All Men Are Created Equal. All Ideologies Are Not

Since infancy, the vast majority of us are brought up to believe that we are all the same. As David Brooks put it, “the gospel of multiculturalism preaches that all groups and cultures are equally wonderful.” In our current political climate, to suggest otherwise is akin to applying tar to one’s own skin and rolling around in a pile of feathers.

The problem with the idealistic notion of “global” equality is that the premise that “we are all the same” is patently absurd. In the same way that John Lennon’s “Imagine” offers a ridiculously oversimplified explanation of the barriers to peace - as if we can achieve peace by simply eradicating “countries, religion, possessions, and greed” - the notion of equality is drastically (and dangerously) oversimplified.

It is important to clarify that, on an individual level, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We all have inherent value as individuals, and we all possess fundamental and inalienable rights. No individual should be persecuted or discriminated against for any immutable characteristic.

The subtle problem is that the waters between individualism and collectivism are routinely muddled for political advantage, meaning that people often confuse the notion of individual equality with group equality. This leaves us vulnerable to blindly accept what is demanded by those who worship at the altar of intersectionality that all “people” are “equal” without question, without defining what the terms “people” and “equal” actually mean.

The core issue here is that the assumption of equality is made as if it is some axiomatic truth of our world, without explaining which metrics should be used to judge such equality. For example, humans are equal in terms of their elemental value in the eyes of God, but does this mean that they are equal in terms of their moral character? Unless we disagree that Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. existed at opposite ends of a moral spectrum, the notions that all humans are equal in this sense is laughable. This counterexample proves that there does exist some metric by which we are able to compare individuals along a spectrum.

It is important to highlight the nuanced point that acceptance of this is not evidence in favor of discrimination. It is evidence, however, that total and unquestionable tolerance of all ideologies ignores the moral spectrum on which we all exist. By existing on this spectrum, we must accept that the comparison of such ideologies is at least possible.

With that in mind, with what metric are we able to conclude that all ideologies are equal? There are countless metrics we can use to compare such entities. Some are irrelevant to applying some form of moral comparison and are often used by bigots as a foundation for hate and ridicule. However, the fact is that some metrics are relevant, and this statement is far from controversial. To argue otherwise is to suggest that the society of modern-day France is morally equivalent to various ancient civilizations which routinely partook in human sacrifice.

Unfortunately, this clear moral difference between ideologies is not limited to ad absurdum comparisons between modern and ancient societies. Stark differences exist today, and yet the conversation on this matter has been bullied into silence by those who are attempting to leverage the power of globalism and intersectionality. This has, in turn, conceded a difficult but crucial topic of debate to the extreme edges of our political spectra. For example, there are many who suggest that any claim of moral difference between any ideologies is proof of membership to the alt-Right - a group who delight in their lone ownership of this topic.

It is crucially important that we turn the ideological tide and allow ourselves to have discussions of this nature - in good faith - and wrestle back control of such debates from those who hope to harness them for evil. The consequences if we fail are clear for all to see. Today, as we wage war against the coronavirus pandemic which has swept the globe, we are being faced with the outcome of our self-induced blindness to the immorality of some of the world’s worst political systems.

Some are only just waking up to the fact that the Chinese Communist Party is a bad actor on the world stage. Those who are aware of modern Chinese history already understand that the Chinese government’s role in the pandemic is simply the latest example across decades of moral depravity. Mao Zedong, whose “corpse still lies in the grandiose Chairman Mao Memorial Hall in the center of Tiananmen Square,” was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his own people, whether through persecution, political violence, or starvation. Then came the One Child Policy. Enacted in 1980 and ending in 2015, the Chinese government program led to countless forced abortions, child abductions, and sterilizations. More recently, at this very moment there are an estimated one million Uighur Muslims detained by the Chinese government in “re-education camps,” with 80,000 forced to work in labor camps.

All of these atrocities were implemented by the same Chinese Communist Party which holds power today. Why, then, do we willfully ignore their crimes? Why do we accept the notion that the mere existence of criticism of China’s government is an expression of bigotry? Finally, why do we allow politicians to align with some of the worst regimes on our planet - including China - for their own personal or political gain? Fundamentally, it’s because we have accepted the lie of global ideological equality, and have swallowed the fallacy that the Chinese Communist Party is anything other than an evil, despotic, and morally debauched regime.

This false definition of equality can no longer be accepted without question. It is not evidence of bigotry to suggest the existence of moral differences between ideologies, and we shouldn’t forfeit the control of such conversations to the elements of our own society which seek to hijack them for their own advantage. Finally, unless we start to accept this reality and act accordingly by guarding against the inevitable outcomes of the policies of nations such as China, we will continue to fall victim to our own ignorance, our own naivety, and ultimately, our own moral and intellectual inability to seek the truth.

