Talk:All men are created equal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 165.173.126.126 (talk) at 15:50, 23 March 2009 (→‎The word "created"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

the Declaration of Independence

Animal Farm

I think that Orwell's reference to this should be included in the references section.


Dred Scott

I think it would be helpful to mention the Dred Scott case's interpretation of "all men are created equal" and the subsequent emancipation proclamation and constitutional amendments concerning equality. --The Four Deuces (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This phrase bears some analysis. First, "all men". The "Founding Fathers" were "all men" and when they used that phrase they intended to exlude all women, all slaves, all Catholics, all Jews, all Native Americans and probably all other men, women and children who were not members of the landed gentry. ==Original Intent== —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambino23 (talkcontribs) 13:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "created"

I think that the use of the word "created" is notable, particularly when set against the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article I: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." While clearly based on the US's Declaration of Independence, the UDHR was specifically formulated to leave out the concept of creation. The end result is two very different ideas of equality, one based on equal worth and value to God (endowed by their Creator) and the other based on a "spirit of brotherhood". This will lead to several differences about the definition of person-hood and so forth. The philosophical differences between the DofI and the UDHR are significant to politics, ethics and philosophy and are therefore worth covering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.173.126.126 (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]