Equality: is it overrated?

[Mike]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I think you may be conflating "no respecter of persons" with "equality."  The characteristics you mentioned are irrelevant to Christ, not because he is consciously attempting to treat people equally, but rather because to him those characteristics are meaningless when it comes to the gospel and the plan of PROGRESSION. 

You're certainly not without your rights to think what you wish. I am thinking it's kind of making a mountain out of a mole hill. The characteristics I mentioned are also irrelevant to me because on a spiritual level I'm trying to be like Jesus, and on a temporal level I'm trying to treat people equally. So, I'll try harder not to be bothered with these details and the differing ways we define equality because I suspect you and I really do agree on the big stuff.  

Edited February 24, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Rickie said:

I'm somewhat confused haha, are you saying I'm silly for thinking we do?

Because I know we certainly do not. However, I do think we are taught to try to do so, but we will never be perfect enough in this life to do so.

Sorry. I should have left it at "I certainly don't see anything to disagree about".

[wenglund]

23 minutes ago, Mike said:

So far the OP seems to have the veiled objective of simply attacking the "left", the Democratic Party, politicians with whom some disagree, etc.

False accusation, and not an argument (speaking of straw men)

My objective is to challenged a broad CULTURAL belief that may get in the way of gospel progression and which may even erroneously degrade one's spiritual faith. Whatever political examples are proffered are simply intended to draw from shared experience so as to increase the chances of mutual understanding and productive conversation. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Rickie]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

You're certainly not without your rights to think what you wish. I am thinking it's kind of making a mountain out of a mole hill. The characteristics I mentioned are also irrelevant to me because on a spiritual level I'm trying to be like Jesus, and on a temporal level I'm trying to treat people equally. So, I'll try harder not to be bothered with these details and the differing ways we define equality because I suspect you and I really do agree on the big stuff.  

I like the amount of times we're using try... I think that's key in this. Sometimes it's all we're asked to do.

[Mike]

Just now, wenglund said:

False accusation, and not an argument (speaking of straw men)

My objective is to challenged a broad CULTURAL belief that may get in the way of gospel progression and which may even erroneously degrade one's spiritual faith. Whatever political examples are proffered are simply intended to draw from shared experience so as to increase the chances of mutual understanding and productive conversation. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was an observation. 

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

It wasn't meant to be an argument. It was an observation. 

Either way, the observation was incorrect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

Either way, the observation was incorrect.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Duly noted. 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I agree that there is a difference between genetic characteristics and sexual-psychological proclivities when it comes to "rights." But, I would caution against claiming that racial equality is righteous--particularly as it relates to the role of government. Not only has government enforced "equal;ity" become an organ for inequality, and paved the way for judicial activism, which has violated the constitution separation of powers, but it has also seriously degraded the very race it was intended to help: 

Fixating on equality, rather than on freedom and personal progress and accountability, has been toxic.

So, in my interest to avoid continuing to misunderstand you, would you explain further about the way "racial equality" gets "in the way of gospel progression" and  may "even erroneously degrade one's spiritual faith"? 

[Blueskye2]

4 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Devils advocate-

Aren't all humans in some way created unequally? I'm only 5'07" and I have no athletic talent. Should I demand "equal rights" and demand they put me on the Florida Gators baseball team?

 

Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born. 

Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.

Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.  

(From William Blake's, "Auguries of Innocence")

Now a discussion of how the words "misery" and "delight" are defined, can ensue.   "5'07" and I have no athletic talent" = misery

 

 

Edited February 24, 2017 by Blueskye2

[eddified]

@wenglund I think you make some good points.

@Mike there has been a lot of harm done in the name of "racial equality". (See Al Sharpton and affirmative action for examples.) However, the definition of racial equality that I believe in has more to do with judging people based on the content of their character and treating others as children of God regardless of heritage or skin color. Contrast this with slavery reparations and affirmative action, which specifically uses skin color as a basis upon which decisions are made.

