I believe people are born into this world with all the rights to freedom, free thinking, the right to choose, the right to proceed through life by their own will, etc.
I believe any curtailment of these rights are imposed by others or societal law.
That certainly could be argued -- and argued logically.
I still don't know if that answers the question, though, about whether or not the rights you assert we are born with -- are endowed or not.
And even if your notion of rights being something we are born with is correct -- the question that would soon develop is -- and how do we get as close to possible to ensuring those rights.
Whether a case can be made that we are born with the rights or not -- the case for "we have only the rights we demand or that others have demanded for us" still seems to be operational.
(I suspect the drafters of the Declaration felt that way also, since they follow up their "we are endowed" notion with "That to secure these rights..."
I see no rights (whether endowed or not endowed but simply demanded) as unalienable -- and saying, as you (Sofia) do later, that...
[When a society or individual enslaves or wrongly imprisons me--he may think I have been separated from my inalienable rights...but I still possess those rights, they have just been ignored.[/quote]...
...leaves lots of questions in that regard.
Suppose your "unalienable right" to freedom were taken from you by the state "rightly" rather than "wrongly?" Suppose you commit murder -- and the state rightly alienates you from the right to liberty? Are you any less alienated from your liberty?
Your use of the word "wrongly" in your sentence really didn't do the job of explaining why you think the right is unalienable.
It is my opinion that all rights are alienable.
In fact, the right of people to be free is probably alienated as much and as often as anything else on this planet.
The right to life is alienable -- and in the United States, that is not hard to show.
BOTTOM LINE: Probably it makes sense to suppose every human is born free and has the "right" to do anything he or she decides to do. Society, in order to function, curtails rights -- left and right!
Humans have the "right" to demand that their government not curtail certain rights -- and often that is what humans do. (And of course, the rights won by these demands are passed down to future generations -- sometimes to be lost!)
But when everything has been counted and considered -- the only rights humans have are those that have been demanded.
And there certainly is not much, other than mythology, to support the contention that somehow -- some THING -- endowed us with those rights.
Thomas' contention that there might be some ambiguity of intent because of the use of the word "creator" is, in my opinion, specious. For one thing, they wrote Creator (capital "C") not "creator" -- and capital "C" Creator had (and still has) a specific meaning.
They meant God.
In any case, Ican is not asking if we think God endows the rights. He is asking if we think we have rights that have been endowed -- who or what endowed them.