YOU are the one who seems most "confused", IMO...even though you are a "native citizen". These "rights" that the citizens have can be altered...because the "lawmakers" are more interested in getting REELECTED than they are in preserving whatever "rights" the citizens currently have.

The woman has the right to abort her unborn baby today, but may not have the same right tomorrow...just as the homosexual can get married today, but be denied that "right" some time in the future. The laws play to the prevailing "morality standard" of the time...and "religion" plays a big role in the creation of this "morality standard". Anyone who honestly feels that the "atheists" are not facing a disadvantage in this country today suffers from an advanced case of confusion...IMO. It isn't a stretch, by ANY means, to imagine a scenario where these atheists are considered "enemies of society"...with their "rights" placed in great peril.

There may not be a "religious test" to hold public office...but you can't declare yourself an atheist and win a major election. And that's a troubling development...IMO.

How are you making out on finding all those nasty "misinterpretations" in the OT dealing with the Trinity? Are you having fun, yet, in finding them all?

By the way, one of my neighbors is a cop. The next time I see him, I'm going to have to share with him your moonbat, crazy logic on how multiple sources or multiple counselors mean there is a built-in bias to their testimony, witness or opinion. I'm going to have urge him (in YOUR NAME of course) to quit looking for multiple witnesses when investigating crimes. I'll make sure he understands that the more witnesses he finds, the more biased their reports will be. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :pound::pound::pound: :popcorn:

See my post # 1476 why it is a good thing atheists are not electable. The only way these rights can be altered is if the majority agrees there is no God and thus no inalienable rights.

Besides thask, the legislature cannot legislate the question concerning abortion, it is up to the Supreme Court.

The issue you raise concerns whether or not abortion is an inalienable right and is a much more complex conversation than we can explore in this forum and it is not necessarily a religious discussion., it is a Constitutional law question. A question which the Court may revisit.

Yes, I know many religious people advocate for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade, but there are atheist who disagree with Roe too.

No, that is how,as a self-evident truth, the Declaration of Independence defines the rights, as given to man by his Creator, which means they cannot not be taken away (inalienable) .

The Declaration of Independence was created by self-professed Christians...who felt that they were "men of God" even as they kept slaves as their personal property. Does the word "inalienable" derive its meaning solely from the Declaration of Independence? Where were the "inalienable rights" of their SLAVES? Weren't THEY made by their "Creator" too?

How do you hold steadfastly to the notion of a "Creator"...and yet, teach "evolution" in your schools?

A powerful pro-life case can also be made from Natural Law.

Boy you guys have to make up your minds. You and actor cannot have it both ways Christians and deists. Deism is not the same as Christianity. Also, the majority were Free Masons, who believed the God of the universe is the Great Architect, not necessarily the Christian God. The founding Fathers were also products of the enlightenment, which is not friendly to Christianity.

The founders used the word Creator to refer to God. They gave freedom to worship God, not just freedom to worship the Christian God.

They also, clearly defined that man has inalienable (irrevocable) rights from their Creator and said that this truth is self-evident.

Actor has a problem with the Declaration because it implies a religious connotation. Well that is exactly what the founding Fathers' intended. They stated man was created, with rights by a intelligent being with the power to create life. And they gave the freedom to worship this intelligent Creator being.

Of course the above is opposite of Actor's belief that life is accidental and without purpose. He is at odds with the founding principle of the United States. It looks like you are too.

As well as from the theory of evolution, that is why pro-life atheist exist.

That's funny. The founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves over what has become of their "founding principles" in a mere 241 years...and you are pounding your chest because you are so impressed by those same "founding principles". A bunch of slave-owners who got together to discuss "Life...Liberty...and the pursuit of Happiness". :rolleyes:

Your kids are being taught EVOLUTION in school, SMTW...and you are blaming the ATHEISTS for their "purposeless life-view". "Religion" has become the "Big Hypocrisy"...don't you see that? "Do as I say, and not as I do"...is the most "truthful" religious slogan.

Stating truth is not blaming anyone. Actor believes life is an accident, man has no irrevocable rights, and life has no purpose. Of course philosophy has its version of purposeless life too. So what.

You live in a nation founded by these slave holders, which is not true for all the founding Fathers, based on the idea that man has a Creator. An intelligent Creator who endowed men with irrevocable rights and gave the citizens and residents of this nation the ability to practice freedom of worship to the Creator you believe in. Damn right I am proud of the founding Fathers and what they accomplished. They were men, with faults, but they founded a great nation, with the potential to always be great.

I was taught evolution and I attended Catholic schools. Evolution does not mean life is an accident.

No I don't see religion as a big hypocrisy. Men are fallible and we fail and yes the Church is full of hypocrites, and there is always room for one more. My religion is about transcendence, from imperfection through love, so we can share in the Divine nature.

I've read many of your posts, SMTW...but you still remain a mystery to me. Boxcar's and Actor's position I understand, even if I disagree with it...because they fully explain it, and defend it vigorously. You, on the other hand...like to talk out of both sides of your mouth. You appear to think that "evolution" could somehow fit within the "Christian doctrine".

"Evolution does not mean that life is an accident", you say...as if that's the KEY POINT that the "atheists" make when referencing "evolution". Does "evolution" lend support to the notion of a "Christian God"...and, if not...then, why make the point that "Evolution does not mean life is an accident"?

Stop been overly "worldly"...and choose a side in these arguments. If you are a "Christian"...then you embrace "creationism" and you denounce "evolution". There is no "middle ground" in Christianity. A Christian cannot serve "two masters".

Who gets to define WHO or WHAT "Creator " is...?
Most men I know have 2 creators...their ma and pa...as far as I can tell, no god created me....I am not the offspring of a god(s)...
As far as natural rights go...why don't ALL life have these natural rights...? You mean your Grandiose Oriental Despot plays favorites with his playthings...? Oh my...giving these ones rights but turning his devine backside to his created beetles and bugs....? What a joke...!

The BIBLE...and the Declaration of Independence. :ThmbUp:

Why doesn't evolution fit in with the idea of Christianity? What ever gave you the idea a Christian has to embrace creationism? I understand you hate the Roman Catholic Church (your words), and I have stated the Church's official position on evolution several times before, in the original thread. Evolution is totally compatible with Christianity and is taught in Catholic schools.

The two masters are God or money, not God versus science.

The key point to an atheist is his lack of belief in a Creator and life is an accident.

Our government is a system of elected representatives who are suppose to represent the voter. Why would I or anyone else want to elect a representative who has a conflict with the idea my rights as a citizen are irrevocable and that they can be revoked because there is no Creator (God). That would be plain stupidity.

Actually the practitioner of the religion. I don't understand the difficulty of the concept of freedom to worship. It is easy, if you are Hindu, you worship Hindu gods, Buddhists whatever god your sect worships, etc,