Edited February 24, 2017 by eddified

[eddified]

@wenglund I agree that the politics of race have gone off the tracks and are very harmful. 

[wenglund]

Consider the law of gravity. It is not a respecter of persons. It doesn't care if one is young or old, little or tall, fat or skinny,  gay or straight, black or white or Asian, etc. It is a law that treats everyone equally--not because the end goal of the law is equality, nor is equality the intent behind the equality that exists under that natural law.  

The same is true, to some extent, for the laws of God--blessing or punishment are contingent upon obedience or disobedience to the law (.D&C 130:20-21) While God's laws tend to apply equally to mankind, the goal behind the law isn't equality, nor is the equality that exist under the law a conscious intent. Rather, it is simple the nature of the law. Equality is unimportant.

I say, "to some extent," because there are differing levels of laws--lower and higher, Old and New Testament, etc. Men will be judged according to the laws they have been given. Those who have only been given the lower law, will not be judged as those who have been given the higher law. Where much is given, much is expected. In other words, we won't be judged equally under the law.

Then, there is the principle of mercy...

To a lesser extent, the same could be said for man's laws. Most laws are enacted without the least thought for equality. Speed limits are set up, not to create parity between fast and slow cars, but for safety and conservation purposes. 

I say, "lesser extent," because there are man-made laws that intentional discriminate, and rightly so. Licensing (drivers, marriage, professional) and voting and contract laws intelligently discriminate against minors and non-citizens and serious offenders of the law. These laws are applied unequally, not because inequality is the objective or intent, but because there is a rational basis for doing so.  Equality is unimportant. Making it important in such cases defies reason. (this principle applies to the legalization of same-sex "marriage," but that is a discussion that has been rendered moot by the Supreme Court in a case that history will one day view as the most idiotic decision in judicial history, and this because the focus was placed on "equality" when it really had no ration relevance. I say this not to flog the "Left" or Democrats, but as a popular example to illustrate the general point about culture and its effect on LDS faith.)  

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

27 minutes ago, Mike said:

So, in my interest to avoid continuing to misunderstand you, would you explain further about the way [the culture has perceived and addressed] "racial equality" [in a way that may] get "in the way of gospel progression" and  may "even erroneously degrade one's spiritual faith"? 

I fixed (see bracketed additions above)your  question so it more accurately represents my position, and I will be happy to provide an explanation when I get a moment. For now, I am off to work.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[eddified]

@wenglund, wow, I'm really impressed by your blog!

I read the entire blog post (save broken images) at https://whyleftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-politics-of-race.html and I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of sources cited. Links galore! 

Good job! This is a blog I'll be bookmarking!

[Mike]

46 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I fixed (see bracketed additions above)your  question so it more accurately represents my position, and I will be happy to provide an explanation when I get a moment. For now, I am off to work.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'll be anticipating your explanation hoping for emphasis on the parts of my question I placed in quotation marks. Thanks. 

[Blackmarch]

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

From what I can tell, the principle of equality, particularly in relation to politics, has increased in importance since the 1960's and the civil rights movement, to the point that for many it has become the prime directive.

My question is: "Should equality be all that important given that it defies the natural state of things as well as the fundamental mechanism of evolution (natural selection and survival of the fittest)?

After all, the word "equality" only shows up twice in the LDS scriptures: (see HERE) And, the varied degrees of glory in the resurrection hardly seem egalitarian.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

political equality: all are equal, but some are more equal than others.


true equality = pure justice. which is a scary thing.

[Guest MormonGator]

3 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Every Night and every Morn
Some to Misery are Born. 

Every Morn and every Night
Some are Born to sweet delight.

Some are Born to sweet delight,
Some are Born to Endless Night.  

