The Civil War News & Views Open Discussion Forum - Archive

Re: An evolution of meaning ...
In Response To: An evolution of meaning ... ()

I don't think that's what Thomas Jefferson meant when he originally penned it, though. The majority of the signers of the DoI would not have thought it meant all races of men just as it certainly would not have included females of any race at all.
--

That may certainly be true in some instances, but I think the Biblical grid through which most of the Founding Fathers viewed the world may have in fact extended this to all men regardless of race, and women too.

Remember, for those in Christ, there was no Jew or Greek, slave or master, male or female. That's why in Scripture women are also referred to as Sons of God--to clue in the patriarchal society of that age that women shared equal stature and value with men in the eyes of God, a radically revolutionary concept at the time.

That's not to ignore the realities of life in those days or in our own country, with how long it took women to get the vote, for example. Just because man, in his fallen state, does not operate according to his own lofty ideals all the time does not diminish their value or give him an excuse to not try to pursue them.

Messages In This Thread

An evolution of meaning ...
Re: An evolution of meaning ...
Exactly.
Re: Exactly.
Re: Exactly.
I agree! *NM*
Re: Exactly.
Re: Exactly.
Re: Exactly.
Re: Exactly.
Re: Exactly.
Re: Exactly.
Re: Exactly.
I agree. *NM*
Re: Exactly.
Re: An evolution of meaning ...
Re: An evolution of meaning ...
Re: An evolution of meaning ...
Re: An evolution of meaning ...
Re: An evolution of meaning ...
I second that motion... *NM*
Re: An evolution of meaning ...