Replies

That's your opinion. I've heard all the first truths arguments from Hadley Arkes on down. Whether you think these fundamental rights descend from a higher power or not is not really relevant. From your perspective it has to come from a Biblical G-d. From my perspective it comes with the inherent dignity of being a human being. Once you prescribe to the notion that these fundamental rights come from a Biblical perspective then you have nuts like muslims laying claim to their notion of rights from their god. That doesn't work. We're right and they're not. I don't want to have a war of religions. As wrong as their religion is they can still rely on it if it's a contest. We are human beings, the dignity in that is enough.

Translation: human rights and dignity don't really exist, so we create a subjective social construct that pretends they do. That being the case, you really have no argument against any dictator or ideology that denies these, since he can create a different social construct.

The idea that the existence of more than one religion makes it impossible to determine which one of them is the authentic one is a cop out. Besides, everyone acknowledges that the Jewish religion "used to be" true. It's only when people start arguing about what "replaced" it that we run into trouble.

You miss the point as do all who say that human dignity comes from G-d. Human dignity and rights do exist. They are innate as a function of our existence. These are UNIVERSAL for everyone. It is a nice little fiction to say that they come from G-d. It validates one's religion. Once religion gets involved then, depending on the religion, the dignity and rights can become relative. It's fine and well when we have religions that bestow rights and dignities that are fair and true, but what about religions that don't?

Isn't religion the subjective social construct? Can't religions, just like a dictator, create different standards based on the religious leaders' whims?