You can look at it as “god” being listed like “nature” to reference an authority said to issue certain rights.
The actual point of it isn’t to get caught up in a theological debate, but to understand that what is being said that that the authority behind these certain rights is unassailable. No human parliamentary proceeding ought to be able to suspend them. So the workaround by radicals has been to assault the definitions of the rights
Yeah, but I don't agree with that. A state can suspend these rights in cases of emergency. There is no such thing as "unassailable". If you get invaded, your "rights" are forfeit. If a proper pandemic hits, there would be chaos without the state restricting freedoms and rights. Don't forget, I'm a medic. Let's just say that what I saw circa November 2021, I never seen before in a decade of work, and that was a pisspoor pandemic.
God has rules. Nature does not. Nature is about struggle and survival. Religion is about social rules and worship of the divine.
Authority is always derived from power.
BTW, where we can agree (I hope) is that societies need rules and order. Our reasons might be different (mine are increase societal safety, productivity, and technological progress among others). But just as you want human beings to not be too restricted and oppressed, or SSJ doesn't want torture, I'm also on that boat, but just for other reasons. A society that's filled with cruelty and chaos where most humans are oppressed is very unpleasant to live in and highly unstable.
I just want a proper social contract, based on objective reality and large scale negotiations between the two sides, the state and the individual.
Each side must abide by some rules and regulations, and if you are, there should be some privileges. Not divine, but granted to you by the state, to which you would be loyal to. But the state would also have responsibilities, lots of them.
Interesting subject to debate, but not for an abortion thread.