For example, humans are equal in terms of their elemental value in the eyes of God, but does this mean that they are equal in terms of their moral character? Unless we disagree that Adolf Hitler and Martin Luther King Jr. existed at opposite ends of a moral spectrum, the notions that all humans are equal in this sense is laughable.

OMG! Someone totally 'gets it"... Saying all are equal in the way liberals mean it would imply we all weighed the same and we're all wore the same shoe size.

And cultures? We might all draw from similar pools of citizens with similar moral and IQ bell curves... but some cultures push forward their psychopaths and other cultures push forward their Thomas Jefferson's and George Washington's...

Those who are aware of modern Chinese history already understand that the Chinese government’s role in the pandemic is simply the latest example across decades of moral depravity. Mao Zedong, whose “corpse still lies in the grandiose Chairman Mao Memorial Hall in the center of Tiananmen Square,” was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of his own people, whether through persecution, political violence, or starvation. Then came the One Child Policy. Enacted in 1980 and ending in 2015, the Chinese government program led to countless forced abortions, child abductions, and sterilizations... All of these atrocities were implemented by the same Chinese Communist Party which holds power today. Why, then, do we willfully ignore their crimes?

Ping to a 'must read'...

Article contrasts Hitler and Martin Luther King as opposites on an evil vs good spectrum.

"…a rape [was] committed with MLK’s support. The FBI had placed two transmitters in lamps in MLK’s hotel room, according to The Sunday Times. In the room at the Willard was King’s friend, Logan Kearse, the pastor of Baltimore’s Cornerstone Baptist church. Garrow says that the two discussed “which women among the parishioners would be suitable for natural and unnatural sex acts.” He says that the FBI report says that “When one of the women protested that she did not approve, the Baptist minister immediately and forcefully raped her” with King looking on and laughing and even offering advice. "

Biographer: MLK Watched And Laughed During Rape Of Follower

“It is important to clarify that, on an individual level, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We all have inherent value as individuals, and we all possess fundamental and inalienable rights. “

Until you drop this nonsense, the rest of your argument is idiotic.

We are not equal. Stop the pretension, it only leads to absurd conclusions like all races and all cultures are the same and that you must have equality of results.

RE: Until you drop this nonsense, the rest of your argument is idiotic.

Why is this sentence nonsense? I’m not even sure if you read the article’s content.

“It is important to clarify that, on an individual level, we are all equal in the eyes of God. We all have inherent value as individuals, and we all possess fundamental and inalienable rights. “

It does not talk about races and cultures or values being the same. In fact the entire article talks about these things BEING DIFFERENT. It talks about INHERENT equality before our Creator.

Do you believe that Caucasians inherently more/less equal in God’s eyes compared to say an African or Asian?

Here’s an example: Is justice to be applied equally differently depending on race?

“some cultures push forward their psychopaths and other cultures push forward their Thomas Jefferson’s and George Washington’s...”

And where do cultures come from? They’re not dispensed like manna from heaven.

The argument that we’re all equal before God’s eye is absurd. Does God not deem some people good and other bad and rewards them accordingly with heaven or hell?

The problem I have with the equality mongers is that it inevitably leads to conclusions like if we’re all equal than we should all be doing the same, and if we’re not than it’s somebody’s fault. In the US is the fault of the evil white man who can’t help himself from being racist.

In other society you might end up with communism enforcing equality.

Better start with the obvious reality that we are all individually different and deal with it by each one of us rewarding those who we perceive as good people and ostracizing bad ones. And this is pretty much how people treat each other, until you start introducing “feel good” idiocies like we’re all created equal.

RE: The argument that we’re all equal before God’s eye is absurd. Does God not deem some people good and other bad and rewards them accordingly with heaven or hell?

Depending on your Theology.

We are all EQUALLY SINNERS in God’s eyes in need of his Grace and Mercy <— That is the Christian position ( and I would argue that the majority of the framers were Christians ). That is why Jesus, God’s Son had to die for ALL SINNERS on the cross.

RE: The problem I have with the equality mongers is that it inevitably leads to conclusions like if we’re all equal than we should all be doing the same, and if we’re not than it’s somebody’s fault.

How does being considered equal in dignity before God’s eyes lead to that conclusion?

We are equal in dignity but do not have equal abilities, attitudes towards hard work and therefore CANNOT have equal outcomes, and this article does not even pretend to imply that. You are attacking a strawman.

And anyone who comes to the conclusion you fear is harboring a non-sequitur.

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.