Why 'Equality' Must Die

American Thinker ^ | October 2, 2013 | Selwyn Duke

[Paladins Prayer]

Take a look at the following list and tell me if anything strikes you:

Prudence Justice Temperance Courage Faith Hope Charity

Viewing these, the Seven Cardinal Virtues, anything make an impression? Okay, now try the Seven Heavenly Virtues of:

Chastity Temperance Charity Diligence Patience Kindness Humility

Anything? What strikes me is that equality is not among them.

Scour great works, such as the Bible, and you won't find talk of equality. Not one bit -- that is, unless you consider The Communist Manifesto a great work.

One thing about virtues -- which are defined as "good moral habits" -- is that their exercise doesn't require the cooperation, or compulsion, of another person. I can cultivate prudence, temperance, courage and the other virtues in myself, and I can do it all by myself. So while a virtuous society is desirable, virtue can also be a purely personal goal. And this is one time when focusing on the self needn't be selfish, for we should take the log out of our own eyes before worrying about the speck in our brother's.

[Paladins Prayer]

This is a unique and insightful piece. A must read.

[equaviator]

I’ve often wondered how there can be equality where there are double standards?

[FormerLib]

There is certainly one reference to equality in the Bible, but I doubt that liberals would use it: For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:27-28

[ClearCase_guy]

I’ve often wondered how there can be equality where there are double standards?

I had a philosophy professor in college who taught ethics and was obsessed with tax policy. He wanted fairness. If the system were fair, and treated people with respect, then who could possibly find fault with it, right? That's why he pushed for steeply progressive tax rates which absolutely screwed the rich bastards, while allowing the poor folks to keep all the money they worked so hard for.

Every class was painful. He just could not see the double standard. All he saw was his own desire for equality.

[Paladins Prayer]

I wouldn’t really say that is a reference to equality. It’s a reference to fellowship.

[cotton1706]

“Equality” is a French Revlution ideal and should be discarded.

Equality before God and before the Law are the American standard.

[stremba]

It depends. Equality of opportunity is a good thing. Equality of result (which is what the libs mean when they talk about equality) is not.

[oldbrowser]

For no one likes having his plans spoiled, and these social engineers, enraged, will lash out at those not "good enough" to conform to the program.

The current effort is to change independent people into dependent people. By regulation and indoctrination make us all wards of the state. Dumbed down to the lowest common denominator, we will all be equal.

[Count of Monte Fisto]

“The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” - Aristotle

[MamaTexan]

From the first legal work following Constitutional Ratification:

Section VI.
By equality, in a democracy, is to be understood, equality of civil rights, and not of condition. Equality of rights necessarily produces inequality of possessions; because, by the laws of nature and of equality, every man has a right to use his faculties, in an honest way, and the fruits of his labour, thus acquired, are his own. But, some men have more strength than others; some more health; some more industry; and some more skill and ingenuity, than others; and according to these, and other circumstances the products of their labour must be various, and their property must become unequal. The rights of property must be sacred, and must be protected; otherwise there could be no exertion of either ingenuity or industry, and consequently nothing but extreme poverty, misery, and brutal ignorance.
St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States , 1803.

[James C. Bennett]

Alrighty then, no equality.

When shall the author start working for me, gratis?

Of course the Bible couldn’t speak much for equality. How could it have justified sexual slavery if it did?

10 “When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, 12 and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. 13 And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 But if you no longer delight in her, you shall let her go where she wants. But you shall not sell her for money, nor shall you treat her as a slave, since you have humiliated her.”

- Deuteronomy 21:10-14.

[Justa]

Please don’t support the bastardization of our heritage. No one, and I mean no one in the Enlightenment era was talking about “equality” of condition -except for some French radicals.

The Equality of which is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and writings of 18th century philosphers (Locke, etc.) is in peoples’ treatment by the government, application of law and civil liberties.

Apparently, many people have taken this form equality for granted and no longer appreciate its significance.

Leftists/retards bastardized the meaning of equality in the 19th and 20th centuries to mean equality of condition in order to support communism, progressive taxation and other forms of government control and persecution of citizens.

It happened first during the French Revolution where “equality” was used as a form of social vengeance against the French upper classes. Rather than simply reforming Frcnch civil and legal code “liberty and equality” were used as terror weapons to control society and eventually destroy entire social classes.

This was repeated again in Russia, GE, and many other ‘social revolutions’ where, not so suprisingly, once equality of condition was proclaimed by a government the government’s inequality of treatment of citizens remained.

Demagogues always expound on the equality of condition at the expense of equality of treatment. Exhibit: Obamacare.

[I want the USA back]

Because everyone is already equal in worth before their creator.
Equality today means having as many toys as the next person = see the communist manifesto.

[stormhill]

Dude, are you actually illiterate or deliberately twisting the meaning of the scripture?
Which part of

nor shall you treat her as a slave

do you find hard to understand?

[SMARTY]

Equality and ‘egalitarianism’ are often confused with one another.

There’s a difference!

[shego]

The article author sure can transcribe fancy words, but he’s too clueless to understand the distinctions between “equality of opportunity”, “equality of result”, “equality before the law”, “equality of status”, etc.

[FormerLib]

I’m going to have to disagree. However, I think it refers to an equality of status before God, what we would more likely refer to as “equality before the law” were government or society are concerned.

It’s still a far cry from the liberals demand for equality of outcome, though.

[Paladins Prayer]

I read this author frequently, and I can assure you he isn’t clueless about anything. I would say the article deals with the common modern understanding of equality today.

[aquila48]

Excellent!

[mjp]

What strikes me is that equality is not among them.

For libtards, equality is justice, and justice is fairness, and fairness is the elimination of the results of Nature's unfairness.So, any standard or practice that divides men (or creatures in general) into better or worse, winners or losers, must be eliminated. Egalitarians wish to eliminate all injustices by wiping out the concept of "the better."

But egalitarians, like Rawls, believe that consequences of any kind due to their beliefs in equality are not relevant to ethics, which is not a recipe for achieving goals, such as men's happiness For them, ethics is an injunction to obey unconditionally one law: the moral law itself; the principle of equality.