Monday, May 9, 2011

Don't Impose Equality on Me

With its totalitarian powers accumulated in the name of equality, the egalitarian humanistic
state creates a dangerously unequal gap of power between itself and its citizens.
(photo by Dropzink)

by Steve C. Halbrook
(excerpt from God is Just: A Defense
the Old Testament Civil Laws)

The ultimate outcome of egalitarianism—regardless of what egalitarian humanists claim—is always the same:  enslavement by the state.  Society inevitably faces  

the choice between slavery to man and service to God.  It is therefore the question of representation:  Who is represented by the State, God or autonomous man?  When autonomous man is represented by the State, then tyranny or impotence is the result.  Autonomous man seeks to enslave others, for he seeks to imitate God, just as Satan imitates God.  The State becomes the primary agency of this enslavement process.[1]

Indeed, the humanist egalitarian/abolitionist, by his very nature, does not seek the equality of all men at all.  This is but a pretext for what he really seeks:  equality with God (Gen. 3:5)—the power to enslave others.  Like all unregenerate men, he perverts the mandate to subdue the earth into a mandate to subdue his fellow man.  He does not want liberty for his fellow man, but liberty for himself to subjugate his fellow man.  Humanism seeks liberty in order to destroy.

This is because humanistic notions of equality deny or diminish functional superiority, that is, that God has granted some superior roles over others (man over woman, boss over employee, parents over children, masters over slaves, etc.).  Functional superiority understood biblically does not say that those of superior functions are superior in worth, because the Bible considers all men and women of all ages to be of equal worth. 

But when functional superiority is denied, equality of worth is thereby denied because when men do not submit to one another based on a natural, recognized hierarchy, then the only basis for submission becomes manipulation and power.  This is because functional superiority is built into the natural order of things. 
For instance, the head of God the Son is God the Father, and God the Son is the head of man, just as the husband is the head of the wife:  “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor. 11:3).  (Although of course God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are not just superior to man in function, but in worth.)  There is even a hierarchy of angels (1 Thess. 4:16; Jude 9).  And so to attack the natural order of things is to produce chaos, violent disorder, and tyranny.  

In the West females are said to have equal rights with males.
But females on one side of the womb have the arbitrary power
of life and death over males and females on the other side
of the womb.
Thus humanists can talk all they want about equality, but their actions belie their rhetoric.  “Everyone in communist societies addressed one another with the egalitarian term ‘comrade.’ But some comrades had the arbitrary power of life and death over other comrades.”[2]  In the West females are said to have equal rights with males.  But females on one side of the womb have the arbitrary power of life and death over males and females on the other side of the womb.

During the French Revolution (“Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”), women were granted equal opportunity with the guillotine:  “A spot is still shown near the Notre Dame in Paris, where women were as busy in the use of the guillotine as men; and the only difference between the two was, that the women tucked up their sleeves for the work of blood.”[3]  But such women had the arbitrary power of life and death over men and women on the other side of the guillotine.  Equality in humanism thus cannot be realized until all perceived unequals—whether of higher or lower status—are exterminated.  Danilevsky writes, 

Here could be seen the same spirit already manifested in the night of St. Bartholomew and the French Revolution.  In earlier times, the interests of “freedom” demanded the September massacre and the unresting work of the guillotine.  The interests of political equilibrium and the salvation of civilization—which is supposedly threatened by someone—demand the preservation of the barbarity of the Turks; and the freedom, life and honor of Slavs and Greeks are sacrificed for this Moloch.[4]

In the name of equality, the humanistic state turns the
nation's citizens into a slave-labor force for a grand
federal plantation.
Humanists realize that their vision of equality cannot be achieved without the power of the state, so they seek to impose equality on society.  Such attempts are self-defeating: “A society of natural equals then needs government of unlimited scope, that is, an enormous inequality of political power, in order to protect its equality.”[5] 

Similarly, Thomas Sowell writes: “[T]he very processes created to do so [reduce or eliminate forms of inequality] generate other inequalities, including dangerous inequalities of power caused by expanding the role of government.”[6]  And Milton Friedman writes,

A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom.  The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.[7]

Thus, with its totalitarian powers accumulated in the name of equality, the humanistic state creates an enormously unequal gap of power between itself and the citizens, enslaving society to do its bidding.  Individuals (assuming they survive) become “the slave-labor force for some grand federal plantation.”[8]  In America slaves on this grand federal plantation include all races, including blacks, whose liberty secular humanists claim to support. So the difference between a racist private slaveholder and the secular humanist egalitarian abolitionist ruler is one of scale:  a racist slaveholder’s slavery is confined to his own land, while the abolitionist ruler’s slavery entails the entire nation. 

Excerpt from the (Lord willing) upcoming book, God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws: Biblical Theocracy, Justice, and Slavery versus Humanistic Theocracy, "Justice," and Slavery by Steve C. Halbrook.  Copyright © 2010 by Steve C. Halbrook.  Based on the master's thesis, God is Just: A Defense of the Old Testament Civil Laws

     [1] Gary North, Victim’s Rights: The Biblical View of Civil Justice (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1990), 127.
     [2] Thomas Sowell, “The New Nomenklatura,” Capitalism Magazine (September 3, 2006). Retrieved September 30, 2009, from
     [3] [3]  John G. Lorimer, An Historical Sketch of the Protestant Church of France: From Its Origin to the Present Times, with Parallel Notices of the Church of Scotland During the Same Period (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1842), 459.
     [4] Ia. Danilevsky, Rossiia i Evropa (St. Petersburg: Tipografiia brat’ev Panteleevykh, 1885), 119.  Cited in Dmitry Shlapentokh, The French Revolution in Russian Intellectual Life: 1865-1905 (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2009), 25. 
     [5] Harvey C. Mansfield, The Spirit of Liberalism, 39.  Cited in Charles W. Dunn and J. David Woodard, The Conservative Tradition in America (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1996), 57.
     [6] Thomas Sowell, A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2002), 130.
     [7] Milton and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose, 148.  Cited in Sowell, A Conflict of Visions, 130.
     [8] Eric Holmberg in Vorthos Forum, “Government-Sanctioned Theft—the IRS,” YouTube  Retrieved April 29, 2009, from

No comments: