[dsc]

"You evade the question with a non-sequitur."

No.

"Guarantor, in this context, would refer to legal protection by law enforcement provided by the government."

Well, if that's how you define it, I would say that only an educated, moral, and religious population would have any chance of keeping that government on the right track. A completely secular government would have no chance.

"If man's rights are inalienable, what difference does it make what the source is believed to be?"

You have to make a case that they are unalienable, and to do that you need to cite their source.

"I believe that rights are derived from man's nature"

How derived? Why would a lump of meat have rights?

"If we both agree that they are inalienable, then there is no conflict."

Here's the source of conflict:
"Does history warrant the conclusion that religion is necessary to morality -- that a natural ethic is too weak to withstand the savagery that lurks under civilization and emerges in our dreams, crimes, and wars? ... There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion." Will and Ariel Durant

"Do you believe our rights are inalienable?"

That is part and parcel of believing them to be God-given.

[Misterioso]

With your "lump of meat" characterization, I withdraw from our conversation. So long.