What other "rights" did the invisible being bestow upon you?
Just wondering.
Well, since you are "just wondering" and have a real desire to learn I will explain to to you. What follows is a quick primer on the fundamental rights concept which form the principles of the establishment of the USA. After this there can be no excuse for you to demonstrate mystery or puzzlement about these principles. At the very least this information demands that you elevate the quality of your discourse; smarmy one liners should no longer be the extent of your involvement in these threads.
Ready?
The Declaration of Independence saying our rights are "endowed by our Creator" is only an oppositional argument to what was then the ONLY theory of political governance in force. . . That was the unquestionable "divine right" of the King of England to rule however he desired.
That doctrine said that the king was subject to no earthly authority; his right to rule flowed directly from the hand of God. The king was not subject to the will of any mortal human including the Pope. According to this doctrine, since only God can judge an unjust king this doctrine implies that any questioning or attempt to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and constitutes a sacrilegious act.
This absolute, arbitrary power of the king was seen as illegitimate by our founders because it violated the inherent human right of self-determination. They believed a "legitimate society" is based on mutual consent. This philosophy stated that we have unrestrained natural rights but humans, being social creatures also naturally come together into groups and assign roles to members of that society, the most important of which is mutual protection. A group working in concert can better defend against invaders and other threats (general militia concept).
So, the people come together and surrender a certain amount of their natural rights to the governing body in exchange for the governing body protecting
the rights the people retain.
The founders / framers embraced the "social compact" theories promoted by John Locke and Algernon Sidney and others and used them, first as the justification to declare independence from the crown and then, as a framework of the political structure of the Constitution.
This doctrine has as its foundation a principle in direct opposition to the absolute power of the king, it holds that no man was above another unless a man allows one to govern him and then, only to the point that it benefits him.
This established the principle that government cannot legitimately be arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people because government's power is only the sum of that limited amount of power each member of the society confers to the legislative assembly. The power vested in the assembly can be no greater than that which the people had before they entered into that society because no person can transfer to another, more power than he possesses himself, and nobody has an absolute arbitrary power over any other, to destroy or take away, the life or property of another.
Under these principles, government only keeps that power with the consent of the governed; the citizens retained everything not delegated to the government. Our rights were understood to be inherent and inalienable because
our rights emanate from a plane above the legislative acts of man or the benevolence of a ruler and that some rights are of such intrinsic value that a person, even willingly, cannot surrender them.
Inalienable rights is a concept focused on legitimacy; a person cannot legitimately confer to government the care of his life, liberty or fruits of his labor. Inalienable rights also denotes legitimacy of action
for government because no legitimate government would accept such a surrender by a citizen if it were offered.
Inalienable has nothing to do with a particular right's violation or a direct action of government after government's establishment; it is a concept of importance primarily at the genesis of the social compact when the fundamental, unalterable principles of that system are established. Inalienable rights are not universal; they only have meaning and significance when a governing framework is being established and then, only a framework founded on the principles of conferred powers and retained rights.
"Inalienable rights" are meaningless if a governing body is NOT being created to NOT surrender rights to . . .
One can of course judge the legitimacy of a government established to protect the inalienable rights of the citizen by how it treats the inalienable rights of the citizen.
The violation of inalienable rights is an action that de-legitimizes government -- from then on it is no longer "the government established by the Constitution", it is a foreign entity disconnected from the Constitution and incapable of claiming its protections (the preemptive powers it enjoys over the states and people and the protections of the compact like prosecuting treason).
Such an illegitimate government is then subject to the original right of the people to
rescind their consent to be governed (see 2nd Amendment, however many commas you prefer).