Were the founding fathers egalitarians? What did they mean by “all men are created equal”?

My local church’s recent study into Christian Conflict Resolution led us to explore something critical about the commands of God that is often overlooked, abused, or ignored. You can hear the message I delivered to the church on that subject above. The founding fathers had another way of expressing it.

On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence pronounced these memorable words:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, …”

What did the founders mean when they wrote that “all men are created equal”? Did they mean that all men are equal in all matters? For example, did they mean that all men were born into equal social position? Did they mean that all men are born into equal financial situations? Experience would deny those interpretations. The founders themselves recognized from their own experience in many of their writings that different men were born into different situations.

Did they mean that all men were equally talented? That all men were equally intelligent? Once again, experience would deny these assertions.

When the Founders of the Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence, they meant that all men were equally under the authority of God. They meant that all men were equally accountable to God’s Law.

Why do we know that they were writing of equal accountability under the Law of God? Besides what we observe from their testimonies and other writings expressing their worldview, we know what they meant from the very context of the Declaration of Independence. The first paragraph of the Declaration states:

“When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” (emphasis added)

In this opening paragraph, the Founders appealed to the Law of God as their standard. Furthermore, they apparently believed that not only citizens, but also civil magistrates were accountable to the Law of God. While they may have fought for separation of church and state, they apparently did not believe in separation of God and state. In the main body of the Declaration, they enumerated the ways that King George had violated the Law of God, and they argued that these violations demonstrated such a rebellion against God’s Law that King George could no longer be their civil magistrate.

In other words, King George had strayed so far from being under the authority of God, that the colonists could not be under King George’s authority and also be under God’s authority. Such an idea would have been radical two-to-three hundred years before in England when the King was thought to be the Law of God on earth. That England believed Rex Lex – “the King is Law.” They construed passages such as Romans 13 in such a way as to assert that whatever the King did was what God had inspired him to do.

Over the course of the 1600’s, Great Britain slowly began to wake up to the truth of what Samuel Rutherford called Lex Rex – “the Law is King.” They began to understand the Reformation principles of the Bible that all men are equally sinful before a righteous God and that all men are equally accountable to the transcendent Law of God. When King Charles I began imprisoning people without cause and tried dissolving Parliament, he quite literally lost his head. As leaders such as Oliver Cromwell would explain, King Charles I had exceeded his jurisdiction, violating the Law of God.

Last month we celebrated and gave thanks to God for our Founders who were bold enough remind the world that God governs in the affairs of men, and defy a Law-breaking King. They were full of such faith and “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” that they were not afraid to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. If we hope to honor their legacy, then we will continue to promote the biblical principle that all men, regardless of their rank or status, are equally accountable to the Word of God. More importantly, if we hope to follow in the example of Jesus Christ, we will obey His commands to hold every man accountable to God’s Word “without respect of persons” (Romans 2:11).

Print Friendly

Consider partnering with us

84 comments
guestnolivemail
guestnolivemail

Actually, the issue was the right of men to to govern others, with their consent. In England, the "King" and Royal Family had special rights, and were above others, were not equal to others. The founders were throwing off the rule of British Monarchy, and this statement that All Men are Created Equal was a direct assault on the "Royal Family" idea that only Royals could rule. The founders did NOT believed that Church and State should be separated, the implemented that quite clearly, and they did NOT believe that Royals were better than others, hence ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL -- INCLUDING THE ROYAL FAMILY.


It has absolutely nothing to do with African Americans, however they keep insisting that the founders wanted to include them in this notion of all men being created equal. It was about Royalty, period. 


After this, the declaration states clearly "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "  NOT FROM ROYALTY BUT FROM THE GOVERNED. This is the key idea in this declaration of independence from British Royalty Ruling the Colonies..

Unreconstructed Rebel
Unreconstructed Rebel

Maria Bethany - “The republican party was the home of radicals of all stripes, including marxists and utopians, from its very founding.” I never heard such gobbledygook in my life! Then you obviously are not familiar with some of the radical groups who were prominent in the founding of the Republican Party in the 1850's. Prominent among these were radical abolitionists from New England who engaged in privately sponsored terrorism against Southern slaveholders through surrogates like the lunatic mass murderer John Brown. Another group were marxist refugees - primarily Germans - from the failed 1848 revolution in Europe who were attracted to the anti-States Rights/pro centra govt stance of the original Republican Party. Read "Red Republicans & Lincoln's Marxists" by Al Benson and Walter Kennedy for a full treatment on this topic which you obviously have no knowledge. The Republicans were founded as a sectional party to utilize the power of the central govt to subsidize inefficient northern industries and keep blacks out of northern states and western territories, free or slave.

guestnolivemail
guestnolivemail

@Unreconstructed Rebel 


Another Crock of speculation and nonsense from a democrat.


