“All Men Are Created Equal…”

“All men are created equal,” as advanced in the Declaration of Independence was NOT a grasp at asserting “equality of opportunity,” or “equality of outcome,” as those ideas are advanced today in the name of equality. To read “All men are created equal …” as such is to import our ideas of egalitarianism back upon the Founders. All men created equal merely meant then that all had ontological equality since all were CREATED. In our language today in the Church we might say that all men are equal because all men are the image of God. That the Founders did not believe that all men were equal in the sense of equality of identity is seen later in the Declaration when they can complain about “savages.”

“He (King George III) has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

Certainly no one believes that our Founders believed those “savages” they reference were equal to themselves as Englishman in terms of “equality of identity.”

So, I do not agree with those that insist that the Founders had the type of equality in mind that moderns seem to think that they had. That kind of equality was foreign to them and was an import of Enlightenement Romanticism that came in during the Jacksonian rise of the common man and eventually flowered into Transcendentalism which set the Northern Yankee armies marching to pillage, rape and burn under the flag of “French Revolution equality.”

Being a “Founder American” I am against notions of “equality of opportunity” for the simple reason that it intrudes the State into areas it has no business in. How can the State make sure that a McAtee newborn can have the same opportunity that a newborn of Jesse Jackson, or Colin Powell can have? Can’t happen and so the myth of equality of identity as believed by the Enlightenment Americans (and nowhere enshrined in the Declaration of Independence) should be silenced.

Some Genocides Get More Publicity Then Other Genocides

“Revealing the truth about the Allies’ role in supporting Stalin and his crimes would undermine the whole bogus mythology of World War II …

Those who considered the Jewish Holocaust a unique historical crime were not eager to bring attention to Stalin’s genocide lest it diminish or dilute their own people’s suffering….

Then he (Solzhenitsyn) published a book about a hitherto taboo subject, the prominent role of Russian Jews in the Communist party and secret police. The book provoked a storm of criticism in North America…”

Eric Margolis – Journalist

Quick… how many blockbuster films can you name that chronicle holocaust or genocide of a people group other than the Jews? Now compare that to the films made that chronicle the holocaust and genocide of the Jews.

What do you suppose counts for the disparity?

Most people do not know that the estimate is that 45,000,000 Christians have been martyred in the twentieth century. How many films have you seen that have made you sympathize with the plight of Christians?

Here it is in as plain as language as possible. One has to wonder if the constant published theme of Jewish suffering is a means of manipulating the guilt of the West. One wonders if it is part of the same tactic that is used to beat down the Christian character and conscience of the West in order to supplant it with a character and conscience that is not particularly Christian.

I’m not interested in a contest to see who can be more victimized than thou. I’m interested in Christians not being harangued to the point that they no longer believe that Western culture historically has been noble, heroic, and Christ honoring.

George Washington … Deist or Christian?

“Washington’s own religious pronouncements as president were basically unitarian with deistic overtones and in keeping with civil religion beliefs. The Rev. Dr. James Abercrombie, rector of St. Peter’s Church in Philadelphia where Washington often worshipped when the seat of government was located there, went so far as to affirm that the chief executive was a deist and lax in his attention to the Eucharist. To be sure, Washington was not disrespectful toward the church, but according to testimony from both Abercrombie and Rev. William White, the first Episcopal bishop of Pennsylvania, Washington was not a zealous churchgoer nor was he in the habit of partaking of the sacrament. Moreover, he was notorious for not kneeling to pray in public worship. At the church in Philadelphia, he often attended the pulpit service but left before the observance of the Eucharist, usually leaving the more devout Mrs. Washington behind with the other communicants. When Dr. Abercrombie in a sermon scolded those in places of public trust who set bad examples by turning their backs on the sacrament, Washington was so irked that he never appeared at St. Peter’s on Communion Sunday again. This ambivalence towards orthodoxy characterized Washington’s church-going habits and this attitude toward organized religion in general during his years as president. He attended sporadically, listened courteously, but participated little in the life of the local church. He never spoke of any personal belief in Christ but rather reserved his affirmations of faith in the Supreme Ruler of the Nations for his personal letters or civil religion occasions of the government such as the presidential inaugural.”

Pierard & Linder
“Civil Religion & the Presidency”

Letter from R. J. Rushdoony to Cornelius Van Til,

Dear Dr. Van Til,

This is a hasty note in respect to George Washington. What the history books have to say about him and his biographers is no more trusted than what James Daane has to say about you.

George Washington grew up into the 18th century Rationalism. A basically conservative, land loving man, a part of his conservatism was to accept, without great question, the rationalism of his day. However, the events of the war, led to a somewhat altered perspective, and then the French Revolution, during his presidency, altered his outlook markedly. He strongly opposed the French Revolution. He emphatically affirmed infallibility as the bedrock of the Christian faith as against rationalism. Previously a Mason, he supported Rev. Jeddidiah Morse, leading orthodox Calvinist of the day, in his attack on free-masonry and wrote at least two letters to Morse to underscore with his own testimony the validity of Morse’ attack. It is in terms of this that his 1796 quote is to be understood.

I shared the lecture platform, in Houston Texas recently, with Gregg Singer, who rightfully called attention to the strongly Christian thought in the Constitutional convention by men such as Rutledge, Dickinson, John Jay and others. Certainly, Patrick Henry, nominally, like Washington a Anglican represented, as Singer stated the Reformed faith with intensity. Henry was in his day a “Traveling Monk” in the eyes of some, because of his habit of carrying Reformed literature in his saddle bags to distribute to other lawyers. Even on his death bed, Henry witnessed to the faith to his agnostic Doctor.

Such aspects of American history are anathema to our historians, who, from the early 1800’s, when the Unitarians began to write our history, to the present when relativists have taken over, have worked more systematically to re-make the history and the founding fathers after their own image. In those days, it was necessary to affirm infallibility and the trinity to vote, and what many people forget is that the deistic writings of Franklin and Jefferson were not published in their day but privately written. Jefferson’s unbelief was widely suspected, but he avoided public profession of it.

We are too little aware of how Christian the laws were in all the states. As late as 1912, on state constitution still required that one be a Christian to hold citizenship and vote. Only last Summer did the New Jersey Supreme court strike down an old statute, once universal in all the states, denying the right of atheists to be witnesses in a court of law because of their inability to take the oath honestly and because they lacked citizenship.


R. J. Rushdoony

Hat Tip — Mickey Bolwerk