We hold these truths to be self-evident,

[supernova]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I don't really have to say what this excerpt is from, do I?

Why am I posting this, you might ask? Well, I had an interesting discussion last night with someone who didn't agree with the beginning of this paragraph. Yes, right here on DU. Sure surprised me that I'm sharing a country with this person, no less an internet chat board who in other respects seems to be like minded.

Yes supernova, some pigs are more "equal" than others. :evilfrown: I'm not so sure I like the country this person espouses. It's not the one I'm fighting for. The one I'm fighting for begins this post. No need to put "equal" in quotes. No need to say that one person is above another. If you're asking would I give my life for that ideal, absolutely.

So how 'bout it? Do you agree or disagree with the beginning paragraph and please provide a rationale for your thinking. I'm not into starting flame wars, I just want to know who I need to point to a basic Civics 101 class.

[bryant69]

1. I suppose you could have a debate on what "Equal" means

But we've been having that debate for some 200 years now, and I don't think it's likely to stop.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[terrya]

2. Some people may have a problem with the "endowed by their Creator" part.

Just saying.

[supernova]

3. I'm sure they do

but that's not my emphasis here.

It was the convention of the time to write like that and not that this is the R&T forum but the Enlightenment idea of Creator was very different from what our present day Evangelicals call God.

[redqueen]

4. Is that the part they disagreed with?

Cause... well... I can kind of see a reason to not like the implication, but otherwise agree.

:shrug:

[supernova]

7. No, the Creator part wasn't the prob

it was the "equal" part.

[redqueen]

10. Good God Almighty...

you gotta be shittin me.

What exactly was their problem with? Who's not as equal?

Was it an objection with the spirit of the statement? Or maybe just an observation of the difference between what we want to realize and what exists now? I really don't want to think it's the first option. :(

[supernova]

14. Sadly, it's

your first statement in that last paragraph.

[redqueen]

19. GRRRRR

Now I want to kick someone's ass.

:wtf:

:nuke:

[MrCoffee]

5. the convention of the time had a very different definition of "all men", as well

[supernova]

9. True enough

but we have and will continue to expand that definition.

[MrCoffee]

12. lol, not to get into a whole interpretive conventions thing, but

are you asking about the intent of the framers?

:hide:

[supernova]

13. In a word, Yes. What is "equal?"

[MrCoffee]

15. in this context, equal is

flowery rhetoric intended to incite camaraderie and cooperation with revolutionaries.

the Declaration is not a legal (in the operative sense) document. at most, it's an indictment against the crown.

[terrya]

8. I see what you're saying.

I read that literally. As do most people. I didn't know (thanks for the information, btw) that was the conventional writing of the time.

I do completely agree with the equal part. And it was a very shameful chapter in our history that slavery was very much alive when those powerful words were written.

[supernova]

11. The word in play is "equal"

Are we all "equal?" Or are some of us, by whatever dent, more equal than others?

[bryant69]

6. is that a legitimate beef, though? The constitution was written in the language of it's time n/t

[blondeatlast]

38. Well, they could consider it like the book version of Frankenstein, I suppose.

Or take it to mean good ol' M&D... :rofl:

[MindPilot]

16. I think we can all agree on the spirit of what's written

At the time "men" really *did* mean white males, and "creator" did *not* mean the bearded old homophobe in the sky who tells the president what country to bomb.

Now can't we just take it to mean "It doesn't matter who or what you are, by virtue of being here, you have these rights which cannot be taken away."

Edit: typos

[MrCoffee]

17. property-owning white males...i am not included in the original definition

i don't take offense at being excluded, just stating a fact.

[MindPilot]

20. yes you are correct

And given that most people I would guess did not own property (land) until later in life, it was a pretty exclusionary definition.

[Milo_Bloom]

18. Can't really vote without more info....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Are all people created equal? No. Some are smarter than others, some are prettier than others, some are more artistic than others, some are more emotional than others, etc... so, no all people are not created EQUAL.


HOWEVER, all people are created EQUAL in "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

[MindPilot]

21. I believe in that context "equal" was a swipe at royalty.

It's saying that no one is born into a ruling class, i.e. an heir to the throne. Bloodline alone does not qualify one for leadership.

Obviously our present situation has perverted that idea just a tad.

[supernova]

24. I think that's an excellent

historical definition.

They were indeed taking a swipe at the idea of an inherited ruling class.

[Milo_Bloom]

26. I believe so too...

I just didn't know the context of the debate that gave birth to this poll.

I have met people who are honestly not comfortable saying that one person is BORN more intelligent OR believe that government should find some way to abolish the natural predisposition we are born with to give advantage to the more attactive person... and if that was the root of this disagreement, I had to vote a different way and explain why.

[supernova]

22. For me, equal means

equal treatment under the law and equal access to participate in the gov't and equal access to services of gov't.

[Milo_Bloom]

23. With that definition...

Put me in a 100% YES. (going to vote)

[TahitiNut]

31. "smarter" and "prettier" and "more artistic" and "more emotional"(?) do NOT make people unequal ...

... EXCEPT as objects or commodities to be bought, sold, traded, rented, or EXPLOITED by someone who views a human being in such a way.

That ANYONE would commoditize another human being according to characteristics that merely change how USEFUL they might be to another demonstrates how deeply and thoroughly such objectification ("pretty'?) and commoditization has corrupted the very ways in which we regard one another.