The Phantom Troll Is Back
The Phantom Troll Is Back

Mr. McDurmon, Thanks for clearing things up. I did not think it was you, but I was not absolutely sure, although I should have known better, since you are far more intelligent than the Joel I have been exchanging "opinions" with. Have a nice day.

The Phantom Troll Is Back
The Phantom Troll Is Back

Anyway Joel, I have to hand it to you people at AV. You are one of the few websites that really does a wonderful job at combining Calvinism with unrestricted capitalism in hopes that you can produce a true American Corporate Fascism. Don't worry, I won't bother you anymore. I just checked in to let you know I didn't forget all of you self righteous extreme right wingers down Georgia way. You people are just peachy. HA!!!!

lene3168
lene3168

Oh my goodness, there are several men here that really do not understand the scriptures. First the woman submitting does not mean "subservient" submit, means out of free will and love! It is just like a man to distort God's words! From the very beginning, Eve was beguiled and Adam standing right next to her side KNEW that he was sinning against God! Becoming one flesh does NOT mean a women is 'less" that again read the scriptures! How can a man treat part of his flesh less?You also forget that Christ came and saved all 'flesh" the terms used for "man" kind did not mean"men" but mankind men and women! So, if you really think about it..if woman was taken out of a man how can she be less??? Christ set us free, free indeed! Most men do not follow God's meaning of head of the household under Christ, their idea of these verses is to dominate, not honor with love as Christ pointed out! If a man is truly being the "man" Christ meant him to be than he would be as Christ is to the Church! I Peter 3:7, teaches that the husband is to honor his wife. She gave up her name to take yours. Honor means that you should show her respect and this involves courtesy, consideration and emotional support. Be sure that as her husband that you do not hold her up to ridicule in public by the cutting remarks that you make. She wears YOUR name and is to viewed as part of your body. She is not perfect and you are aware of this. Do not expect perfection, but as Ephesians 4:32 teaches, "forbear one another". This means to be gentle toward her. Control of temper, abstaining from physical violence and restraining a sharp tongue that makes one feel so inferior - are ways by which you can exhibit forbearance.

Richard Townsend
Richard Townsend

I am no theologian, biblical scholar, or expert in all things Christian and historical. That being said, my interpretation of all men being created equally based on Christian principles can only mean, all men are born with sin. This includes women as well as the term men is used as in "mankind" which includes both sexes. The bible is full of individuals being unequal in terms of wealth and position, slave and free, hungry and well fed etc. In Christianity the only common thread amongst all is sin, unless I have missed something. I would be interested in anyone pointing out mistakes in my interpretation.

The Phantom Troll Is Back
The Phantom Troll Is Back

Yes, God does indeed rule!! He rules everyone, everywhere, all of the time. In fact that's why HE caused the Union Army to invade the South during the Civil War and eventually defeat the Confederate States of America run by a bunch of slave holders, so that those African-American slaves who were brought over here against their will could have a better chance to become a little more equal. We can also thank God for the Civil Rights Movement.

Joel
Joel

As your username implies, you're just here to troll, to cause trouble. Why should I even take you seriously?

Joel
Joel

"We can also thank God for the Civil Rights Movement." Blasphemy.

The Phantom Troll Is Back
The Phantom Troll Is Back

Joel, Thanks. That's exactly the sort of rebuttal I expected to see from you. Thanks for not disappointing me. Thanks for being consistent and predictable.

The Phantom Troll Is Back
The Phantom Troll Is Back

That's true Joel. Why should you take me seriously? The only people you take seriously are those who tell you how great you are and who agree with everything you say. Of course you don't take me seriously because you never did anyway. Your statement posing as a question is a moot point to begin with. Have a nice day.

Joel McDurmon
Joel McDurmon

Hey Raymond/Troll/etc. You've got the wrong "Joel." The person you are arguing with is not Joel McDurmon. I am.

