The rule of law. "We are a nation of laws, not men." Men will say they believe anything to get their way. But it's in reasoning with others that they create just laws.
Every law has as it's root the enforcement by force of some moral precept.
Yes, but I can argue that each law should be able to be proved rationally, as well. I doubt there is a single core law that you would defend with your sacred honor that you couldn't also explain with humanist reasoning. If you couldn't, then I would be able to for you.
Your statement above leaves no room for inalienable rights
Not so. There is nothing about Christianity in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution, and certainly none where these documents talk about inalienable rights. Moreover, the discussion about the Creator and God in these texts can be seen metaphorically by the agnostic or atheist as having been derived from our intrinsic self-determination. We are self-aware, and we can think. Therefore, we are not creatures to be forced to do or not to do things that go against our consciences, whatever might be the origin of them. But on the subject of the core laws that all of us instinctively know and understand (such as the injunction against murder and stealing), then if someone's conscience tells him to violate my rights, the state can intervene. To you, God is behind these precepts. To me, it is my rational existence and the knowledge that others are equal before the law that justifies the rules. We both follow them to the same effect: we cooperate, and we honor each other's lives and property.
Your statement above is on it's face contradictory to written statements of the Founders.
This is a hotly debated topic, and of course you are going to keep thinking so. But I would say that our Founders were among the most advanced students of the Enlightenment ever in the history of mankind. If they were here to debate these issues with us today, they might have something else to say altogether. I suspect they would offer a third way, which is to encourage moral convictions in government but to always be ready to give a rational explanation for them.
The founding of American government was one of the most rational acts mankind has ever committed, if we disregard slavery and sufferage for women. And yes, there are both moral and rational arguments against slavery and the disenfranchisement of women.
Me: Whom did the Founders regard as Sovereign?
You: The rule of law.
Samuel Adams: (upon the signing of the Declaration of Independence) ""We have this day restored The Sovereign , to Whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven and . . . from the rising to the setting of the sun, may His Kingdom come!"
There is nothing about Christianity in our Declaration of Independence or our Constitution, and certainly none where these documents talk about inalienable rights.
WHAT??
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
... To you, God is behind these precepts.
Me and the Founders, too:^)
To me, it is my rational existence and the knowledge that others are equal before the law that justifies the rules. We both follow them to the same effect: we cooperate, and we honor each other's lives and property.
Yes, I agree. But I would point out that in the beginning of our system of government, and even before, the concept of equality before the law came from the concept that we are all alike before that Sovereign to Whom Adams referred. It was basically derived from the Scripture that "There is no partiality with God". I happen to believe based on the evidence of history that the degree to which God is shut out of public life will be proportionate to the degree of the continued degradation of both the precept and the practice of equality before the law. Just my two cents.
Cordially,