Another question might be: why do you insist that "God created all men equal" must be literally true to work?

Why can't it just be a way of saying: "let's all agree that we're all politically equal and give everyone a vote?"

But then, OJ's such a Declaration-literalist he takes the "men" bit at face value, too.

The answer is they don't. Under a thin skin of rhetoric their actual governing philosophy is that a natural aristocracy (those who went to the same grad schools as they) is booted and spurred to ride us.

The argument is nonsense. We are not created equal, we are all born with differing abilities. Where is Chesterson getting his facts? Whether the origin of man is through divine creation or natural selection, the facts of our inherent inequality of talents are the same. It is no less an unsupportable assertion to say that men, born in unequal circumstances, are created with inherently equal rights as to say that men who evolved through totally natural means deserve equal consideration under the laws.

"If they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal."

Robert-

The only thing supporting the idea of any equality among men is the "created" bit. Without it, all is raw self-interest. A scenario where the strong may brutalize the weak is pretty easily rationalized if we only listen to our natural drives.

Imagine the combination of universal materialism and absolute democracy.

Robert:

Obviously the sense in which it is meant in the Declaration is "of equal worth" not "of identical talent or ability". So how does that value emerge from materialism?

Brit:

So the premise of your society should be subject to opinion?

Tom & Peter,
The most important thing supporting the idea of equality among men is the fact that it has been tried and it works better than the other ideas around which mankind has organized society. Up until 1776, the idea of the creator had supported vastly different ideas, primarily unequal class-based monarchies and aristocracies. The idea of equality does not flow invariantly from the idea of a creator, but only from one narrow conception of a creator.

Peter, you put too much emphasis on philosophy as a determinant of behavior. Social behavior is learned through the social interactions that a person experiences within his social group. Philosophy is more accurately the cart, not the horse determining where the society goes. Naturalism, or theism for that matter does not determine social values as much as it reflects them.

Robert:

I must disagree. Ideas have consequences. I know that most ordinary folk are not philosophers (thank goodness)and make day-to-day decisions on seemingly common-sensical or instinctive grounds, but their beliefs and their votes and their ways of life have, at least in part, intellectual and/or theological roots.

"the idea of the creator had supported vastly different ideas, primarily unequal class-based monarchies and aristocracies"

Again, I disagree. It is you that is making the mistake Harry and Jeff make of assuming that all pre-Enlightenment societies were completely governed by religious thinking and control and that the general rule was that society mirrored the faith. They weren't and it didn't. The reason you guys are always trumpeting the notion of secularism and secular thinking is that you are assuming there was none before modern times.

What in either Jewish or Christian scripture or tradition can you point to to substantiate the idea that religious or moral strictures and teachings varied according to class or status and that either of those two faiths promoted monarchy, class, aristocracy, oligarchy or dictatorship?

The anointing of kings with sacred Christian chrism?

The preaching of the Church against rebellion because monarchs were sanctioned by God?

Hereditary priesthoods? (OT)

Gee, where did I ever get the idea that Christian religion sanctioned inequality?

It's true that some (Anglicanism, but as we're told, nobody believes that any more) adopted a policy that we are all equal when we're dead --- and arranged their funeral rites to symbolize the fact -- but it would be a bold revisionist who would say that Anglicanism had any truck with political equality in the here and now.

The most important thing supporting the idea of equality among men is the fact that it has been tried and it works better than the other ideas around which mankind has organized society.

But that wasn't at all true at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. They didn't do it because they thought it would work, they did it because they thought it was right. That it works is a side benefit directly related to its truth.

Harry:

Yeah, I have to admit that hereditary celibate priesthood is an embarassment.

I marked that (OT), Peter, to bring in the Judeo aspect of the Judeo-Christianity we are always being urged to bow before.

I cannot find anything in either part to support the idea that religion promotes equality -- except at the Seat of Judgment, but our governments have to operate in the here and now.

In the here and now, Judeo-Christianity has always been for inquality before the law, in personalty and in equity.

Harry: The hereditary preisthood (the Kohenim) ceased to be of any real importance after the destruction of the Temple ca. 70 C.E. Even during the Hassmonian time thier importance was severly limited by the intellectual importance of the rabbi's in the proceedings of the Sanhedrin.

Scripture begins with human equality and dignity as a fact:

"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." Gen 1:27

The speculative schemes of politics rooted in the 18th century that have tried to despense with scripture have been forced to bring this through the back door disguised as a proposition of general reason.