reply to post by madnessinmysoul
Nope, doesn't look like the word "inalienable" appears in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
But, if you know anything at all about the founding fathers you'd know they believed whole heartedly in "natural law." So when something is said to
be from "god" or granted by "god" whatever "god" is is completely moot. It has absolutely nothing to do with religion or christians or muslims
or any other chanting, praying, tithing or exploding people.
The very fact that you exist at all and have the desire for self-preservation means that you have a "natural" right or "god" given right to
preserve the self. No man or government may take your "self" away.
That is a "god" given or "natural" right.
The moment some goofus brings religion into it a entire parade of goofi is not long to follow suit then we somehow end up going from a people
functioning on the principles of "natural law" stating in the nations founding document that the fed cannot trample on our basic right to exist and
defend that existence and cross into some idiotic tirade about how religion and government and christmas trees on the town green are hurting some
person's feelings or offending their personal beliefs. Last time I checked we all have a right to exist but not one of us has some magical right to
not have our feelings hurt.
All you fundies need to stop and all of you anti-god folks need to give it a rest as well. What does either one of you have to gain from it? Pissing
off some other guy? Seriously?
I only say this because your little
where are you getting that the rights in the secular nation of the USA come from god
seen lines like this over and over and over and over and over....... and the mind behind it is always the same. A one track line on course to hate on
any presence of "religion" no matter how obscure the reference, how literally or figuratively you have to take it, above all else bash religion.
What does it get you?
Never mind, that's an entirely different thread.
No, inalienable doesn't appear in either document but given that the political and philosophical mindset of every one of those involved with the
founding of this nation it is safe to assume both documents were written in the spirit of "natural law" and as such the rights (not granted by but
specifically protected by) these documents are "inalienable."
Then there's the whole
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
bit that makes the presence or absence of the
word "inalienable" rather moot.
[edit on 30-11-2007 by thisguyrighthere]