Human rights do not have adequate justification under a secular government.

First I must apologize to my opponent for not making things more clear. In R2, my primary object is to lay down the framework that would support my argument. To a certain extent, contentions presented in R2 are assumptions that my argument would be relied on. In this round I will proceed to piece all the fragments together. Answer to the question My answer is affirmative. But I do have an objection to the notion that human rights derive their legitimacy from the Supreme Being. Main Argument C1. In last round, I attempted to show that any right is a reflection of one"s will, and there is no inalienable right whatsoever. Since human desires are generally shaped by his or her own experience, it is not unreasonable to assume that there is no consensus on what one"s desires should be. C2. Given the existence of the Supreme Being and by assuming that every human being is an image of God, if one did acquires one"s rights by appealing to God"s will, it shall be inferred that one"s desires would reflect the desires of God. Since Christians worship one God only, it necessarily follows that there should exist a consensus about what one"s desires are. This conclusion, however, contradicts what has been concluded in C1, and by assuming the accuracy of C1, one should therefore logically conclude that human beings cannot derive their desires from God. C3. If human beings cannot derive their desires from God, the only alternative is government. It is not unreasonable to question that whether governments necessarily exist. One can undoubtedly live the life of a recluse thereby deriving his/her right from his/her own will. But owning to the human nature in which it suggests that human beings tend to live in a sociable life, it is therefore implausible to assume that the majority of human beings would favor a solitary life. If so, governments would be an inevitable consequence of this sociable life. C4. It is also known that rights can only be derived from orders or constitutions. For the authoritarian states, rights are derived from the will of governing body in a form of decree or orders. For the democratic states, rights are primarily derived from the constitutions, a document reflects the people"s desires. Since all rights are derived from either orders or constitutions, it follows that human rights find their legitimacy either in decree or constitutions, contrived by the government. C5. If human rights are derived from either decrees or constitutions, it can be properly inferred from that that no human rights are unlawfully defined, as long as the will of ruling body is not incompatible with people"s desires. With respect to authoritarian states, since laws are merely instruments to oppress or to regulate one"s will, there would be a constant human right abuse. In terms of democratic states, since states tend to pay great attentions to people"s desires, it follows that the ruling part would not tend to draft laws in a way that merely reflects the will of power elites thereby securing the environment for one to exercise one"s right, including his or her right to liberty. C6. The above analysis does not preclude the possibility that a democratic states cannot be guided by the doctrines of religions or faiths. If one, however, accepts the assumption that religion is not the answer to the human rights abuse, it follows that a democratic state cannot be guided by religious doctrines, thereby proving that a true democratic state must be a secular state. Therefore although human rights may not have adequate justification under all type of governments, they do find reasonable protection under the roof of democracy. Rebuttal - Principles First, I am willing to accept the existence of God. Second, although the nature of Bible is still somewhat contentious (whether it decedents from the Heaven), people would generally agree that Bible is a book that witnesses the history of one of the most accomplished person that has ever walked on earth. Bible can be determined to offer the path to redeem a life of evil, but if one has to suffer in this mortal life to make atonement for one"s sin and wrongdoings for the purpose of gaining the right to enter the Kingdom of Heaven, then this particular right graciously conferred by God upon human race is not an inalienable right because it can be taken away from or given away by the possessor. To a certain extend, Bible actually supports the contention that no inalienable rights have ever existed. Equality and Liberty If right to equality and right to liberty ever existed, and by assuming that God would not discriminate against any human beings, it follows that everyone should enjoy such rights. Acts 16:35-17,18:12-16 and 22:22-29 do present a detailed account of trails and rights given to Roman citizens, but it does not follow that all these rights shall be enjoyed by non-citizens. Slaves, for example, enjoy a very limited set of rights. In ancient Rome, salves were treated as a personal property and can be disposed at owners" will. It would therefore present a formidable hurdle for anyone who attempts to understand why right to equality and liberty are restricted to a group of people only. If one has to suffer in this life to in order to gain the right to freedom, it is more than likely that the right to liberty is not inalienable. Simply put, whatever you have gained can be taken away as well. More specifically Deuteronomy 19:16-21 reads "If a malicious witness takes the stand to accuse someone of crime,. .. .The rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will such an evil thing be done among you. Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. " Deuteronomy 19:16-21 may actually deny the existence of inalienable right. If right to life is a part of inalienable, it cannot be taken away by any authority. Deuteronomy 19:16-21 however suggests that a witness may have to suffer from insufferable pain if he or she deliberately lies in front of Lord, and people would have the authority to take away his inalienable right. If a right can be removed by the authority, such right becomes alienable. Leviticus 19:15 reads "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly. " Leviticus 19:!5, on the hand, does not confer any right upon any one. Literally, the phrase teaches one how to behavior in a socially approved manner, but one is not obligated to follow the suggestion nor shall the violation entail any consequence. Conclusion On the basis of above analysis, it is not unreasonable to conclude that one can derives one"s right from government only, and human rights do have adequate justification under democracy. Thank you.