The first two "rights" you mentioned have no basis in the Constitution nor can seriously be argued to be inalienable rights. So, they're a strawman. The third "right" you mention is actually a question of whether government has the power to do such a thing (maybe, maybe not) and whether parents have the right to refuse such a thing (maybe, maybe not).
Whatever the status of these three strawmen "rights," they are quite different from the Constitutionally-recognized inalienable right of a person to read or view whatever they want, so long as no one else is harmed.
If someone such as yourself refuses to admit the necessity of moral absolutes What makes you think I refuse to recognize moral absolutes? For the record, I subscribe to the notion that the only things that are moral for a person to do are things that do not harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other. I might disagree with your definition as to what constitutes moral absolutes, but that does not mean that I do not believe that there are such things as moral absolutes.
The problem is the tiny minority of atheists want to shove atheism down everyones' throats. You don't have that right.
As I've noted several times, I have no desire to shove anything down your throat. When it comes to pornography my position is clear: the only legal way for pornography to be used is by consenting adults in private. You seem to think I want to come to your home and make you read Hustler. That's just nutty.
You, on the other hand, seem to want to use government power to regulate what consensual activities I engage in in private.
Rights are rights. What about the right of two men to marry each other? Maybe the founders were wrong about that one. What about the right of adults to have sex with children? Maybe they got that one wrong too. What about the right to have all schoolchildren screened for mental illness? Maybe that's a right they didn't know about.
The first two "rights" you mentioned have no basis in the Constitution nor can seriously be argued to be inalienable rights. So, they're a strawman. The third "right" you mention is actually a question of whether government has the power to do such a thing (maybe, maybe not) and whether parents have the right to refuse such a thing (maybe, maybe not).
Whatever the status of these three strawmen "rights," they are quite different from the Constitutionally-recognized inalienable right of a person to read or view whatever they want, so long as no one else is harmed.
If someone such as yourself refuses to admit the necessity of moral absolutes
What makes you think I refuse to recognize moral absolutes? For the record, I subscribe to the notion that the only things that are moral for a person to do are things that do not harm the person or property of a nonconsenting other. I might disagree with your definition as to what constitutes moral absolutes, but that does not mean that I do not believe that there are such things as moral absolutes.
The problem is the tiny minority of atheists want to shove atheism down everyones' throats. You don't have that right.
As I've noted several times, I have no desire to shove anything down your throat. When it comes to pornography my position is clear: the only legal way for pornography to be used is by consenting adults in private. You seem to think I want to come to your home and make you read Hustler. That's just nutty.
You, on the other hand, seem to want to use government power to regulate what consensual activities I engage in in private.