You may assert that <"rights"> - of morality, freedom etc.- are granted by deity(creator), and yet those "rights", have always been always been meted out by man in application to humans, no?If rights come from men, they are at the discretion of men, to be assigned arbitrarily, or taken away.
Certainly. The "deity", has obviously decided that those rights it asserts to men are non existent when a Grizzly Bear is present.The ways that would be worse are obvious and unlimited.
The "rights" of the Grizzly are of paramount importance, then. He gets his way, his morality prevails, and his decision overrules man.
Unless man decides to fight for his rights, which is what has always been the case with man it seems.
Or the Grizzly, or any superior predator. That deity you speak of has obviously decided the most capable predator in any given situation has the most important, assertable or prevalent rights.For one example, certain men could justify the right of enslaving other men by their position as a priveliged class of men.
A natural disaster even enters into the equation for this purpose. The deity appears ambiguous or capricious in application of what the deity incorporates...errrrr...doesn' t incorporate as far as any guarantee is concerned.
Whatever that is.
The deity must want competition. The deity must prefer conflict resolution as the means for rights and codes of morality to prevail.It is the inherent nature of the rights of all men that preclude this.
"Security under our constitution is given to the rights of conscience and private judgment. They are by nature subject to no control but that of Deity, and in that free situation they are now left."
-Chief Justice John Jay
The term, "creator", is vague and up for subjective interpretation.Lost in this discussion is the initial point - creation by a Creator is, factually, the basis asserted by the founders for our rights - including those protected in the Constitution.
What is it? Deism? Another concept? How can you believe in something for which, by the very nature of what is purported to be, is based upon no evidence?
I don't think belief or assertion qualifies as evidence.
Yeah.What that means is a different argument than whether it is, indeed, the basis.
Subjectively applied by whomever it may be, at that moment.