Equality is a good thing. Right? Your first reaction may be, “Of course it is. It‘s even in the Declaration of Independence… ‘All men are created equal’.” But let’s give a little more thought and consideration to this topic. Do you really want your doctor to be equal to all other doctors? Do you want the airline pilot on whose plane you are a passenger to be equal with all other airline pilots? Of course not! You want your doctor to be the best doctor available when dealing with your health and that of your family. The same goes for the airline pilot on whose plane you are a passenger. So, we can’t just worship at the shrine of equality and say that equality in everything is good as so much of society seems to be doing these days.
In the culture wars, both sides support equality but have fundamentally different notions about what equality means and how it should be implemented and administered in all institutions of American life. One understanding of the meaning of equality has contributed to the United States becoming the most exceptional nation in the history of the world. The other meaning is contributing significantly to the disintegration of American culture as envisioned by the Founders.
Now, I don’t want your eyes to glaze over as you think about the concept of equality. This is not an academic exercise because a correct understanding of equality will help you determine on which side of the culture war you stand and allow you to recognize and defend the meaning of equality as understood by the Founders in establishing this nation and designing our Constitution.
We begin with an abbreviated summation of the meaning of equality. Here we speak of equality in light of the individual within the Founders’ meaning on the one hand versus the meaning as defined by the humanist levelers of the 21st century.
The founding Americans held a biblical worldview and relied on order that rested upon a respect for prescriptive rights and customs as opposed to the egalitarian notions of the French philosophers during the French Revolution. This difference was made clear by John Adams’ definition of equality which strikes at the heart of what it really means—a moral and political equality only—by which is meant equality before God and before the law. This definition does not teach that all men are born to equal powers, mental abilities, influence in society, property, and other advantages. Rather, all men are born to equal rights before God and the law and by implication to enjoy equal opportunity.
The humanistic definition of equality is clearly stated in Humanist Manifesto II’s eleventh common principle, “The principle of moral equality must be furthered…This means equality of opportunity…” But, the humanists’ meaning of “equal opportunity” is immediately and drastically corrupted to mean an equality of outcome as measured by humanist requirements. To further clarify the intent of the signors of the Manifesto, the document states that, “If unable [by means of equal opportunity], society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including whatever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income.” This concept of human equality flows from the flawed humanistic assumption of the perfectibility of man. Under this concept, what men are comes from experience. Therefore, men are equal at birth, and differences and inequalities arise due to environment.
The goal of humanists was to achieve an egalitarian society (and eliminate inequalities due to environment) through political means in which man, achieving perfect equality in their political rights, would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. When humanists failed to achieve equality of outcome through political equality, the levelers demanded economic democracy, a new and expanded humanist definition of equality. However, economic democracy still means an equality of condition as opposed to equality of opportunity and is to be achieved through recognition of invented or synthetic rights coupled with broad but non-specific egalitarian ideals. As society is leveled with guarantees of certain outcomes to its citizens, political equality suffers, that is, imposed equality of outcome will destroy equality before the law.
We see evidence of the humanistic definition of equality being imposed on every institution of American life and the ensuing erosion of equality before the law. On an almost 24/7 basis we see and hear media reports from the battle fronts of the culture wars with regard to issues of perceived inequality including gay marriage, universal health care, women in combat roles, immigration, race, and employment. Some are issues dealing with equality before the law (excluding laws based on synthetic or invented rights), and the nation has and is promoting equality in those areas (e.g., race and employment discrimination). But even in those legitimate areas of concern, humanist organizations, politicians, and bureaucrats push the envelope beyond equality of opportunity.
Democracies are under grave and severe attack by a new despotism. Humanistic definitions of equality have played a central role in the ascendance of this despotism. In Part II we shall name this despotism and diagnose its operation and impact on the nation.
Larry G. Johnson
Sources:
Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 394-395.
Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 20.
