[Noumenon]

There are two kinds of rights: moral and legal. The latter exists as a result of the former. Moral rights do not have to be based on a belief in God - though doing so lends them an air of authority to believers. And thats what moral rights are always seeking - an air of authority, because they can have no true authority, since they are simply human constructs that do not correspond to anything outside of our minds.

Moral beliefs not only do not have to be based on belief in God, they don't have to be based on anything at all. I can claim I have moral right to a grilled cheese sandwich, but such a claim will not be very successful in acquiring an air of authority if no one else agrees that I have this right. But in fact, this right to a grilled cheese sandwich has exactly the same authority as the right to free speech, or the right to vote, or whatever. Which is, none.

[Anarchist]

The truth is that we are free, no one can control us or rule us without our consent. Civil liberties, legal or moral rights and similar such artificial constructs are a way for society (the Church, the State, the Courts) to pretend to give to us something that we already possess, have always possessed, and will always possess.

No justification for freedom and liberty is required as this is the basis of what we are. The only thing that needs justification, if any such justification exists, is the attempt to fool people into believing that they are other than their true selves; conditioning them into believing that they are not free or as it is better known the imposition of authority.

[Sweeps]

We aren't 'free'. Try living outside of the system organised on the premise of a tacit social contract. Sure, we're free to break laws if we want, but our belief in the ultimate freedom of Ourselves won't serve us too well once we're hauled in to court. Until we've got an anarchistic system which actually works, this idea that we'll all be 'free' once we stop believing in the matrix is just a clandestine ad for forced community service.

MB. wrote:

Rights are first and foremost a legal concept. Like every legal concept they are basicaly arbitrary, but very useful tools for preventing anarchy.

I would say that that's patently untrue. No one has a moral right to wield power over another human being, yet, in democratic societies, the law gives citizens that right in the form of suffrage. Voting in a free and democratic (heh) election inplies that everyone's vote counts equally; therefore, those who belong to the majority vote have a potentially enormous amount of power over minority voters. It seems counter-intuitive that humans should be granted a moral right to influence over the lives of others by virtue of nothing but consensus.

There's a massive difference between the right to life and the right to vote democratically, for example. The right to vote is an entirely legal concept, based on nothing but (Lockean) political philosophy, which is based on metaethics regarding the categorical sanctity and blessedness of human life. The implication of Lockean political philosophy is that all adult humans have inalienable moral rights, and, from that, civil rights are derived. But, then, the moral rights are derived from the divine, so, essentially, the only thing which is vaguely blessed about human life is that humans were created in god's image and, therefore, should be counted above other creatures.

I agree with Locke in everything but moral right to suffrage and the divine right of humans. There's nothing divinely ordained about it. I do believe in a god, but I certainly don't think that there has to be a religious reason for us to value human dignity and value above that of other animals. For me, sentience and sapience are enough for me to reconcile my beliefs with the fact that humans do have moral rights to freedom of being, religion, expression, sexual preference, medical matters, and ideology. Humans have the capacity to judge morality, exemplify it, teach it, philosophise about it, and record their thoughts about it. The intense beauty of so many of humanity's productions (whether cultural or interpersonal) illustrates that there is in intrinsic morality to our species.

The necessity of god to ethics is a fallacy. Atheism hasn't been connected to serial murder, as far as I can tell, and nor has religion been convincingly connected to unfailing morality. Moral rights are self-evident when one considers the potential beauty of humanity. I know that that wouldn't really hold up in a proper philosophical debate, since scepticism is so easy to defend. That's why I stopped going to my phil. classes. But, nonetheless, it holds true for me.

[Oxymoron]

Rights are taken or given, and the benefit to one side or another is quantifiable by the amount of interest each side has.

[Adam_Smith]

Although there are variations, there are basically just two views on the origin of human rights. One is that they result purely from struggles and are, in effect, peace treaties between contending groups. The other is that they come from God or Nature; i.e., they are innate and originate with the origin of humanity itself. As such, they can be either recognized or violated but never actually removed.

The more honest advocates of the first view will actually admit that it is a formula for rule of the weak by the strong. Thoughtful liberals will understand that liberalism requires commitment to the second.