Equality: is it overrated?

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

@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.

I "fixed" your question so as to avoid having words unintentionally put into my mouth and to provide clarity and desired direction. Sorry to disappoint, But, I appreciate you reading my blog and posts (including those to come). Hopefully, you will find something therein of value. If not, it was worth a try. For my part, I value criticisms and challenges to my perspective, and I often gain from reading differing perspectives. So, I hope you will continue to participate. I have already grown and been caused to stretch by what you have said so far, though I am beginning to get the sense, like you, that we aren't that far apart in how we view these things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

EQUALITY is a relatively vague notion that lends itself to a broad diversity of interpretation and application. Ironically, it has resulted in extensive inequality of understanding.

This lack of oneness of mind becomes highly problematic when equality is fashioned by men as a desired collective objective, and even more so when it is elevated in importance and becomes a high priority or the prime directive. One set of human advocates may have equality of outcome in mind, whereas other advocates may have equality of opportunity in mind, Some of the advocates for equality of opportunity may have state-enforced "level playing field" and "quotas" in mind, while other advocates of equality of opportunity may have free markets and rule of law in mind. The lists can go on and on. Ironically, there is considerable inequality of purpose in relation to the objective of equality.

Here twice again the notion of equality breeds inequality. And, that is not all...

In order to achieve equality of outcome as a proactive objective (high priority or otherwise) necessitates discriminating against (treating unequally) high achievers, hard and long workers, the well adaptive and adept, the fast and strong, the more intelligent, etc. The goal of quality breeds inequality.

Were that not enough, the goal of equality of outcome also necessitates discriminating against those it is supposed to help. For example, as I explain at my blog on Equal Pay for Equal Work , state enforced closure of the mythical gender wage gap, besides having made the gap wider, ultimately necessitates denying women the freedom to chose different careers than mens,  as well as the choice to start careers later than men, work less hours than men, and interrupt their careers for long periods of time unlike men.

On the other hand, realizing the goal of equality of opportunity, particularly for the "level playing field" and "quotas" crowd, necessitates giving preferential treatment (treating unequally) to select classes of people (specific races, gender, sexual orientation, ages, etc.), as a way of supposedly righting past wrong. The goal of equality breeds inequality.

Whether the goal is for equality of outcome or equality of opportunity, if it is achieved through government enforcement, necessarily discriminates against, and thus treats unequally, freedom lovers. (see The Inequality of Equality)

And, that isn't the worst of it. The goal of equality, were it rationally feasible (it isn't--please see my article on The Politics of Equality), is most easily, if not invariably achieved through regression rather than progression--devolving to the lowest common denominator, as evinced by Trickle Up Poverty,(which describes how attempts by the state to shrink the gap between rich and poor tends to make the rich poorer and the poor even poorer), the Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, and Destructive Compassion,. etc.

Again, I am not siting these example to bash Liberals and Democrats, but rather to provide compelling evidence in support of the points I am making.

In my next post, I will take the man-made goal of equality that I just addressed and contrast it with the God-given goals and mission of the gospel, with the intent of demonstrating that the two are at cross purposes and at odds with one another, and thus leaning towards one is to lean away from the other.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 26, 2017 by wenglund

[anatess2]

On 2/25/2017 at 9:43 AM, Mike said:

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. 

No need to tease out any details.  You and I have the exact same understanding.

[Guest]

The democratic principle of equality in relation to government means only one thing: equal protection under the law.  That is all.

We go wrong with the concept of equality when we decide that government should also enforce social equality.

[wenglund]

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The democratic principle of equality in relation to government means only one thing: equal protection under the law.  That is all.

We go wrong with the concept of equality when we decide that government should also enforce social equality.

Unfortunately, the Equal Protection Clause has been so broadly interpreted (via judicial activism utilizing extra-constitutional methods of judicial review put in place during the civil rights movement) to allow enforcement of radical notions of social equality. Constitutional limitations and separation of powers have been turned on their head and the floodgates opened. Sad day.

But, such is to be expected when the vague  principle of equality is elevated in importance above other principles and objectives--like those set forth in the gospel.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[classylady]

I have not had the time to read all the posts, so I'm sorry if I'm off tangent.  I'm grateful for some of the protections that are out there.  My mother was a widow.  She was employed and earned an income.  She was refused a small loan due to the fact that she was a woman and there was no man that was the provider.  The bank told her that was the reason.  That was in the late 60's or early 70's.  I'm very grateful for the protections that would hopefully not allow that to happen today.