One of the more noxious and noisome aspects of such corruption is the very inability we have of seeing it in ourselves. Those who can only detect it when they themselves feel its impact are a demonstration of how corrupting it is. When I point out (as I've tried to do several times) that sexism and racism are BOTH subordinate to such objectification, there's a brain-dead silence. Yet this is exactly what rots our society today and not merely one subordinate "my ox is being gored." We see it in spades in our so-called "immigration debate." It seems almost boundless.

[supernova]

35. I think I love you

I wish I could do this for you TN:

[TahitiNut]

36. (blush) Well ... golly ... I just think it should be obvious.

But thank you, luv!! :hug:

[Milo_Bloom]

37. I wish it were true.

But, as we're discussing, it all depends on the use of the term equal.

At some point isn't it a reality of the human psyche that we gravitate toward people who we consider smart, pretty and talented? I would love to say it isn't and that these things truly don't matter at all. However, I can see from where I live that similar people choose to spend time with similar people (I am not talking race, creed, etc... I am talking socio/economic level). I often see groups of "beautiful" people together, because "beautiful people" like to spend time with other "beautiful" people ("beautiful is in "'s because who is or who is not beautiful is entirely subjective and I want to acknowledge that).

Equal in the law, equal in rights, YES. However, equal in the way other people react to you.. unfortunately, no.


I recently had to hire 2 people for a job (All interviews were conducted over the phone so I didn't get to see them and be potentially influenced by looks) however, I certainly used intelligence as a barrier. Someone who expressed themselves well and didn't use terms like "Stoled it", "boughten" or "more better", had a leg up on someone who did. This was a pretty simple job (customer service representative), but I wanted someone who I felt could present independent thought and think beyond what a training manual will say. At the end of the day I did not see the intelligent person as equal to the less intelligent person... I prized their mental capacity. All these candidates were not equal... I had to find the ways they were unequal and make a decision based on their inequalities. All candidates were college graduates and since we eliminated a ton of people at the resume level, most had similar if not identical experience, but at the end of the Candidates A and B, were smarter than Candidates C-->G.

Maybe this just proves the point, because the judgment only came when the person was a commodity; however, this is a real fact of society and I fear to not acknowledge it as real, is to close ones eyes to things that probably cannot be changed.

[supernova]

40. Except that the Declaration

isn't talking about our talents, our skills, our jobs.

The Declaration isn't talking about us as employees or commodities and cogs in someone else's wheel.

It is talking about us as free and equally deserving human beings.

[TahitiNut]

41. Exactly. It's SOOO easy to be completely buried in how we USE others.

Whether in some kind of social relationship or some business relationship, so very much of our thinking is circumscribed by the notion of "useful to me" that it's tough to swim up to the surface and glimpse at 'value' that's independent of how we might benefit or at what cost.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Ironically, the "tyranical" Brits abolished slavery 30 years before we did.

[supernova]

27. Yes, funny that.

We might be "freedom lovin'" but we're also hard-headed cruel stoopid about somethings too.

[Odin2005]

30. To be fair, the northern states abolished slavery at the same time or even before the Brits did.

Interestingly, I've read that if the Industrial Revolution and the invention of the Cotton Gin hadn't massively increased the profitability of growing cotton slavery would of died out in the US by the mid 1800s for economic and moral reasons.

[sandnsea]

28. Equal rights despite unequal talents

Yes, I agree with that. In an equal world, class, education, income, life choices - none of it would matter in government. Funny that the right to pursuit ownership of land is the thing that interferes with unalienable rights as much as religious kingdoms used to.

[Odin2005]

33. The founders never expected Industrialism to turn private property into something bad.

Even Jefferson, who was very wary of the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution he saw in his lifetime. The societal institution of private property functions best in a society composed mostly of farmers with their own land (Jefferson's "Yeoman Farmer"). The Industrial Revolution turned the concept of private property into a dangerous social enormity.

[Odin2005]

29. "Equal" in the DoI is meant to mean we are all equally human and thus Aristocracy...

...and Monarchy are a load of crap. That doesn't mean all people are equal in ability, intelligence, etc, what it means is that no individual or group is justified in claiming that they have a sole right to rule.

[Uncle Joe]

32. I agree, as we're all born butt naked and we all return to the dust.

Thus, whether you're buried in an opulent mausoleum or a long forgotten pauper's grave, when the sun goes supernova, we're all going to be mixed together. Whether you believe in the Big Bang Theory, creation, or a mixture of both, we all come from the same stuff, ashes to ashes and dust to dust. Therefore it goes to follow that in this reality; we know as life, every living soul should have these fundamental rights and no other human should have the ability to take them away with out just cause based on the governance of logic and reason. I believe that's the primary ideal behind the founders thoughts and actions, even though they may not have known about the Big Bang Theory in their time.

[Basileus Basileon]

34. I don't like the "endowed by their Creator" business,

"all men are created equal" hinges on interpretation, and I think that while "life" is pretty clear and "liberty" is as well, "pursuit of Happiness" is so vague as to be meaningless. I also find the notion that governments are instituted by the populace to be a lovely but historically inaccurate statement.

I don't disagree with the fundamental message. I believe that were it written today, the wording would have to be quite different.

[H2O Man]

39. I agree with it.

Darned fine document.