A. Sharpe
A. Sharpe

Jefferson, who penned the Declaration was an antichrist who sought in the "founding" of the United States a hope that its creation would destroy the True faith and any notion of the virgin birth or the divinity of Yeshua HaMessiah. "Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams Thomas Jefferson April 11, 1823 Print Page Jefferson attacks Calvin, predestination, the immaculate conception and other facets of Christianity. DEAR SIR, -- The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `mon Dieu! jusque à quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did. The being described in his 5. points is not the God whom you and I acknolege and adore, the Creator and benevolent governor of the world; but a daemon of malignant spirit. It would be more pardonable to believe in no god at all, than to blaspheme him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin. Indeed I think that every Christian sect gives a great handle to Atheism by their general dogma that, without a revelation, there would not be sufficient proof of the being of a god...." "Of the nature of this being we know nothing. Jesus tells us that `God is a spirit.' 4. John 24. but without defining what a spirit is {pneyma o Theos}. Down to the 3d. century we know that it was still deemed material; but of a lighter subtler matter than our gross bodies. So says Origen. `Deus igitur, cui anima similis est, juxta Originem, reapte corporalis est; sed graviorum tantum ratione corporum incorporeus.' These are the words of Huet in his commentary on Origen. Origen himself says `appelatio {asomaton} apud nostros scriptores est inusitata et incognita.' So also Tertullian `quis autem negabit Deum esse corpus, etsi deus spiritus? Spiritus etiam corporis sui generis, in suâ effigie.' Tertullian. These two fathers were of the 3d. century. Calvin's character of this supreme being seems chiefly copied from that of the Jews. But the reformation of these blasphemous attributes, and substitution of those more worthy, pure and sublime, seems to have been the chief object of Jesus in his discources to the Jews: and his doctrine of the Cosmogony of the world is very clearly laid down in the 3 first verses of the 1st. chapter of John, in these words, `{en arche en o logos, kai o logos en pros ton Theon kai Theos en o logos. `otos en en arche pros ton Theon. Panta de ayto egeneto, kai choris ayto egeneto ode en, o gegonen}. Which truly translated means `in the beginning God existed, and reason (or mind) was with God, and that mind was God. This was in the beginning with God. All things were created by it, and without it was made not one thing which was made'. Yet this text, so plainly declaring the doctrine of Jesus that the world was created by the supreme, intelligent being, has been perverted by modern Christians to build up a second person of their tritheism by a mistranslation of the word {logos}. One of it's legitimate meanings indeed is `a word.' But, in that sense, it makes an unmeaning jargon: while the other meaning `reason', equally legitimate, explains rationally the eternal preexistence of God, and his creation of the world. Knowing how incomprehensible it was that `a word,' the mere action or articulation of the voice and organs of speech could create a world, they undertake to make of this articulation a second preexisting being, and ascribe to him, and not to God, the creation of the universe...." Here is the Arian, anti-Trinitarian, antichrist and anti-God as he rejects the Son, not having been drawn to Him by the Father, not receiving the Spirit-sonship, and thus is none of His. "The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." No virgin birth, no divinity merely a moral teacher,. intending to uplift the ethical level of Jews only. And, the proof of the pudding: " But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding (of a virgin birth), and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors." The "artificial scaffolding" he seeks to destroy is the Faith once for all delivered unto the saints. The letter was addressed to his "buddy", John Adams, also an antichrist Unitarian. Jefferson' s own hand condemns him to Hell, and time and time again. Of course, you folk are free to accept the antichrist, anti-God notions he proposed in the Declaration. But, kindly do not spread the lie that Jefferson was interested in founding a nation amenable to the orthodox Christianity of the Bible, since he so clearly desired to destroy that Christianity by these United States. And, in answer to the question, at least for him: "Was Jefferson an egalitarian? say, "what does it matter, since he busted Hell wide open". If you want to bust Hell wide open, embrace Jefferson and his mindset.

guestnolivemail
guestnolivemail

@A. Sharpe


Gee, what a diatribe. The idea of the founders was to avoid the idea of "Royal Family" as being the only legitimate source of power and rule. Founders were not anti-Christian, they were against the idea of a national religion (as was the case under British Rule).