[Mike]

Quote

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.  

@wenglund SInce you tell me that you do invite discussion for the sake of understanding, I want to accept the invitation. I have disagreements with some things in the entire post which contains the quote above. But I want to focus there first. So you begin with this mention of the Law of Gravity as a foundation for your claim. From the way you describe it I suppose you refer to the Newtonian explanation of Gravity. But I have a problem from the get go because you handle it as if you think it's a law akin to laws passed by governments, or perhaps to Divine Commandments. It's nothing of the kind. It's really just a useful explanation to understand what's going on in nature and not in human behavior. To utilize words and phrases like "respecter of persons", "care", "treats", "end goal", and "intent" is erroneous because you speak as though those human emotions and behaviors are attributes of Gravity, and thus you mischaracterize it grossly in my opinion. Moreover, it seems to me that you are taking different meanings and uses of words like law, equal, equality and treating them as though they have the same meanings or that it's alright to use them interchangeably. This won't do at all. 

When you write that Gravity is a law that treats everyone equally I submit that you mischaracterize further. I'm left to guess that you refer to a hugely massive object like Earth exerting the same gravitational force on all less massive objects, but you omit the key additional aspect that less massive objects exert their own gravitational forces upon the Earth which is the reason that a marble and a bowling ball, for example, appear to be "treated equally". But again there is no equal treatment going on. So as a foundation on which to build conclusions about the human perception of social equality, racial equality, or whatever term we might agree to stick with it fails for me.  An analogy such as this where you compare natural phenomena to human concepts about human relations and interaction lacks sufficient similarities to serve as a valid comparison. It offers even less to go forward with, claiming that the phenomena are sufficiently similar in order to say "the same is true, to some extent, for the laws of God...". The explanation of Gravity is totally not the same at all as God's Laws.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Mike

[Mike]

Quote

In theology and practice, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints embraces the universal human family. Latter-day Saint scripture and teachings affirm that God loves all of His children and makes salvation available to all. God created the many diverse races and ethnicities and esteems them all equally. As the Book of Mormon puts it, “all are alike unto God.”  --Race and the Priesthood, lgs.org

(I added the underscore above.) Rather than considering something such as Gravity as a basis for arguing that racial equality, for example, defies the natural order of things I submit that we ought to consider the above as a basis for arguing that racial equality is part of the natural order of things. The phrase "all are alike unto God" ought in my mind to settle the question of how much emphasis should placed on the so-called notion of equality. It should be obvious that God, Himself, doesn't commit what to me is a human fallacy of equivocation by presuming to argue that people are not identical and therefore not equal and should not emphasize equality. Coupled with the statement by the drawers of the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal we have a firm foundation for combining the spiritual and the temporal in terms of pursuing the ideal of equality. In my opinion, the only thing we ought to be analyzing is what laws and practices have we rightfully abandoned (such as slavery); and what laws and practices yet need to be considered, tweaked, tuned, abandoned, etc. In such an analysis I feel it's useless to focus on which Party (Republican or Democrats) or which groups of Citizens (the left, the right, etc., etc.) or which President is guilty of what. Instead we ought to discuss how this or that program, practice, regulation, procedure, etc. does or doesn't help us to fulfill the Spirit of the Law. I think the saying about throwing out the baby with the bath water is useful to keep in mind. 

[wenglund]

WARNING: This post contains a highly controversial assertion that could threaten certain foundational beliefs of some people 

So, how does the objective of equality relate to the restored gospel of Christ? To answer this question, let me Socratically ask several more questions

Is the work and glory of Christ to bring to pass equality? (Moses 1:39) Did Christ command: "Be ye therefore equal?" (Mt. 5:48) Is equality mentioned as one of the missions of the Church? (see HERE)

If not the primary goal of the gospel, is equality an important goal or an important means to the gospel ends? Is equality one of the first principles and ordinances of the gospel? Is it mention anywhere in the Articles of Faith? Is it a fairly frequent topic of Sunday School lessons, Family home Evening, Conference talks, etc.? Does the word "equality" show up more than twice in the scriptures?

Why not?

Some may rightly suppose that it is because the objective of equality isn't all that relevant to the gospel. And, while I agree with this, I would go one step further and suggest that *the goal of equality is in conflict with and may even stand in opposition to the gospel. This is because, as indicated in my previous post on equality, the goal of equality tends towards digression or mediocrity while the gospel is intended for progression  As such, one cannot consistently advocate for both--it would be double-minded (Jm 4:8, Jm 1:8)  Privileging the objective of equality will thus compromise one's growth in the gospel and may even lead to a loss of spiritual light and faith.

