The idol equality

[Hetta]

The whole statement.

If you think blacks and whites are not equal and should not have been made equal under the law I feel sorry for you.

He has made several similar statements on CF. Sad but true.

 

[jayem]

You missed this part:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Just for the record, the OP refers to the "original" Constitution. In that context (though he didn't specify it,) trastamara's quote is correct. The original Constitution was ratified in 1788. The 1st Amendment, not until 1791.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The whole statement.

If you think blacks and whites are not equal and should not have been made equal under the law I feel sorry for you.

But blacks and whites are NOT equal.
Blacks within the black community are not equal.
Whites within the white community are not equal.
Men and women are not equal, black, white, red, green or otherwise.
Georgians and Alabamans are not equal.

NO ONE is "equal."

And Creech's statement:

I believe it is the principles of equality and democracy that destroyed once amazing and beautiful cities such as Detroit, Birmingham, Atlanta, etc. Equality is a failed idea.

...has nothing to do with racism. It is merely a statement of fact - PARTICULARLY in the context of the OP in which he said it - which "equality of outcome" - which isn't racist either, but a more insidious evil yet.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

The OP only scratches the surface. It is true that liberty and equality are at odds with each other. This is largely because of the observable fact that God (or nature if you prefer) has not seen fit to distribute His gifts equally. Both physical and mental abilities of all different types range among people from very high to very low, as will what they choose to do with those abilities. To the degree that people have liberty, these natural inequalities will manifest themselves. Equality can never be assured in liberty, only in servitude. History's ultimate manifestation of equality was not in the founding of the United States, but in the Soviet gulag. This is the answer to the question of "how can anyone be truly free if everyone isn't equal?"; it's the only way anyone can be free. Free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.

I am not, however, content with a simple libertarian critique, of equality, because the problem with equality cuts much deeper than that. It isn't simply equality's incompatibility with liberty; it's that any functioning civilization requires a working class structure. History shows that without one a society can rise no higher than a Stone Age hunter-gatherer culture. This is because a functional civilization requires specialization, citizens devoted to performing different roles in its operation, which necessarily entails giving them different amounts of authority to perform their duties, as well as different amount of wealth as compensation for different levels of productivity. Worse still, equality requires suppression of societies most productive elements, such as kulaks in the USSR, or just about anybody who was literate under Pol Pot. How do you equalize an Olympic sprinter and a paraplegic? You can't make the paraplegic a sprinter, but you can make the sprinter a paraplegic! Equality then, must always mean enforced mediocrity.

Finally, because equality can only be enforced by the exercise of power over others, which requires putting some in positions of greater authority than others, pursuit of equality is ultimately pursuit of a mirage. Equality. as a concept, has very limited practical application; it has nearly infinite potential for use by tyrants and demagogues to rouse the masses to support whatever cause they choose to advance. Nietzsche's dictum that the values of the weak prevail when the strong appropriate them as devices of leadership comes into play here. Equality is not simply inimical to liberty; it's inimical to civilization.

 

[EdwinWillers]

The OP only scratches the surface. It is true that liberty and equality are at odds with each other. This is largely because of the observable fact that God (or nature if you prefer) has not seen fit to distribute His gifts equally. Both physical and mental abilities of all different types range among people from very high to very low, as will what they choose to do with those abilities. To the degree that people have liberty, these natural inequalities will manifest themselves. Equality can never be assured in liberty, only in servitude. History's ultimate manifestation of equality was not in the founding of the United States, but in the Soviet gulag. This is the answer to the question of "how can anyone be truly free if everyone isn't equal?"; it's the only way anyone can be free. Free men are not equal, and equal men are not free.

I am not, however, content with a simple libertarian critique, of equality, because the problem with equality cuts much deeper than that. It isn't simply equality's incompatibility with liberty; it's that any functioning civilization requires a working class structure. History shows that without one a society can rise no higher than a Stone Age hunter-gatherer culture. This is because a functional civilization requires specialization, citizens devoted to performing different roles in its operation, which necessarily entails giving them different amounts of authority to perform their duties, as well as different amount of wealth as compensation for different levels of productivity. Worse still, equality requires suppression of societies most productive elements, such as kulaks in the USSR, or just about anybody who was literate under Pol Pot. How do you equalize an Olympic sprinter and a paraplegic? You can't make the paraplegic a sprinter, but you can make the sprinter a paraplegic! Equality then, must always mean enforced mediocrity.