Please get your history correct before you post such nonsense. Maybe you got this from some wild-eyed lunatic who has a warped understanding of the founding of the USA, but you should consider the source, because if you learned this garbage from some book or teacher, you've fallen for a bunch of nonsense.

Arrow
Arrow

You've been reading too much Reimer, I think.

Maria Bethany
Maria Bethany

“Jefferson, who penned the Declaration, was an antichrist”? This is a strange opinion! He was not a Calvinist, and he had a peculiar theology, tinged with ideas of the age of Enlightenment. This means that his faith was definitely different from mine, but this did not make him an “antichrist.” Both he and Adams agreed that the nation must be built on the general principles of Christianity, which are capable to unite all people, whichever denominations they belong to: "Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System." (John Adams, Letter to Jefferson, 1813, June 28) The Framers believed that God created man to live his life freely under Him: free from oppressive government, free to pursue his own interest, and free to worship according to his own conscience, based on the general principles of the Bible. It is a great mistake to believe that they were “atheists”! They were Christians, but they were politicians, not priests or theologians. They were creating an equitable, representative government for a mottle crew, freedom seekers, who came here from all over the world and espoused diverse traditions and religions. Calvin was a great man in his place and time, but his gravity could never create the United States of America. Even so, this country had to be established, because it was the will of God. I believe in the will of God, and I believe that God uses all of us for His Plan. The miracle in the phrase, “all men are created equal” is the word CREATED. It is a miracle that the Americans’ determination for gaining their independence happened toward the end of the 18th century rather than the middle of the 19th century. After Darwin published his evolutionary theories, the Founding Fathers would not have a leg to stand on. Until Darwin, it was widely believed that nature reflects the Biblical Truth. Jefferson and his peers expounded that there is only one Lawmaker, the One Creator, and that He rules over man and nature. Only the Law of God says that “all men are created equal” and are subject to the Law of the Creator, just as all children are equally subject to the law of the father in the family. However, after Darwin’s so-called “evidence” that nature is self-created, many of the scientific-minded people (like Jefferson) became persuaded that the law of God is imaginary, and only the law of nature prevails. Under the law of nature, men are NOT equal, because some men are more “evolved” than the other. (Or as Orwell famously said, “Some are more equal than other.”) Socialism feeds on stolen and distorted Christian principles. Egalitarianism is a sham. There is nothing in the atheists’ belief system to support equality! Leaving out “created” and saying that “all men are equal” is a disgraceful deception; it is made up to fool the common people. It is no accident that socialist leaders are elitists, and they create totalitarian governments. Their greed for power is insatiable; there is nothing to escape their desire to control public and private lives. Atheists persecute Christ because they are jealous of Him. Their goal is to usurp Christ’s throne and rule over the hearts and minds of all people.

Chief_Cabioch
Chief_Cabioch

It meant under law we are all the same size and weight, had it NOT been for democrats, (most) at the Time, blacks wouldn't have faced slavery, it was democrats who fought the 1854 Republican party to stop blacks from being free, it was democrats who created the KKK as it's militant arm to keep blacks in check, as well as any who attempted to help them, and they are still working their magic on blacks with unkept promises of Government reparations, obama is now using the public assistance programs to "pay the Blacks" off, and vote him back in office....

guestnolivemail
guestnolivemail

@Unreconstructed Rebel


More unsupported nonsense from this "Rebel without a clue"


guestnolivemail
guestnolivemail

@Chief_Cabioch


Democrats were the Slave Holding party, they created the KKK, they governed the south after the civil war, who do you think was governor of Alabama during that Selma march? A Democrat governor. Who was the great lecturer in the Senate for years? Senator Byrd, a known KKK member.  Who voted against the civil rights act? Democrats.


Who is still keeping blacks in Chains, this time Economic Chains? Democrats.  Blacks need to face the fact that Democrats are NOT their friends, democrats need poor blacks (and other poor minorities) to be on the dole to assure their power by assuming poor people will vote for democrats because they think the give-away programs are actually helping. All the welfare does for Blacks is keep them poor, unmotivated, and provide a way for them to blame others for their failures.

kay person
kay person

Mr. Joel, If I may ask you a question. I believe that you believe in supreme state rights. However, it was the Federal government, which gave women, blacks, and minorities equality. If it was up to the South, we would still be backward or do you feel this is correct?

