Originally Posted by Barnard17

Non sequiturs and regress arguments. You fail to even be internally rigorous in your claims.

Again, natural rights do not definitively exist. Back them up or drop the subject as a baseless point.

If the first amendment is enshrining what is, by your definition, a natural right then they refer to not only rights from the Government but also rights from others.
Burning the Koran in the mode with which Rev. Jones intended does not just cause offence but propagates persecution. That is to say his right of expression is a statement against, infringement upon and incitement that others should infringe upon the freedom of religion for Muslims.
If you claim that such rights are natural and self evident (which I maintain is mere rhetoric but not necessarily inept as a description of the way in which such things should function) then the purpose of the first amendment should not be just to protect from the Government but also against other citizens who would infringe those rights. If you do not maintain this is the merit of the document then you must cede that you do not believe your own claim that the rights are natural, or you must cede that your application of such rights have ethnocentric motivations. If you do not maintain that this is the capability of the document then you must cede that it is a simple law through it's capacity of writing and not in reality an actual, distinguished through universal application, right.