Finally, because equality can only be enforced by the exercise of power over others, which requires putting some in positions of greater authority than others, pursuit of equality is ultimately pursuit of a mirage. Equality. as a concept, has very limited practical application; it has nearly infinite potential for use by tyrants and demagogues to rouse the masses to support whatever cause they choose to advance. Nietzsche's dictum that the values of the weak prevail when the strong appropriate them as devices of leadership comes into play here. Equality is not simply inimical to liberty; it's inimical to civilization.

Great post!

While the OP's post may have only scratched the surface, the article that prompted it does go a little deeper - but as you note, this topic is deep enough that it really does warrant addressing from multiple angles - including going beyond examples to the very heart of the philosophical origins that prompt the idolization of "equality."

 

[Grizzly]

The whole statement.

If you think blacks and whites are not equal and should not have been made equal under the law I feel sorry for you.

But blacks and whites are NOT equal.
Blacks within the black community are not equal.
Whites within the white community are not equal.
Men and women are not equal, black, white, red, green or otherwise.
Georgians and Alabamans are not equal.

NO ONE is "equal."

But everyone you list above SHOULD be equal under the law, correct?

We need to maintain the difference between individual differences (which definitely exist) to equality under the law (which states that the law should be applied evenly to all).

 

[Hetta]

Equality is a wonderful thing - or it will be when it happens.

OP, I have certain scripture in my signature block for a reason. What you say goes against scripture. Bear in mind where this comes from: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." That is equality.

 

[EdwinWillers]

But everyone you list above SHOULD be equal under the law, correct?

Yes. Unless they disagree with me, but otherwise, yes.

We need to maintain the difference between individual differences (which definitely exist) to equality under the law (which states that the law should be applied evenly to all).

Agreed.

 

[kevinmaynard]

But blacks and whites are NOT equal.
Blacks within the black community are not equal.
Whites within the white community are not equal.
Men and women are not equal, black, white, red, green or otherwise.
Georgians and Alabamans are not equal.

NO ONE is "equal."

And Creech's statement:...has nothing to do with racism. It is merely a statement of fact - PARTICULARLY in the context of the OP in which he said it - which "equality of outcome" - which isn't racist either, but a more insidious evil yet.

Obvious racism is obvious. Obviously racism isn't Christian.

 

[Creech]

Obvious racism is obvious. Obviously racism isn't Christian.

Please explain how you viewed my statement as "racist".

 

[musingsofacac]

Equality is a wonderful thing - or it will be when it happens.

OP, I have certain scripture in my signature block for a reason. What you say goes against scripture. Bear in mind where this comes from: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." That is equality.

We are all one in the unity of Christ. We are all equally human, whether male or female, by race we are all equal in that sense(we all have a soul, we are all equally valuable to God as human beings).

Also in the Old and New Testaments the Bible talks about applying laws equally and justly.

That is where Biblical equality ends. God never says all men have the same intelligence or talents, or that all men should be paid the same. In fact he says an employer has the right to pay his employees was he will, more to some and less to others.

Any attempt to equalize outcomes is at war against nature, and nature's God. Its not wrong to give to the poor and we should as the Bible commands. But the Bible never commands permanent redistribution of wealth, the giving to the poor was always for temporary issues, not to give someone a different lifestyle on a permanent basis.

 

[cow451]

Great post. Humans are unequal, everyone is different. An unequal people should not be treated equally.

Which "unequal people" are unworthy?

 

[keith99]

Please explain how you viewed my statement as "racist".

My guess would be he sees you as viewing the decline of those cities on Blacks getting equality.

My guess is you see the reason for the decline to be based on something entirely different (and in some cases actively hostile to racial equality).

 

[kevinmaynard]

Please explain how you viewed my statement as "racist".

I read it. It was racist, and so I expressed my view that racism isn't Christian, and has no place in public.

 

[cow451]

Do you live in the South?

Atlanta is kicking yankee butt these days. It isn't Gen. Sherman's Atlanta anymore.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Atlanta is kicking yankee butt these days. It isn't Gen. Sherman's Atlanta anymore.

Yeah that Atlanta got burned to the ground. It will never rise again.

 

[cow451]

What in the world is racist about what Creech said?

"An unequal people should not be treated equally." for one. The second is the clear attempt to make Blacks the cause of what he considers decline in several cities. He, as I pointed out in another post, has no clue about Atlanta.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Obvious racism is obvious. Obviously racism isn't Christian.

Agreed. And Creech's was obviously NOT racism.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Which "unequal people" are unworthy?

"An unequal people should not be treated equally." for one. The second is the clear attempt to make Blacks the cause of what he considers decline in several cities. He, as I pointed out in another post, has no clue about Atlanta.

See post #24. Context is important.

 

[kevinmaynard]

Agreed. And Creech's was obviously NOT racism.

Don't defend racism lest you also look racist. The comment was obviously racist.