Since this book is written by a Christian let us first deal with the well-known cliché according to which, even though we are neither identical nor equal physically or intellectually, we are at least “equal in the eyes of God.” This, however, is by no means the case. None of the Christian faiths teaches that we are all equally loved by God.Read more at location 236
Nor does any Christian religion maintain that grace is given in equal amount to all men.Read more at location 238
everybody is given sufficient grace to be able to save himself, though not to the same extent.Read more at location 240
It is obvious that the Marquis de Sade and, let us say, St. Jean Vianney or Pastor von Bodelschwingh were not “equals in the eyes of God.” If they had been, Christianity no longer would make any sense, because then the sinner would equal the saint and to be bad would be the same as to be good.Read more at location 241
interesting to observe what inroads secular “democratic” thinking has made among the theologians.Read more at location 243
Obviously equality does not figure in Holy Scripture. Freedom is mentioned several times, but not equality.Read more at location 244
They will start out saying that all men have souls equally, that they are equally called upon to save their souls, that they are equally created in the image of God, and so forth. But two persons who equally have noses or banking accounts, do not have equal noses or equal banking accounts.Read more at location 247
It is obvious that a child of four having committed manslaughter (it does happen!) should be dealt with differently from a child of twelve, an adolescent of seventeen, or a mature man of thirty.Read more at location 258
When the Germans were freezing in the winter of 1945-1946 Cardinal Frings of Cologne told the faithful that, under the circumstances, to steal coal was no sin,Read more at location 264
Equality before the law might be highly unjust: witness the outcry, Summum ius, summa iniuria. Indeed, justice is better served by Ulpian’s principle which we have already quoted, Suum cuique, to everybody his due.Read more at location 270
A third kind of equality is invoked by a great many: equality of opportunity.Read more at location 272
In the narrow sense of the term it can never be achieved and should not even be attempted. It would be much wiser to demand the abolition of unjust discrimination, arbitrary discrimination without a solid “factual” foundation.Read more at location 272
“Just discrimination,” in other words, “preference based on merit” is conspicuously absent in a process which, in our society, has a deep and wide influence as a sanctified example—political elections. Whether it is a genuinely democratic election in the West or a plebiscitarian comedy in the East, the one-man-one-vote principle is now taken for granted. The knowledge, the experience, the merits, the standing in the community, the sex, the wealth, the taxes, the military record of the voter do not count, only the vegetable principle of age—he must be 18, 21, 24 years old and still “on the hoof.” The 21-year-old semiliterate prostitute and the 65-year-old professor of political science who has lost an arm in the war, has a large family, carries a considerable tax burden, and has a real understanding of the political problems on which he is expected to cast his ballot—they are politically equal as citizens.Read more at location 279
“Equality of opportunity.” In a concrete sense, not even a totalitarian tyranny could bring this about, because no country could decree that a child upon entering this world should have “equal parents.”Read more at location 290
The cry for an identical and equal education has been raised again and again in democracies, totalitarian or otherwise, and the existence of various types of schools has been deemed “undemocratic.” Just because parents are so different (every marriage offers another “constellation”) egalitarians have advocated not only intensive schooling, but boarding schools for all. Children should be taken out of their homes and collectively educated twenty-four hours a day.Read more at location 293
However, as Friedrich August von Hayek has pointed out, a certain equality of treatment is necessary in a free society.5 Only by treating people equally do we find out who is superior to whom.Read more at location 301
By treating people equally (we are back at the adverb) we are not making them equal.Read more at location 304
The man in a free society must either blame himself (which leads to the melancholia of those plagued by inferiority complexes) or will be bound to accuse imaginary conspiracies of ill-wishers and downright enemies.Read more at location 310
we would not be surprised to find that the number of psychological disturbances, “nervous breakdowns,” and suicides among males increases with social mobilityRead more at location 313
In other words, there is a real antagonism, an incompatibility, a mutual exclusiveness between liberty and enforced equality.Read more at location 328
French Revolution chose as its slogan “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity”—orRead more at location 329
If A is superior to B—more powerful, more handsome, more intelligent, more influential, wealthier—then B will feel inferior, ill at ease, and probably even afraid of A. If we subscribe to the famous “Four Freedoms” and accept the formulation of “Freedom from Fear,” then we can see how inequalities actually engender fear—and envy, though envy is rarely mentioned in this connection.Read more at location 331
