>>79887649>It is both ways, not just one or the other:>"make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."This literally proves my point and disproves yours. Everything about this has to do with establishing explicit limits on the ability of the state to impede the operations of religion and the church, not on the ability of religion and the church to influence the operations of the state.
You might want to read more carefully next time, anon.
>God is omniscient and omnipotent, so He would know whether a right He gave you would be upheld or notYes?
>and He would be ultimately responsible for that happening.In the sense of His Will and divine logos being what could essentially be understood as the CPU of the material universe, yes. But if you mean he has some obligation to ensure that you magically maintain everything that He provides you, so long as it is lost in a manner that is also consistent with the laws of nature, then no, that's ridiculous.
>To "give" you a right and then lose it because of the actions of a human being would really just be God pretending to give you a right in the first place.Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense. If you have a right taken from you, that literally means you had to have it in the first place. That alone proves he wasn't "pretending" - otherwise, there would have been no natural right to be lost.
>Either they were stupid and their actions and words were incoherent, or they knew they were saying nonsense and said the things they did to manipulate believers into cooperating with them.Pathetic cope.
>There are no natural rights to begin with. All rights are artificial social constructs, just like the concepts of "family", "money", "nation", etc.Anon, you are literally arguing that all human beings were mute, braindead quadriplegics and indistinguishable from literal rocks before the state waved its magic wand to instill them with basic motor function.
Once again - it is physically impossible for human beings to have any physical or mental abilities without those abilities being granted to the person by virtue of their body being created through the natural operation of the cosmos, and existing in nature afterwards (whether you want to view this as a proxy of God or not actually doesn't technically matter, at least for this sub-topic) - in other words, a *right*, given to you by *nature*... a "natural right", if you will.
And as for "family" and "nation" being artificial social constructs... lol. Study biology one of these days. Even many non-human animals have these things, as they are a purely natural, instinctive and irrational phenomenon the existence of which far precedes that of the rational mind.
>Well, you just gave an example of how religious thinking leads to fascism. Rights are not born or justified by some kind of "power" someone possesses, they are given arbitrarily by people out of instinctive compassion.I'll refrain from laughing about "muh fascism" in favor of pointing out that you got what I said totally backwards. I didn't say that might makes right; that's your position, actually, and illustrates how liberal ideology really isn't all that distinct from other modern, post-enlightenment ideologies like fascism when you get down to the fundamentals.
What *I* said is that RIGHT makes MIGHT. Not as some kind of vapid rhetorical flourish, as Abraham Lincoln used it - I mean, *literally,* right makes might. There is no other way to possess might as a property of your nature, as in natural abilities, without nature imbuing you with them and allowing them to be exercised in the logical operation of the ruleset comprising the physical cosmos; in other words, granting you a natural right. And so, you can see how my position directly impedes social constructivists and state-worshiping fascists, whereas the arbitrary, unlimited power of the state to redefine the human being inherent to *your* position is what actually leads to everything you fear about the fascist bogeyman.
Rousseau was literally as wrong as anyone could possibly been, about literally everything.
