Ya know Dawg, we're having a hard time communicating.
tell me, Whom do you think, "We the People" in the Declaration refer to? Humanity as a whole?
Let's revisit the text in question, ok?
"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..."
I'm going to rephrase most of the above for you: The fact that all men are created by God (or that they exist at all, should you deny God) means they have a number of innate rights, and protection of these rights is the job of just governments.
Were the authors talking about their present day indentured servents? Their slaves? Peoples from China? Brazil? Don't hold back comrade...tell me what you really think.
Well, if you're going to argue that God made Americans, but someone else made the Chinese, or South Americans, or something, then we can argue that, according to our founding document, they don't have rights.
Since the dominant meme seems to be one of either monotheism or secularism though, I think you'll find most people believe "they" have the same origin as "we" do. Which means that the Declaration of Independence recognizes them as "men."
Are we in agreement so far -- that "men," whatever their origin, are created by that same being/process that created these "American Citizens" you're so concerned with?
If so, then reference that passage again -- "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..."
All men.
It was radical at the time, but I'll be more radical: I'll include women too.
I'd reference the Federalist and Anti-federalist debates, but this would turn into an even bigger sidetracking of this thread. The bill of rights was added on because the anti-federalists believed that someday our government would refuse to recognize our rights, and it was hoped that explicitly listing those that are most important would help prevent this (it didn't).
I'd expect, though, that most historians of the Federalist Period would suggest that the rights covered in the Bill of Rights (and most other rights, actually) were what the framers were speaking about when they mentioned "inalienable rights."
Still, I expect you'll argue something else, and try even harder to be offensive because you think it helps your presentation (first liberal Democrat, now Communist; I'm not quite sure what comes next...)