Joel
Joel

In other words, it's all white people's fault. How...original. Also, if what you say is true, black people must be pretty damn stupid. How come they can't see how the Democratic party is using them? Or maybe--just maybe--blacks LIKE welfare and race-based privileges, because they benefit them. I refuse to see blacks as nothing but victims of their own stupid naivety. They know what they want, and they have no problem playing along with the Democrats to get it.

Unreconstructed Rebel
Unreconstructed Rebel

That is nonsense. Slavery was a legacy of of British colonial policy and economic necessity in the colonies. It had nothing to do with the democratic party. At the time of the War of Independence, all 13 colonies had legally established slavery and slave populations. The KKK was established as a resistance movement to strike back against a brutal occupation govt. that was using blacks as dupes and pawns to disenchfranchise and humiliate whites. Before the KKK was established, northern Republicans established the Union Leagues, which terrorized white Southerners. The republican party was the home of radicals of all stripes, including marxists and utopians, from its very founding. The core conservative base in this country remained in the democrat party - the champion of States Rights and opponent of centralized govt power - until the democrat party itself started going liberal under FDR and LBJ. Then conservative Southern democrats started switching to the GOP under Nixon and then Reagan. Until then, the GOP was dominated by northeastern liberals like the Rockefellers. So the GOP exploited blacks in the 19th century as political pawns to support their big govt agenda and democrats started doing the same in the mid 20th century. History didn't start in 1980 with the election of Reagan. Learn it.

Maria Bethany
Maria Bethany

“The republican party was the home of radicals of all stripes, including marxists and utopians, from its very founding.” I never heard such gobbledygook in my life! You are posing as a knowledgeable “historian,” but you don’t even know that the Republican Party was created to prevent the extension of slavery? Lincoln was Republican; Douglas was Democrat. The North was for industry and paid labor; the South was for plantations and slave labor. The real cause of the war was that the Democrats wanted to create more slave states in the West. Before the war started there were repeated confrontations between free settlers and slave settlers in Missouri, Kansas and Nebraska. Hundreds of people died; livestock was destroyed; crops were burned. Millions of dollars were lost. There was no way to stop the civil war because freedom and slavery do not mix. The Democrats represented the Southern landowners, who needed lots of cheap slaves because they loved the aristocratic lifestyle. They despised Northern industry, because they knew that industry creates independent, free workers. Strangely, the leaders of the Democratic Party still despise industry for the same reason.

Crone
Crone

"All men are created equal." It means exactly what is stated! You need not read more into it. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. It means equality is the right of men who support this country. It means females of all kinds are NOT equal then or now. IT means MEN are the superior being in ALL circumstances. There is NO place for women in this society other than to carry out their duties as proscribed in the King James Version of the Bible. There is no place for them today other than their proscribed and distinct roles. They are to be subservient wives, daughters, siblings etc. They are to take care of their husbands, sons and brothers. They are to bear children as many as are needed for the care of the land. They are to take care of all household duties such as cleaning, cooking, gardening and sewing. They are to attend church 2-3 times per week and pay obeisance to their God in appropriate houses of worship as provided by the husband. The woman shall never function as a teacher of men or male children, they are not supposed to usurp the functions of the superior male. They are not to deal in the workplace and never take a position that rules over a man. That means women should never have been given the right to vote. That was the beginning of the end for this country. They should not be judges, members of congress nor any elected position held over men in any capacity. This is what was meant by ALL MEN/ not women. It is time for them to return to their natural place in harmonious society.

guestnolivemail
guestnolivemail

@Crone


It does not mean exactly what it says. It was about the denial that Royal families had special rights to govern, and this statement was intended to make it clear that the founders refuted the idea of a Royal Family -- and the founders also did not want to create a state sponsored religion, hence the declaration of people to believe in any religion, separation of church and state.


It's not about Blacks, it's not about Social Justice, it's about the right to be elected to high office with the consent of the governed, and that the USA was not founded on the idea of a Royal Family or State Religion.  Too bad people are being taught a bunch of nonsense in schools, and are too ignorant to dig for the facts and understand the reason for the declaration of INDEPENDENCE from Royal Rule and the Monarchy.


Pepper Bruce
Pepper Bruce

Doug, your correction is much appreciated and well stated.

fred
fred

Your are exactly right. But don't expect to be patted on the back.

