lie at the mercy of the opinion of whoever happens to be strongest at the time. Thus, "might makes right."
Marx knew that you could never enslave a Bible-reading-believing people. That is why the Bible and its adherents must be eradicated when you plan to eradicate rights. This is also why the current system progressing more and more toward socialism/communism is trying to push the Bible out of prominence. In order to have an all-cooperative world government, headed by the UN, people's rights are going to have to go. It's funny however, that the legislation that demolishes humans rights is almost always done in the name of providing rights or preserving rights. We must be smarter than such foolery.

Answer 2

The right of people to enjoy the protection of the constitution and law is paramount to running a society .
God or no God people must have certain freedoms or rather guarantees that their life is somewhat within their own control .

That people can not make accusations against them alone that would have them removed from society .

I remember a trend that women began using some years ago during divorce proceedings to keep the husbands away from the kids and them and increase the chance of getting more and that was to accuse them of molesting the kids .

In 99% of cases where it was charged that the husband might have been abusing the kids it was found that no such evidence of those charges could be supported .

Forget a creator and get down to the simple facts .

If you have people believing that they can be pulled off the streets and jailed then you run the risk of people who become more open to killing . Is this what we want .

I man fearing that his wife could simply claim he molested the kids and then even convince the kids that it had happened and he could go to prison for a long time and run the risk of being killed by inmates who hate molesters .

They would resort to killing the wife . Or how about a boss that could accuse you of stealing rather then just fire you .
Maybe a woman you date has a friend and to get even she accuses you of rape . The two of them use a large vibrator and cause some temporary damage and she claims you used a condom . Well investigation and evidence would possibly get you out of this if no evidence is found linking you like say some of you skin cells on her pubic hair or signs of the condoms particular lubrication and several other items that can break open these lies and show you are innocent .

If you do not provide equal protection and rights under the law to all people you have ended for ever the notion of a free society .

Answer 3

This is a self-contradicting question. If you don't believe in a creator, how can you say that rights are 'endowed by a creator'. Either they are endowed by a creator - or you don't believe in a creator. You can't have both.

As to inalienable rights, if you don't believe in a creator, then these 'rights' are basic human rights - the right to live, the right to hold opinions of your own, the right to have enough to eat and drink. Most other 'rights' are down to the society in which you live. They have nothing to do with any 'creator'. I think you'll find that rights 'endowed by a creator' are actually rights endowed by people who claim to speak on a 'creator's behalf - clergy etc, and are basically laws that they think they should impose on the rest of the population.

Answer 4

Apparently, to some who don't believe in a Creator, the notion of the Creator is created, and the rights to believe in a Creator are not a good thing.

But, as for me, this is hard to answer, as I've always believed in a Creator, even before I came to know the Creator.

As an aside, as you know my insurance background, I've wondered if someone who does not believe in God, files an insurance claim for an Act of God, does coverage apply?

Answer 5

If your rights are not endowed by a Creator but by government, then government can diminish or abolish them. There must be an objective basis for those rights - that is, not determined by humanity. Whether you believe in that Creator is irrelevant to your having those rights. That was one of the primary functions of the religion clause in the first amendment. The rights were acknowledged as being given by God, but no-one was compelled to worship God in any manner proscribed by the state.
Hope that makes sense.

Answer 6

You would have to understand the purpose of values than. Why they are beneficial.
Millions consider the moral standards taught (through history (or God)) to be trustworthy and relevant to life in our modern world. Many discovered that learning to live according to morals made their life happier and can adjust easier to problems we face even today.
What are those morals-inalienable right,-- to be able to live righteously- to do justly -to be done to justly- to know right from wrong.To follow that path . To know others will follow that path and not be a harm to you. (Which is why we have laws) And want to be the best you can.---It has beneifits to you and othes! How can you go wrong when you weigh the two ways to live your life out. Most people want a better life. So no matter how we have the rights we have--we want the best that life can offer--there is only one way. Right is right -wrong is wrong. I think we were given a brain to figure which is which without making excuses. Seems many want to make excuses though--but that is another topic

Answer 7

I can be an agnostic and still recognize a good thing when I see one. I don't believe in THE creator, but I don't disbelieve either. It can stay mysterious.
But I do think there is something sanctified in our Declaration of Independence. I defend and believe in the Constitution but there is no religious aspect to this for me. I am OK with this.

Answer 8

Simply believing in a "creator" would only categorize one as a deist, and as such, there would be no conflict with this question.

If your question was intended for atheists, fine.

Otherwise, one does not have to be a Protestant in order to endorse the Constitution.

Answer 9

In the absence of a Creator, inalienable right would be solely dependent upon survival of the fittest, from birth onto death.

Answer 10

What a creative question!!

I believe that a creator created the bill of rights, and the declaration of indepence.

I understand that my Creator is the true Creator, and yours is false.