Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (17634)	1/30/2002 4:14:26 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

There is something very wrong with the above sentence, but I can't figure out whether it's logical or grammatical, but it's nonsensical. Depends on if one is an atheist, or like the founding fathers of this country, believers in a divine creator. If you're an atheist, then human rights can only logically be those that one claims for themselves as being a right that SHOULDN'T be taken away. If you believe in a supreme being, those rights were granted to you by God as way of your creation. IOW, the rights God bestows upon his creation cannot be taken away by mankind (which has no authority to overrule the will of its creator). Since some Americans are atheists, their rights only derive as part of their human will, to be bestowed or taken away as they see fit. If the rights derive from God, then those rights might be "disrepected(sic)", or denied to an individual by other people, but that does not override the authority of a supreme being's will towards its creations. But for all practical purposes, human rights are inalienable because we, as Americans hold such a belief. If mankind is responsible for granting human rights, then it is capable of taking them away, thus, making them alienable, not inalienable. Hawk