Many secular people, not all, but many have a psychological craving for religion and order based on something. They need someone to tell them what to believe and add order to their lives. Thus, they have created a godless religion that uses a false "omnipotence" to define what can and can't be said and depends on the system to replace God. That has replaced God for their life structure.

The man with the most dosh and power makes his own rights while the poor and disabled along with the non achievers fall in behind.

For instance, impoverished and senile older people, who, in their final days on earth find themselves consigned to one of the many so called Care Homes are subjected daily to inhuman treatment and indignities with no right of redress on the cold-blooded staff of these death-hole establishments.

Money talks, and had these senior citizens been wealthy they would have spent their golden years sipping chilled Dom Perignon while sailing their ocean going yacht down the Mediterranean.

Animals don't have morals, so I guess they don't have any rights according to you. The difference between me and you (other than about 100 IQ points) is that I don't need social constructs and deities to tell me what's right or what I can and can't do.

I fail to see the connection between morals and rights.

The right to speak freely, for example, applies equally to moral and immoral people. In fact, immoral people have the right to say that morality is the excrement of made-up religions and vestigial superstitions.

This is not to say that people are immune from being stripped of rights as a result of immoral action. For example, if any person, moral or immoral, is so egregiously negligent while driving as to cause the deaths of a bunch of people, that driver may be convicted of negligent homicide and imprisoned (thereby being stripped of the right to move freely in the world.)

I disagree.

I am thankful that it seems the vast majority of Americans disagree, also.

(Consider that the vast majority of Americans believe that all Constitutional Rights should apply to homosexuals, even though many of those same people hold a religious belief that homosexuality is immoral.)

There are two huge problems with the proposition that people without morals are without rights.

- 1 - The biggest problem with this proposition that rights are contingent on morals is that what counts as moral or immoral is in many instances a matter of stark disagreement. The following is a list of only some things the morality of which is controversial.

- Pornography

- Homosexuality

- Smoking marijuana

- Premarital sex

- Using profanity

- Eating pork

- Wearing fur coats

- Abortion

- Etc. ad infinitum

Who gets to decide which of these things is immoral and thus a fair excuse to strip people of their rights?

- 2 - This proposition would ultimately strip the rights from virtually everyone.

Consider the ramifications of declaring pornography immoral, and stripping all rights from everyone who has made or viewed porn. Suddenly the right to be safe in ones property and one's person would apply to less than a quarter of people. Add to that the immorality of masturbation and premarital sex. Almost nobody would have the right to speak against this, to appeal it in the courts, to own a gun to protect themselves from those who would rob, rape, maim, or kill them as"punishment" for their sin.

If you think I am exaggerating where this concept leads, I am not.

- Look at the Taliban who beat people with car antennas for having beards that were too short, and who cut off little girls' fingers for the immorality of wearing nail polish.

- Look at the Inquisition and its policy of taking the property of people who were even suspected of the immorality of not holding orthodox Christian beliefs, and then tortured these "immoral" people, often to death.

- Look at DAESH (ISIS) who stripped homosexuals of their rights for their "immorality", and then beat them and threw them from the tops of buildings.

- Look at all the women in multiple countries in the world (including Saudi Arabia) who are stoned to death for the immorality of adultery.

The rights to be secure in one's person and one's property must be applied universally, or all societies would collapse under the weight of "justified" violence and theft.