Doug
Doug

Crone stated, "It means females of all kinds are NOT equal then or now." Your logic is incorrect. If it meant this, it would have had to say something like, "all men are created equal, but women are not." If I say "all male dogs have four legs", does this mean all female dogs do not? No, the statement as given does not allow me to make any conclusions about female dogs. In fact, our English language often uses the term "men" to mean "mankind", including both men and women, so by this statement I may be able to say that both men and women are created equal. "IT means MEN are the superior being in ALL circumstances." Where to you get from anywhere (Bible or Constitution) that men are superior to anyone else? Having different roles does not make one member more superior than another. We are all members of one Body, and God is not a respecter of persons. "There is NO place for women in this society other than to carry out their duties as proscribed in the King James Version of the Bible." There is no place for _anyone_ in this society other than to carry out our duties as prescribed in the Bible. While we do have different roles, one role is not "superior" to another. "They are to be subservient wives, daughters, siblings etc." Read Ephesians Chapter 5 (edited for brevity): 20 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband. First, note that "submitting YOURSELVES one to another" comes before the admonision for wives to submit to husbands. Also, though there is a submission of the wife to the Godly husband, there is also a picture of being "one flesh" together with the the husband, and the requirement for the husband to love his wife as he loves himself, even to the point of giving our lives for our wives. This is hardly putting women in an "inferior" position. As to your definition of the roles, you should also look to the Scriptures more closely. For example, you say "they are not to deal in the workplace", yet, for example, Proverbs 31 tells us, "She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant." Also, the NT mentions Anna, for exaple, as a prohetess. Please don't perpetuate the myth that men are somehow superior to women as a Biblical view.

george
george

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

lurl
lurl

Crone: You are absolutely correct. A womans place is in the home taking care of her husband, children and those of her family. She should be baking and cooking, washing clothes and making them. She is the center of the household and her husband is the center of the world. He represents Christ on earth and it is he who rules the home and she who makes it comfortable. Very few women are aware of the fact they have condemned themselves to the darkest reaches of hell by taking upon themselves the duties of men. God has commanded it so it must be.

Arrow
Arrow

Several generations ago, Christian women understood their exalted role as wife and mother, to be protected and honored by men, and especially her husband. A generation ago it came to the point where they had to be reminded. Now they need to be convinced, and most pastors are neither inclined nor equipped to do so.

Maria Bethany
Maria Bethany

The Framers did not think of the nation as single males and females, but as a large group of families. They made the laws for a country that is a safe place for families to raise their children. They were thinking of the next generation and generations to come. They gave everybody the opportunity to “pursue happiness,” to prosper and worship freely. They did not have in mind a nation divided by sex, or race, or class. It is the liberal policy that makes women and men resent each other. Liberals are trying to create division in all segments of society. They do this, because they want to tear down this country. “Divide and conquer” is their principle! It seems many of us fall into their trap. God assigned men and women different responsibilities, but this does not mean that He does not love us equally. He made man and woman one unit because He seeks godly offspring. (Malachi 2:15) Men and women compliment one another for God’s purpose. Everything that truly benefits the man also benefits the woman, and vice versa. The happiness of the sexes depends on each other’s happiness. Men, do not be bitter toward women! “Husbands, love your wives and do not be bitter toward them" (Colossians 3:19). The wife should submit to her own husband, but God wants the husband to love his wife! “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (Ephesians 5:25). Love her, as Christ loved the church and give yourself to her! Believe me, this is the taller order of the two; it is far, far more difficult to keep… A Christian is not an “egalitarian,” because he is guided by love. Love is the great equalizer. The word “Love” (as indicated in the Bible) is not simply an emotional reaction, but a religious principle. In the Bible, LOVE is recognized as an inborn spiritual force to unite and harmonize all things. This is the universal law of social interaction: There is only one true and natural bond, the spiritual Bond. Love is the bond that does no harm, but only good (1Thessalonians 5:14). Love is the greatest motivator for human progress. Love is the master emotion above all, because it exercises influence over all other feelings. Love mitigates. It is the moderator of fear, hopelessness, anger, hatred, resentment, pride, selfishness, greed, lust, vengefulness and all other emotions that are harmful in human relationships. Love moderates the excesses of will; it sets limits to desire, ambition, and curiosity, and generates charitableness, compassion, and helpfulness. Love is peaceful, patient, and forgiving. Love creates, heals, rebuilds, and turns wrong things right. Spiritual Love rules over all, even love itself. This is the only force that makes civilized human life possible.

