Dr. Jones,
Thanks for reviving this discussion. I am still moved with sorrow, anger, and determination when I hear so many people regecting Thomas Jefferson's conclusion on this topic.
So, I'll chime in, even though I am straying slightly from you original question.
CZ-75 wrote:
"Like religion, I don't think that we are going to find a universal truth that is going to define rights for everyone."
I would argue that just because not everyone will agree to an idea, that doesn't mean it is not still truth.
-many did not agree that the world was round, but it was TRUE
-many did not agree that there were little thingies in our bodies making us sick, but it was TRUE
-many did not believe that Jews were being exterminated in Germany, but it was TRUE
-not everyone believed that blacks are just as human as whites, but it was TRUE
-not everyone believes that Jesus, or Muhammad, or any other religious figure was really the TRUE messenger of God, but if, when we die, one of them greets us on the other side, we will find out his message was TRUE.
The reason it is so difficult to find a definition of rights that depends in some way on the actions of human beings is that rights are endowed upon people before birth.
-My rights are whatever I can defend? So, you have the right to free speech unless I come up and hit you over the head and knock you uncounscious---then you no longer have the right of free speech?
-My rights are whatever the society consents to observe? So a black man has the right to worship how he pleases unless the white folks around you keep burning down your church and linching your congregation?
No, the TRUTH is that each person is endowed by his Creator with certain unalienable rights. Even if you reject the idea that you have a Creator, with a capital C, you can still realize that each person is endowed during the process of his creation, with these rights.
A person in communist China who is not allowed, by his government, to speak freely, worship freely, own firearms, or peaceably assemble, still has the RIGHT to do these things. It's just that instead of his government performing its hightest function---protecting his rights, it is actually infringing those rights.
I'll pose my usual question here, since so far I've never had anybody really take it up:
Can you reject the main tenets of the first sentence of the primary founding document of our country
-all men are created
-all men are legally equal
-all men have unalienable rights
-these things are so obvious as to be self-evident
and still rightly be called an American?
Love this discussion!
LBS