Posted on 12/08/2016 7:21:17 AM PST by pinochet
Heaven protect us from people who think they are special.
No there is not a rejection of “equality” in the sense that every individual should be able to rise to whatever level their talents and experience allow. What is rejected is the idea that people should receive an equality of result regardless of their behavior, talent, or experience. The left has increasingly demanded that fictions be enshrined in law such as ssm insisting that homosexuality be considered “equal” though it is not in form or function but of course that does not matter. The left is about denying reality and using law as projection of power to force their views on the body politic.
Equal under the Law
Profound...Freedom is what determines outcome! With “equality” freedom diminishes.
The worst thing the left has done to our society is to mitigate the natural outcome of bad choices in the name of equality, thereby rewarding and promoting behavior that is destructive to individuals and society.
16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
To answer the title question:
Equality of what? Equality of origin and ability has never existed.
Equality of opportunity, of laws and the rule of law can most certainly be accepted by conservatives.
You see some of this in alliances between certain religious groups with the Marxist Left in welcoming Third World refugees to the US and Europe.
The corollary is that wage inequality is derived from human inequality
Employers discriminate against applicants by picking those perceived as being most qualified.
Here’s a wrench:
“Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.”—Romans 9
Amen!
The leaders of Leftist movements don't believe in equality ("All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" is their motto), but the ignorant rank and file who support these movements usually do believe in it. Talk of equality is a powerful political tool to recruit people from the dregs of society (and naive kids on college campuses) to serve as cannon fodder for the Left.
Not hostile to monarchy??? Article 1 Sec 9 clause 8.
Even if the person does not have the innate skill to be a physicist, they have the equal opportunity to apply to the college, albeit being a wasted effort.
-PJ
Equal dignity in the eyes of God, yes.
Equal justice under Law, yes.
Equal opportunity in education, employment, and the professions, yes.
Equal courtesy and civility, yes.
Equal expectation that the same will be reciprocal, yes.
Equal outcomes, no.
Jeff Beck plays a Stratocaster better than I do, so he gets paid better than I would. Norm MacDonald is funnier than I am, so he gets paid better to do stand-up than I would. Jessica Alba is way better looking than I am, so she’d get more than I could ever hope to get for posing for a calendar.
But if all four of us ran the same stop sign, Jeff Beck, Norm MacDonald and I should pay the exact same fine.
Jessica Alba would, of course, be not guilty.
j/k
True!
Amen.
The author: “Christianity has historically taught that all souls are equal, in the sense that they have equal chance in acquiring salvation.”
Salvation come from God and by God alone. Jesus is the Way. God does nothing “by chance”. Because all glory is His, he is not a respecter of persons.
Note the writer's emphasis that the "scheme of Socialism" requires what he calls "the power of restraining the increase in population"--long the essential and primary focus of the Democrat Party in the U. S.:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. . . .
I.46
"Freedom is the most valuable of all human possessions, next after life itself. It is more valuable, in a manner, than even health. No human agency can secure health; but good laws, justly administered, can and do secure freedom. Freedom, indeed, is almost the only thing that law can secure. Law cannot secure equality, nor can it secure prosperity. In the direction of equality, all that law can do is to secure fair play, which is equality of rights but is not equality of conditions. In the direction of prosperity, all that law can do is to keep the road open. That is the Quintessence of Individualism, and it may fairly challenge comparison with that Quintessence of Socialism we have been discussing. Socialism, disguise it how we may, is the negation of Freedom. That it is so, and that it is also a scheme not capable of producing even material comfort in exchange for the abnegations of Freedom, I think the foregoing considerations amply prove." EDWARD STANLEY ROBERTSON
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.