Noa Napoleon
Noa Napoleon

"Ye shall have one manner of law, as well as for the stranger, as for one of your own country: or I am the Lord your God" (Lev 24:22). "One Law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you" (Exd 12:39). Partiality and favoritism become the tools of subversion when laws are not equal in the sense that the founders understood it. Did they not also understand the need for "fixed laws," preferring A Republic, over a Democracy? Ancient Israel was a theocracy, whoʻs land was divided by tribes, and yet the principle of equality was not compromised or morphed into egalitarianism until the Monarchy? Iʻm trying to understand how many form of government Israel adopted along the way and what if any would be the classic era? Iʻm thinking pre-Monarchy during the Judges? Before the Time of the Kings.

Robert o. Adair
Robert o. Adair

As t Christians "fighting for their rights", The Rights of Man is a 17th century "Enlightenment" notion which ended up producing the bloodbath of the French Revolution. Till the fifth century A.D., the Christians were an outlawed group, more or less an underground group. They were in no position to launch an armed rebellion. The Romans were pretty effective at dealing with such things. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, Christians were still a minority and slave holding well nigh universal. Even if you passed a law aginst slavery, it would be impossible to enforce. Christians, instead, passed several laws making slavery more humane. In particular, slave owners could no longer kill a slave just because it displeased him. The Lord proposed a radical, spiritual solution in the The Epistle to Philemon, that Christian slave owners should treat their slaves as brothers in Christ. The fallacy of Secular Humanist concepts of reform are shallow and materialist. This doesn't work for spiritual problems caused by the corruption of human nature. Wold you like a perfect, utopian society? Give me two million perfect people and I will help them set one up. Then they will thank me and kick me out because I'm an imperfect sinner like everyone else.

Noa Napoleon
Noa Napoleon

What do you mean by Rights of man is a 17 century "enlightenment" notion? Blood bath produced by rights of man? Sorry just curious?

Boomer8
Boomer8

It means that all Men are Equal Before the Law, and Equal before the judgment throne of God; that NO MAN is GREATER or more important than any other man, that titles of Nobility are null and void in America, and that opportunity exists for all men because no man is withheld from it! Except for the Kennedy's, of course.

Greg
Greg

What is meant is we have equal rights to practice freedom of religion, and equal rights to pursue hapiness, property, education and to be equal under the rule of law. What it means is you have the right to keep what's yours whether it's 1 or 1 billion dollars what it means is the same rule of law applies to a billionaire, Congessman or the President, or a janitor or a factory worker. What is meant is that no titles of nobility shall be granted and that someone off the boat from Italy or Ireland has just as much right to climb the ladder of success as an English or French nobleman. Now in the U.S. we have a progressive tax rate that punishes good behavior and practices and punishes bad behavior and practices the opposite of equal or fair and illegal immigrants get special priviledges over law abiding citizens. In fact what we have is eugenics enforced at gunpoint by the IRS where drug addicts, drug dealers, illegal immigrants, lazy bums are paid to have children like rabbits and the law abiding decent citizens are treated like criminals, stripped of assets, regulated to death, and socially villified.

DPB
DPB

Could they have meant equality in as far as we all have God given equal rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, as long as we abide with Gods will? That's what I get out of it.

Everett
Everett

The article is in error because the founders did not define all two legged hosapiens as men. The Black, Oriental and indian races were not defined as men, considered equal unGod's Law or in any other aspect of life.

Heyoka
Heyoka

Sorry it should be 1200AD

Gan
Gan

Oh Please!

Heyoka
Heyoka

Well said sir...

James Rogers
James Rogers

My friend, you are ignorant of the History of this nation. At the time of the revolution, there were prominent black men doing business in this country and not as slaves either. I don't remember which book I read this in but it was written by a well educated author of American History.

