So what? You are arguing from adverse consequences, a fallacy and therefore a meaningless.
The fact is that there are a number of core assumptions in the legal foundations of the US that go back to its foundings that as a strict matter are incontrovertibly invalid (e.g. relating to water rights, intellectual property, and personhood among others) and as conditions change eventually these facts do have to be dealt with. Our form of government is a compromise between an ideal and reality. It certainly does not meet the ideal, and frequently pretends it can ignore reality, as one might expect out of such a compromise.
Many of our rights are routinely violated. The law weights the rights of one person against another. As I said, laws can only take rights away. Whether or not that taking is justified depends a lot on the consent of the governed.
Any "right" that can be destroyed by another person or even nature on a whim is a useful fiction but still a fiction. One could easily assert that "rights" are as intrinsic to personhood as a pair of khakis.
IOW, our Constitution is just a piece of paper... There is zero basis for most of our laws.
The Constitution is the basis of our laws as a matter of convention, it has no more objective significance or power than that. The fact that the Constitution is routinely subverted by the government formed under it shows this. There have been many such documents in history created by thoughtful and intelligent men, and while the US Constitution is a particularly fine example of such a document it is not meaningfully distinguished from the others in history (many of which are still nominally in force).
Most of the same enlightenment philosophy with an attempt to purge religion from society resulted in "The Reign of Terror".
I think this is a dubious point. The United States was built to a significant extent on the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment, which frequently advocated the secular state. Indeed, the Constitution reflects many of the core attributes of 18th century enlightenment movement.
How so? Fear of what? Loss of immutable rights you have no logical basis to believe exist?
The fact is that there are a number of core assumptions in the legal foundations of the US that go back to its foundings that as a strict matter are incontrovertibly invalid (e.g. relating to water rights, intellectual property, and personhood among others) and as conditions change eventually these facts do have to be dealt with. Our form of government is a compromise between an ideal and reality. It certainly does not meet the ideal, and frequently pretends it can ignore reality, as one might expect out of such a compromise.
I agree.
Any "right" that can be destroyed by another person or even nature on a whim is a useful fiction but still a fiction. One could easily assert that "rights" are as intrinsic to personhood as a pair of khakis.
Here is the place where theists & atheists are the furthest apart. Rights can be infringed upon, but not destroyed.
The Constitution is the basis of our laws as a matter of convention, it has no more objective significance or power than that. The fact that the Constitution is routinely subverted by the government formed under it shows this. There have been many such documents in history created by thoughtful and intelligent men, and while the US Constitution is a particularly fine example of such a document it is not meaningfully distinguished from the others in history (many of which are still nominally in force).
As I said, our Constitution is just a piece of paper. Are we arguing?
I think this is a dubious point. The United States was built to a significant extent on the ideals of the Scottish Enlightenment, which frequently advocated the secular state. Indeed, the Constitution reflects many of the core attributes of 18th century enlightenment movement.
Why the difference? Why select one line of reason over another? Surely it was not due to lack of exposure to both?