This assertion can be readily born out in the example of members who look for racial makeups among the general church membership and more particularly among church leaders, and to point out the evident disparities. It also manifests itself in the frequent debate over women and the priesthood. And, more recently, it raises its head with homosexuality and transgender issues (same-sex marriage, leadership and membership in the Boy Scouts, etc.) These challenges to the church are not only indicative of deep misunderstanding of the intents and purposes of the restored gospel, but they have been the cause of not a few members to lessen or lose their testimonies.

Now, please don't  to get me wrong. I am not saying that the achievement of some semblance of equality is contrary to the gospel. Quite the contrary. Those who achieve immortality and eternal life are made equal as immortal and eternal beings. Those who become perfect are made equal in that they are perfect. The same is true for those who have become one with Christ, deified, kings and queens, priests and priestesses. In one respect the results of the gospel is equality. The issue isn't with the results of equality, but with setting equality as the goal and working towards it, rather than setting immortality, eternal life, perfection, etc. as the goal, and attaining proper equality as a result thereof. Setting equality as the goal will impede or prevent eternal life and perfection and result in inequality, while setting eternal life and perfection as the goal may result in the attainment of those things as well as result in equality.  Make sense?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Mike said:

@wenglund SInce you tell me that you do invite discussion for the sake of understanding, I want to accept the invitation. I have disagreements with some things in the entire post which contains the quote above. But I want to focus there first. So you begin with this mention of the Law of Gravity as a foundation for your claim. From the way you describe it I suppose you refer to the Newtonian explanation of Gravity. But I have a problem from the get go because you handle it as if you think it's a law akin to laws passed by governments, or perhaps to Divine Commandments. It's nothing of the kind. It's really just a useful explanation to understand what's going on in nature and not in human behavior. To utilize words and phrases like "respecter of persons", "care", "treats", "end goal", and "intent" is erroneous because you speak as though those human emotions and behaviors are attributes of Gravity, and thus you mischaracterize it grossly in my opinion. Moreover, it seems to me that you are taking different meanings and uses of words like law, equal, equality and treating them as though they are the same meanings of that it's alright to use them interchangeably. This won't do at all. 

When you write that Gravity is a law that treats everyone equally I submit that you mischaracterize further. I'm left to guess that you refer to a hugely massive object like Earth exerting the same gravitational force on all less massive objects, but you omit the key additional aspect that less massive objects exert their own gravitational forces upon the Earth which is the reason that a marble and a bowling ball, for example, appear to be "treated equally". But again there is no equal treatment going on. So as a foundation on which to build conclusions about the human perception of social equality, racial equality, or whatever term we might agree to stick with it fails for me.  An analogy such as this where you compare natural phenomena to human concepts about human relations and interaction lacks sufficient similarities to serve as a valid comparison. It offers even less to go forward with, claiming that the phenomena are sufficiently similar in order to say "the same is true, to some extent, for the laws of God...". The explanation of Gravity is totally not the same at all as God's Laws.

Yes, I do invite discussion and criticism because it not only gives me a different perspective to consider, but it also manifests my lack of clarity and points of misunderstanding--the example of gravity being a case in point. To clarify, I did't positing the law of gravity as equivalent to or even like the laws governing racial equality, but rather as an example of how, in principle, some laws can equally apply to one and all without equality being the intent of the law. And, with this example in mind, contrast that with examples of how, in principle, certain laws intent on equality, result in the opposite. From this, I was hoping the people would be better position to draw the logical conclusion that setting equality as an objective, or more particularly as THE objective, will be, and has been counterproductive. This then lays the foundation for contrasting the objective equality with the objectives of the gospel, which I then could build upon to answer your earier question about how pursuit of "racial equality" or "equality" of different sorts, can run afoul of the gospel and potentially destroy spiritual faith--which I believe i have done with my post just before this, and which I intend to reinforce with another post where I will address "racial equality" as a cultural movement that is at odds with the gospel.