(From William Blake's, "Auguries of Innocence")

Now a discussion of how the words "misery" and "delight" are defined, can ensue.   "5'07" and I have no athletic talent" = misery

 

 

5'07" and no poetic talent either, according to my college professors, but anyway.  Never been a Blake poetry fan (I prefer Emily Dickinson and TS Eliot)  but I like his (William Blake) paintings. Amazing that someone had so much talent in both areas! 

Edited February 25, 2017 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

15 hours ago, Mike said:

The definition of equality, or the definition of marriage? We can quibble over whether or not to call a Supreme Court Judge a politician depending I suppose on where we each stand on a given question, but I don't really want to. I'm more interested in the questions I put toward the OP: Should I take it then that your answer to your question is that equality should not be all that important? Do you advocate dropping the ideal of a self-evident truth that all men are created equal, and replacing it with a self-evident truth all men are created unequal? Do you want to live in a society where survival of the fittest is taught as something like a so-called prime directive?

Okay, this answer encompasses the entirety of existence and not just politics.

Christian teaching is clear on the matter.  We are equal in the eyes of God.  The relevant scripture is Acts 10:34.

That said, where people stumble and veer away from Christian teaching is their perception of what it means to be equal.

So, what does it mean to you that Man is created equal?  Let's put this in even more specific terms.  How is Mike equal to...say... Nick Vujicic?

[Mike]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Okay, this answer encompasses the entirety of existence and not just politics.

Christian teaching is clear on the matter.  We are equal in the eyes of God.  The relevant scripture is Acts 10:34.

That said, where people stumble and veer away from Christian teaching is their perception of what it means to be equal.

So, what does it mean to you that Man is created equal?  Let's put this in even more specific terms.  How is Mike equal to...say... Nick Vujicic?

The only times (I'm pretty sure) I used the word 'equal' in this thread were quoting a phrase from the Declaration of Independence and referring to the Savior. Mr. Vujicic and I are equal(s) in that we are both beloved children of a Heavenly Father, we both need, want, and deserve to love and be loved and to strive to be happy, we both face adversity and opposition here, and we both need a helping hand, aid, assistance from other people in order to thrive and to succeed to the degrees we have. Without elaborating I feel confident this encompasses my understanding of what it means that Man is created equal. Perhaps you can tease out more detail from me if you think it is important. 

[eddified]

16 hours ago, Mike said:

That was your response to my remark that "There is nothing about the varied degrees of glory (neither hypothetically nor in reality) that should be construed as violating an egalitarian principle." But your response puzzles me because I didn't see anything in the OP that would make me think about Communism. I suspect that you reject Communism, as I do. So while you're probably correct that a socialist or communist may disagree with me I think it's sort of irrelevant. 

It's very relevant. The original post references the idea that we as a society are too fixated on equality. I would say that our society is moving more and more towards socialism. Consider socialism and fixation on equality (in @wenglund's  sense as seen in all of his posts on this topic [not just the fisrt]) .... are they linked? Sure seems like it to me. If our society continues to make equality the main goal, then it will become more socialized, IMO. 

[Mike]

1 minute ago, eddified said:

It's very relevant. The original post references the idea that we as a society are too fixated on equality. I would say that our society is moving more and more towards socialism. Consider socialism and fixation on equality (in @wenglund's  sense as seen in all of his posts on this topic [not just the fisrt]) .... are they linked? Sure seems like it to me. If our society continues to make equality the main goal, then it will become more socialized, IMO. 

I meant that it's irrelevant to what I was talking about. I don't see why I should be concerned what a Communist thinks about the Mormon doctrine of varied degrees of glory any more than what a Baptist thinks about it, for example. That's all I meant. 

[wenglund]

On 2/24/2017 at 4:26 PM, Mike said:

So, in my interest to avoid continuing to misunderstand you, would you explain further about the way [the culture has perceived and addressed] "racial equality" [so that it] gets "in the way of gospel progression" and  may "even erroneously degrade one's spiritual faith"? 

