It is really quite simple: if the right exists independent of anyone else's presence, it does not stem from man or any societal agreement. If you do not require the presence of anyone else to think or to act in a certain capacity, those are natural rights applicable which do not require the acquiescence of any third party.

Cuomo. Want to bet he's the son of a certain NYC mayor and just as brainwashed?

Old dino's rights come from God.
If your rights come from a phone and a pen, that's your problem.
Why do I feel like loudly spitting chewing tobacco right now? I hate chewing tobacco.

A bit more than that. I believe reason factors into sentience as well.

Disagree. Sentience means much, much more. Dogs and cats don't seek to improve their station; no animal but man seeks continual improvement. Dogs and cats work from instinct, but don't have logical or rational faculties to rival that of man, nor do any other animals on the planet. Animals live within nature; man seeks to supercede nature. Animals are constrained by nature; man pushes the boundaries and breaks through many of those constraints. Animals act on instinct but have only a very limited ability to gain knowledge; man's knowledge grows from generation to generation. Man feels guilt, love, despair, hope, etc. Animals have instinct only.

There is a clear and unambiguous separation between man and the rest of creation in every possible respect. Clearly, sentience is more than being able to interact with one's environment.

Does anyone pay attention to CNN anymore?

When taking his comments IN THE CONTEXT GIVEN by him, he's absolutely right. The bill of rights was not written by God, it was written by a few men.

The left believes that Government is the all powerful force, and so it cannot agree that our rights are sacrosanct because it means that big government in not in control of all things.

What most people mean by nature, I think you mean The Wild. Man's sentience separates him from The Wild. A number of political theorists actually opt for The Wild. Charles A. Lindbergh did, if Rand understood him correctly.

Not only that: Jefferson used several words to refer to God.

"Nature's God entitles them to a separate and equal station."

"All men are created equal." Created--by whom?

"They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

"We appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."

"We rely upon the protection of Divine Providence."

sentience is just the capacity to feel or have sensations. Dogs have that, so do cats. The ability to feel does not separate us from nature.

AJ; My favorite Heinlein quote:
"Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self -delusion— in the long run, these are the only people who count. —Robert A. Heinlein"
And second:
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded— here and there, now and then—are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’” —Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

We're born with equal rights, but equal ability, not so much. One of the biggest mistakes we've ever made is make voting rights equal to all. A few of the Founders were enlightened and gave to their compatriots and the rest of us a fantastic opportunity. We've allowed the concept of equality put forth by the church, statist and their cronies to nearly destroy us.

Yes, man lives in nature and no, in my view, his sentience separates him from nature.

Man is not part of nature?

I see where you're coming from but can't agree. Society is a construct of man, not nature. Law made by a group of people comprising a society aren't based on human nature, they are based on emotional reactions to specific situations (murder, assault, rape, arson, etc). If a creator is a social construct and supernatural who better to use to elevate principals common to a society to the extent that no human can adjust revoke them?

I know I'm being difficult and I apologize. I just can't see this particular issue as cut-and-dry as Objectivism would have it. There is much we do not know and with free will we are not made to do anything.

By "Beings like us" I meant the entire Human Race. That some choose not to think or are incapable of thought at a high level neither makes them less human nor elites of us upon whom Nature has visited the capacity to create.
We are the only animal capable of conceptualizing Rights and they must be based on our Nature as Humans and not on any God or what any Men assert. No one can take away our Nature.

That was deliberate because they foresaw that many people of many faiths would come to the US. Even so, they chose something/someone outside of mans ability to control; they set rights above mans authority.

Flaw: "Beings like us who are,,"

Far too many people barely think at all let alone strive to create (outside of procreation). To believe the above is to present an elite class, very much like the apparent governing elite in America today and any enlightened group in leftist/socialist/communist societies. While I would support an objectivist as POTUS and a flock of them in SCOTUS I wonder if they would, because they would believe themselves enlightened, be any better that what we already have.

If all men be equal, than let their standard be beyond their influence to control, limit or remove from another.

They chose the word Creator not god - a very weak endorsement.

Neither position is correct. As I wrote in A New Declaration of Independence..."...The Individual Rights we affirm are inheritable from our Nature as Humans and are inviolate and absolute. Beings like us who are capable of creating the Arts & Sciences, Technology, the Constitution and the Laws ought not be subservient to either God or Man...."

Perhaps, but to choose between man and God for the origin or rights, I'd put my faith/trust, even if fanciful, in God every time. At least then there is a aspect of off-limits, no-authority, for despots, tyrants, and useful idiOts to struggle against. Jefferson and the Framers knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote it so.

This is sad, both of them are wrong. Rights are part of ethics and ethics is a matter or reason and logic. Saying rights come from man is the same thing as saying you don't have any rights. Saying they come from god makes them disembodied from this world.

These ideas are analogous to saying physics comes from man or god.

And the masses will believe this prattle because its on CNN and the context is controlled and content manipulated.

Now that's frightening...anything that is granted by man can be taken away by man. Jefferson in his genius even covered that particular base, saying that man, in the state of nature, is free. This makes the tenet apply to atheists as well as believers. Now Mr. Cuomo might be trying to contradict that idea, or perhaps he's simply an idiot. Or both.