Does this help in making the meaning behind my gravity example more clear?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

@wenglund I can picture the Lord thumping me on the side of the head and telling me to pursue my discipleship and allow my brother the same privilege. In that spirit I'll retain your invitation to participate where I see fit, while allowing you to carry on with you objective. I don't want to come across as pedantic and I don't want to be like the disciples who quibbled while perhaps neglecting weightier matters. Thanks for your civility and acceptance of my small contribution. As always, I wish you well

[wenglund]

17 hours ago, classylady said:

I have not had the time to read all the posts, so I'm sorry if I'm off tangent.  I'm grateful for some of the protections that are out there.  My mother was a widow.  She was employed and earned an income.  She was refused a small loan due to the fact that she was a woman and there was no man that was the provider.  The bank told her that was the reason.  That was in the late 60's or early 70's.  I'm very grateful for the protections that would hopefully not allow that to happen today.

Are you sure see was denied a loan because of her gender rather than her fincial situation being higher risk of not meeting the loan obligation? I came of age during the 60's and 70's, when the second-wave feminism was in full bloom, and I heard a lot of accusations of sexism, many of which turned out to conflated with other things.

Either way, there is an unwittingly destructive tendency to look to government to solve perceived social injustices when other constructive avenues are available, like the free market, if not also the gospel. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Are you sure see was denied a loan because of her gender rather than her fincial situation being higher risk of not meeting the loan obligation? I came of age during the 60's and 70's, when the second-wave feminism was in full bloom, and I heard a lot of accusations of sexism, many of which turned out to conflated with other things.

Either way, there is an unwittingly destructive tendency to look to government to solve perceived social injustices when other constructive avenues are available, like the free market, if not also the gospel. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

On the bolded - doesn't matter.  Trump's father got sued for racism because he tried to construct his tenant contracts in such a way as to discourage Black people from applying since in those days, having a Black family live in a majority white apartment brings the property value down.  They want businessmen to ignore the hit to their wallets in the name of Equality.

[Suzie]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

They want businessmen to ignore the hit to their wallets in the name of Equality.

Do you support Trump's father in constructing his tenant contracts in such a way as to discourage African-Americans from applying because he was being affected financially?

Edited February 28, 2017 by Suzie

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Do you support Trump's father in constructing his tenant contracts in such a way as to discourage African-Americans from applying because he was being affected financially?

I support free-market capitalism.  I don't like forcing free-market capitalism to recognize skin-color.  In my perspective, forcing some business to make bad capitalistic decisions SIMPLY BASED on the color of one's skin IS racism.

But yes, I do support TEMPORARY affirmative action to FORCE drastic cultural change.  Unfortunately, it is never temporary.

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[Suzie]

The topic at hand is "Is Equality overrated?". I say it depends on each individual and how they are affected. Often times, those who believe that there isn't such a thing as inequality are the ones talking from a position of privilege, meaning they have not being affected by it at all which is totally fine, but does not mean it does not exist.

 

[wenglund]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

On the bolded - doesn't matter.  Trump's father got sued for racism because he tried to construct his tenant contracts in such a way as to discourage Black people from applying since in those days, having a Black family live in a majority white apartment brings the property value down.  They want businessmen to ignore the hit to their wallets in the name of Equality.

While we both may cringe at the thought of people being denied housing allegedly because of the color of their skin, I think my point does matter. Do you believe Trump's dad would have structured the tenant contracts the way he allegedly did if his wallet wasn't affected? I don't. I believe he was motivated by profits, not racism. And, profits are a great equalizer. Good businessmen don't care about the color of their clientele as long as they are handing over the green.

The question needs to be asked, "Why would Mr. Trump's wallet be negatively affected by serving black tenants? And, I would caution against jumping quickly to the conclusion that it was the color of their skin--i.e. racism. The so-called phenomena of "white flight" was escalating during Trumps time, and not a few businessmen were hoping to prevent the "overcrowding and physical [and financial] deterioration of areas where minorities chose to congregate." They wanted to protect their long-term investments from entropy.

Note the use of the word "congregate." Minority races, just like whites, preferred to live around and be with their own kind--a form of tribalism. This shared phenomina is, in part, why government-forced bussing was such a disaster in the minds of blacks as well as whites. 

Having come of age during 60's and 70's, I witnessed firsthand the destructive or counterproductive results of forced desegregation, and can now contrast that with the productivity of modern organic melding of the races, and this has informed my opinion about setting equality as the objective, particularly when enforced by the government, as ill advised at best.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Suzie]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

I support free-market capitalism.  I don't like forcing free-market capitalism to recognize skin-color.  In my perspective, forcing some business to make bad capitalistic decisions SIMPLY BASED on the color of one's skin IS racism.

But yes, I do support TEMPORARY affirmative action to FORCE drastic cultural change.  Unfortunately, it is never temporary.