Here is the short answer: "Racial equality" is a man-made endeavor that is at high risk of producing the opposite results than intended, But,, because it has high emotional appeal, it may detract from or even supplant the ways of God that organically and unintentionally produce a proper semblance of equality. 

I will provide reason and explanation in the posts to follow. First, I will individually examine each of the elements (race and equality) on their own merits, and then I will examine them together in the context of the predominate culture. My examinations will contrast the man-made endeavor with the gospel approach. And, finally, I will provide examples of how the man-made endeavor has seemingly conflicted with the gospel and at times been preferred and trusted over the gospel, causing an impediment to gospel progression and even degraded people's spiritual faith. Stay tuned.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 26, 2017 by wenglund

[wenglund]

On 2/24/2017 at 5:04 PM, eddified said:

@wenglund, wow, I'm really impressed by your blog!

I read the entire blog post (save broken images) at https://whyleftistlunc.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-politics-of-race.html and I'm pleasantly surprised by the number of sources cited. Links galore! 

Good job! This is a blog I'll be bookmarking!

This is greatly appreciated. I hope you can draw much of value from all the hard work. It was an eye-opening and perspective-reorienting experience researching and putting it all together. Feel free to explore the other blogs and blog posts to your hearts content, and provide comments and criticism as you see fit.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

@wenglund I asked you to explain how racial equality gets in the way of gospel progression and may degrade one's spiritual faith. I was disappointed that instead you gave me a "fixed" version of my question which doesn't really work for me. I think I know why you did this because your short answer was just a re-write of your "fixed"question. So, I think I already know what your long answer will be like. But I read your blog, and I'll certainly read your posts to come. Thank you for tolerating my interruptions of what you wanted to accomplish with the OP.  All my best.

[wenglund]

RACE is "the [man-made] classification of humans into groups based on physical traits, ancestry, genetics or social relations, or the relations between them." ( Wikipedia ).

However, as with all man-made classifications, the groups are distinguished from each other by their inherent differences.--i.e. skin color, facial features, skull size and shape, etc.

As such, whether intended or not, focusing on race, and elevating it in importance, tends to highlight how the races are inherently not the same or unequal--and this separate and apart from social demographic inequalities by race (IQ, soco-economic status, family structures, political affiliation, etc.). Man-made racial classification is, by definition, discriminatory and the basis of inequality, thus creating a bit of a logical contradiction when coupled with the term "equality."  "Racial equality," in this sense, is like suggesting the equalization of inherent inequality, the squaring of a circle.

Additionally, man-made racial classification separates and divide people, oft engendering "tribalism," which tends towards pitting the races against each other. This works at cross-purpose with equalization since it is against each group's self interest in surviving the pitting.

Contrast this with the God-given gospel, which stresses unity and oneness and sameness. Paul declared, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is their male nor female, for you are all one in Christ." Gal 3:26)  

By logical extension, this principle applies to races as well. In the gospel there are no blacks or whites or Asias, etc. We are all alike as children of our Heavenly Father and of one body in Christ. Within the gospel, race is rendered meaningless and unimportant, if not irrelevant. As one big family or tribe, we are not pitted against each other, but have cause to work in each others best interest. Their pain is our pain. Their joy is our joy. 

In a sense, by ignoring our differences and focusing on our similarities, we are made equal.

Therefore, ironically, by focusing on race and making it of utmost importance, it inadvertently fosters or establishes inequality, whereas by rendering race as unimportant in the gospel, it result organically and unintentionally in equality.

Make sense?

In other words, the ways of man in this regard, contravene the ways of God, and the former doesn't work as intended, while the later does. For those people who succumb to the emotional appeal of race classification and "racial equality," and privilege it over the non-discriminatory and unifying ways of God, not only embark on a failed mission, but inadvertently violate the divine order of things, which can't help but limit their spiritual progress and perhaps even degrade it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 26, 2017 by wenglund
spelling correction