Heyoka
Heyoka

Actually they show disparity between races. They also praised the Iriquois Nation for their Constitution. The Negro Race were slaves due to economic realities and the fact that they were slave plain and simple. White people were held in servitude as well. Indentured servants were among those and the Colony of Geogia was a Penal Colony similar to Botony Bay in Alstrailia. However, there were free blacks as well and they too owned slaves in the south, North Carolina and Louisianna, check WIKI. Understand that the slaves were captured African people often times captured and sold by tribes in competition for the same land and economies. The Arabs were the impetus and it was the Islamic African natives along with other Islamic nationalities that gave rise to the slave trade. The European countries, the Dutch and Portugal, were among the worst. Envoys from Arabia as late as the 1950 visited the Queen in England with their slaves. In fact the Islamic conquerer of the SPanish lands reported capturing 30,000 white Christians whom they enslaved and slaving raids were implimented along the European Atlantic coast as late as 1200BC. So the institution of slavery went along with the Conquering Force. It was universally accepted by all the cultures including the African populations. There was still slavery in the 70s in some African countries. What's your point??? Obviously we have moved past that. Human nature will be as it is. People will still cry foul although it was not done to them. I am of Irish decent. Do you think I should claim some sort of reperations from England?? In fact my ancestors were indentured servants, that's how they got here. Maybe we should give the country back to the Indians, I am part Cherokee as well. SO haow about you are you a squatter??? Get the hell off my land... So it seems that mankind was not ready for such lofty ideas, amazing.... So instead of lifting everyone up to this level some would lord it over us, tell us what is right and force us to intergrate... as long as they get to make the rules.... RIGHT!!!! Such are the supplications of every tyrant...

tionico
tionico

The COnstitutioin, Article i, Section 2, Paragraph 3: representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union (n.b., allows for any future states that may be added). according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a period of years (i.e., indentured and apprenticed people, but not "owned" slaves) and excluding Indians NOT TAXED (my emphasis), three fifths of all other PERSONS (my emphasis again). They were recognised as PERSONS, that is, MEN, HUMANS, not some substandard race. The reason for this reduction in effective numbers was so as to not allow the southern states an unfair advantage, they having in sum several millions of slaves. This would potentially allow them an unfair number of representatives in the lower house. It was not an attempt to consider them less human, or of some other "race" or "species". Note well, the issue of representation was upon the same terms as the issue of taxation (remember one of the rallying cries of the move for independence....). Bear in mind, as well, that the slaves on the plantations were not taxed directly, as were "free men" and some Indians. Thus, by virtue of examining the Constitution itself, your premise fails. NOTHING was mentioned of one's race.. ONLY status as "free", "non-taxed Indian", or "other". Men of all races fell into these categories not on the basis of their race. Free blacks, taxed Indians, Chinese, Malay, etc, were amongst those considered "men" for the purpose of representation and taxation. Others were considered "men", but were less represented and taxed.

Curry
Curry

Our founding fathers knew well the following verses of their Bible: Colossians 3:22 from the NIV of 1984: “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.” Vs. 23:”Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, Vs. 24: “since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving. Vs. 25: “Anyone who does wrong will be repaid for his wrong, and there is no favoritism.” Colossians 4:1: “Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven." The position taken by the author is that "Equal" did not mean identical in earthly station so as to merit the favor of civic governament without having earned one's keep before God; rather, equal in what God had endowed to all humanity: life from God and though it might be owned by a man, it is first owned by God; liberty in God, not men for in Jesus Christ are all men made free; and the pursuit of happiness: only when we are doing God's work are we happy, and though a man may be free and possessed of great material wealth, he is burdened so much so that he is unable to enter the Kingdon of God, whereas the slave, completing wealth, by doing the work of God as a slave is building up for himself or herself an eternal inheritance in the heavens "undefiled, uncorruptible, which neither moths nor rust can decay nor thieves break in and steal"...

Curry
Curry

correction to my above: "completely lacking in material wealth"

Nicolas
Nicolas

The "3/5 of all other persons" was put in there by the abolitionist because the slave owners wanted thier slaves to count as a full vote (person) so that the slave owners would be able to have more representatives in congress. It was thought that slavery would eventually die out on its own accord, but it did not. It continued until the civil war. Nicolas

David Whitley
David Whitley

Exactly right. “3/5 of all other persons” refers to the representation of the group and not to the value or humanity of the person. "3/5ths" was an abolitionist idea to help end slavery. The abolitionist forced the slave holders hand when they wanted to count slaves as property - rather than persons - the abolitionist then claimed if you're going to count property towards representation - equating slaves to livestock then the abolitionists will count their property too. "3/5ths of all other persons" was in fact a move to humanize the slaves not the opposite.