So you support the fact that someone can discourage people from a certain race or religion to access their services because they will lose money. Just ensuring I understand you. What about if a person directly tells a prospective tenant that they won't rent their apartment to them because they will lose money due to the person's ethnicity?

Edited February 28, 2017 by Suzie

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Suzie said:

So you support the fact that someone can discourage people from a certain race or religion to access their services because they will lose money. Just ensuring I understand you.

Yes.  Not just money.  I also support the fact that a PRIVATE business can discourage people from a certain race or religion access to their services simply because they don't want people who thinks gays should be killed living with their gay tenants.  Or even discourage people from a certain race or religion access to their services simply because they don't like to have to worry about learning to cut afro-type hair or have to worry about cricking their necks too low talking to short people.  Whatever.  It's their business.  They should run it the way they see fit.

The tenet of Capitalism is Competition through CHOICE.  Choice is, therefore, required for the system to work - for both the producer and the consumer, with Profits as the means by which greed and ignorance are punished in equal measure.

Hence, the temporary affirmative action is simply there to force a change in culture to make that segment of society competitive in the free market and not some form of social justice thing.  The proper approach (if one wants to wait for the desired outcome) is Education.

Edited February 28, 2017 by anatess2

[wenglund]

8 minutes ago, Suzie said:

Do you support Trump's father in constructing his tenant contracts in such a way as to discourage African-Americans from applying because he was being affected financially?

I support his being free to do so, and I am against the government getting involved since it will likely make matters worse. I prefer, instead, to use organic methods, such as the gospel of Christ, to address seeming wrongs. The problem with bigotry and the government is as MLK alluded, both are focused on the color of skin rather than on the content of character, etc. Wrongful discrimination is rightly solved by changing hearts and minds, and not by political edict. And, as i demonstrate above, this occurs, not by focusing on equality, but by making bad men good and good men better.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[wenglund]

40 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I support free-market capitalism.  I don't like forcing free-market capitalism to recognize skin-color.  In my perspective, forcing some business to make bad capitalistic decisions SIMPLY BASED on the color of one's skin IS racism.

Agreed.

Quote

But yes, I do support TEMPORARY affirmative action to FORCE drastic cultural change.  Unfortunately, it is never temporary.

I disagree--in part because I believe Andrew Breitbart was correct in saying that politics is downstream from culture. It doesn't make sense to put the cart before the horse.

I also disagree because force doesn't produce genuine or lasting change (which is why, in part, "it is never temporary"). This is particularly true when the force causes the very thing it portends to correct--forced discrimination to correct discrimination doesn't work. Hypocrisy is not a very effective motivator.

I disagree as well because I believe there are far more effective and productive methods (organic) to address wrongful discrimination--not the least of which is the gospel of Christ. If you voluntarily change hearts, you change value systems, and eventually change cultures and markets, in lasting and productive ways.

The trick is to keep the impure elements of culture from creeping into the gospel--such as elevating equality in importance and making it a prioritized, if not paramount, objective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited February 28, 2017 by wenglund

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, Suzie said:

So you support the fact that someone can discourage people from a certain race or religion to access their services because they will lose money. Just ensuring I understand you.

I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but I suspect that given time and a free market Trump Sr. would have come to understand that minoriries' money was ultimately as good as anyone else's, and that he was only hurting himself by continuing to discriminate.

Instead, Trump Jr. saw his daddy (whom he idolized) humbled by progressive social warriors during a formative stage of his life.  And now, decades later, he's able and (many fear) very much disposed to give a little payback.

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Instead, Trump Jr. saw his daddy (whom he idolized) humbled by progressive social warriors during a formative stage of his life.  And now, decades later, he's able and (many fear) very much disposed to give a little payback.

If, by "payback" you mean rendering impotent the corrupt political system and the dysfunctional policies of so-called SJW's, then I heartily agree.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

15 minutes ago, wenglund said:

... I believe there are far more effective and productive methods (organic) to address wrongful discrimination--not the least of which is the gospel of Christ. If you voluntarily change hearts, you change value systems, and eventually change cultures and markets, in lasting and productive ways.

I have come to believe that more than by precept the changed hearts have come largely from Church members who received opportunities to live outside the bubbles they and their parents were raised in such as missionaries returning from countries where they actually lived with and learned to love people who were different from themselves.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Mike

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Mike said:

I have come to believe that more than by precept the changed hearts have come largely from Church members who received opportunities to live outside the bubbles they and their parents were raised in such as missionaries returning from countries where they actually lived with and learned to love people who were different from themselves.

Love this, Mike!