"All men are created equal"? Not so. Exposing the lie, though, would exact a terrible cost since democracy is based upon the concept of this mythical equality.
Too often people take one line someone wrote out of context of the paragraph and document in which it was written, and of the period of time in which it was written, and that's when confusion over the issue ensues.
Saying that all men are created equal did not mean that they are all treated equally, nor was it meant to imply that all men were created with equal mental, emotional, economic, or physical status. It was to statement that all men were created with the same natural rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was a statement of a political philosophy, not a statement of physical reality. And the people who wrote it were not establishing a democracy, they loathed the idea of democracy and majority rule and thought government(and hence, the majority) should be chained by constitutional laws.
a bit more on topic, I am of two minds on the issue that any issue is too complex for anyone.
On one hand I think it is a bogus position postulated by those who wish maintain control over their position. It's an appeal to authority.
I am one who has never simply accepted any knowledge based on an appeal to authority. I question everything, and do not believe knowledge is unattainable or unknowable. And I think everyone is capable of learning something they set their minds to learn.
On the other hand, it does appear that a vast majority of people on this world often appeal to authority to justify their "knowledge base" and give up any responsibility on their part to verify their premises. Is it just laziness or are they truly incapable of thinking for themselves? Are they raised this way, or is it an aspect of their nature?
So when I bring the two hands together, I conclude that people are capable of learning, but are limited by their experience. Those who are told only one thing in their lives tend to belief it, those who are constantly exposed to other viewpoints are more equipped to think for themselves. If they are not even exposed to the right questions, why would they even consider an answer to it?
The reason we don't impose rules on religious institutions is that to do so would invite them to the rule making table, it's bad enough that they are there whispering in the ears of those at the table. The separation of Church and State is ingrained into our collective minds. There is a reason it was part of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It has been and continues to be whittled at aggressively by those with a religious agenda.
Why does society allow religions to hold on to their bigotries whereas in any other aspect of our culture they would not be tolerated.
I find the question to be begging the question on a couple fronts.
First the use of the term "society" as a causal agent. Society as an agent of change, does not exist. Society is the sum total of all human interaction, to assume that society is an agent of change would assume we are a collective and are of one mind.
Second, there are many arena of our culture which tolerate bigotries, so singling out religion on this issue is a bit unfair.
I continue to postulate that faith (and perhaps even love) or lack off are not chosen attributes, you either have faith, or you don't, you either believe or you don't, you either love someone, or you don't. Where you land on the spectrum is totally based on your experiences and knowledge base. Where ever one falls on the spectrum, they didn't choose to land there. That's not to say they are stuck where they land either, new experience can move them along the spectrum in either direction.
I didn't chose to be an atheist, I have been one all my life, the notion of religion never made sense to me. And although I have tried a few times in my life to "find" faith, my experience brings me back home to where I started. I no more choose to be an atheist than I choose to be born a white male in Minnesota. And I can't switch it on and off like a light, or choose to just start believing like choosing between a banana or an orange (some may say that even that simple choice was also already made by my experiences).
Going off on a Tangent, then coming back on Topic
Too often people take one line someone wrote out of context of the paragraph and document in which it was written, and of the period of time in which it was written, and that's when confusion over the issue ensues.
Saying that all men are created equal did not mean that they are all treated equally, nor was it meant to imply that all men were created with equal mental, emotional, economic, or physical status. It was to statement that all men were created with the same natural rights among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was a statement of a political philosophy, not a statement of physical reality. And the people who wrote it were not establishing a democracy, they loathed the idea of democracy and majority rule and thought government(and hence, the majority) should be chained by constitutional laws.
a bit more on topic, I am of two minds on the issue that any issue is too complex for anyone.
On one hand I think it is a bogus position postulated by those who wish maintain control over their position. It's an appeal to authority.
I am one who has never simply accepted any knowledge based on an appeal to authority. I question everything, and do not believe knowledge is unattainable or unknowable. And I think everyone is capable of learning something they set their minds to learn.
On the other hand, it does appear that a vast majority of people on this world often appeal to authority to justify their "knowledge base" and give up any responsibility on their part to verify their premises. Is it just laziness or are they truly incapable of thinking for themselves? Are they raised this way, or is it an aspect of their nature?
So when I bring the two hands together, I conclude that people are capable of learning, but are limited by their experience. Those who are told only one thing in their lives tend to belief it, those who are constantly exposed to other viewpoints are more equipped to think for themselves. If they are not even exposed to the right questions, why would they even consider an answer to it?
The reason we don't impose rules on religious institutions is that to do so would invite them to the rule making table, it's bad enough that they are there whispering in the ears of those at the table. The separation of Church and State is ingrained into our collective minds. There is a reason it was part of the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It has been and continues to be whittled at aggressively by those with a religious agenda.
I find the question to be begging the question on a couple fronts.
First the use of the term "society" as a causal agent. Society as an agent of change, does not exist. Society is the sum total of all human interaction, to assume that society is an agent of change would assume we are a collective and are of one mind.
Second, there are many arena of our culture which tolerate bigotries, so singling out religion on this issue is a bit unfair.
I continue to postulate that faith (and perhaps even love) or lack off are not chosen attributes, you either have faith, or you don't, you either believe or you don't, you either love someone, or you don't. Where you land on the spectrum is totally based on your experiences and knowledge base. Where ever one falls on the spectrum, they didn't choose to land there. That's not to say they are stuck where they land either, new experience can move them along the spectrum in either direction.
I didn't chose to be an atheist, I have been one all my life, the notion of religion never made sense to me. And although I have tried a few times in my life to "find" faith, my experience brings me back home to where I started. I no more choose to be an atheist than I choose to be born a white male in Minnesota. And I can't switch it on and off like a light, or choose to just start believing like choosing between a banana or an orange (some may say that even that simple choice was also already made by my experiences).