Do you believe that all men are created equal?  Our government doesn’t.

And I demonstrate that fact in my latest article that was recently published at Newszilla:

There are laws that govern how our world works. You see it every day in your own life.  Probably the most obvious example is gravity.  There are natural laws that govern what will happen if you drop or throw an object.

Just like there are physical laws that govern our world, there are also laws that govern how human beings tend to behave and how they interact.  Perhaps the most fundamental natural law in that area is the fact that all men are created equal.

In today’s world this concept seems like a no-brainer.  If you walked out on the street right now and stopped everyone who walked by you, you’d have a hard time finding someone who would tell you they don’t believe that all men are created equal.

But despite the near consensus we have on this topic, our government has been operating under the assumption that all men are not equal at all.

To illustrate that, let’s look at last week’s District court ruling that denied Hobby Lobby an exemption from the new Obamacare birth control mandate.  The owners of Hobby Lobby are challenging the mandate because they have a religious objection to abortion and do not wish to provide their employees with abortifacients.

Clearly the government doesn’t dispute Hobby Lobby’s claim that the birth control mandate puts an unacceptable burden on the free exercise of religion because it has issued an exemption for religious organizations.  But it has refused to offer an exemption for businesses like Hobby Lobby.  And that inconsistency is a huge problem.

One of the defining characteristics of a right is that everyone has them equally.  Every person has the right to the freedom of speech.  Every person has the right to travel.  And every person has a right to the freedom of religion.  This shouldn’t be controversial.

But according to the system that is created by the ruling against Hobby Lobby, in order for you to have full access to your freedom of religion, you need to belong to a government approved religious organization.  In other words, people who belong to a religious organization have a right to free exercise to religion.  Those who don’t, don’t.  So much for all men are created equal.

The fact that the bureaucrats in the Department of Health and Human Services have given religious groups an exemption means that they understand that this mandate violates the rights of every private business owner who has a religious objection to it.  They just don’t care.

That decision does more than just violate the freedom of religion for the owners of Hobby Lobby.  It makes this a nation where anyone with a strongly held religious belief is discouraged from starting a business.  Every person of faith now knows that – if your business becomes too big – the federal government believes it has the authority to force you to take actions that you believe are sinful.

In this new America, the price of being able to create a large business or corporation is to turn your back on your religion.  It imposes a ceiling on what people of faith are allowed to achieve.  There is no way around the fact that this ruling – and the application of the birth control mandate – is based on the belief that some men are more equal than others.

There are always consequences to violating natural law.  Imagine what would happen if you ignored the law of gravity and tried to fly off the roof of your house.   You would obviously pay a pretty painful price for that.  The same is true if we choose to ignore the fact that all men are created equal.

We are a nation that was founded on a set of ideals.  And to the extent that we have put those principles into action, we have been a successful and great nation.  But whenever we have ignored those ideals, we have paid some very high prices.

All men are created equal isn’t just a cute phrase or an empty platitude.  It is a fundamental principle of good government that should guide us in our decision making.  No matter what we do, there is always a price to be paid for violating natural law.  As long as we continue to operate under this fantasy that some men are more equal than others, we cannot expect to be free.

Every time we have a presidential election, people come out of the wood work to complain about how “unfair” the electoral college is.  These critics insist that we need a national popular vote because it’s more democratic.  But would a national popular vote be a threat to your freedom?  And how close is to actually happening?

Want to know when the next episode of Freedom’s Foundation is posted?  Click here to sign up for Chad’s monthly newsletter!

Want to know when the next episode of Freedom’s Foundation is posted?  Click here to sign up for Chad’s monthly newsletter!

Do you want more Americans to start learning the Constitution?  Then be sure to tweet the link to this video and post it on your Facebook page!

Don’t want to miss my next video on the Constitution?  Then sign up for my monthly newsletter and I’ll let you know when it’s available!

As you may know, I’ve been on the radio a few times over the last couple weeks.  I was able to get the audio of a two of those interviews so if you weren’t able to hear them live, now you don’t have to miss out!

Here is my appearance on The Michael Koolidge Show:

And here the interview I did on the nationally syndicated George Jarkesy Show:

“It is not intended to say that these words comprehend that commerce, which is completely internal, which is carried on between man and man in a State, or between different parts of the same State, and which does not extend to or affect other States.  Such a power would be inconvenient, and is certainly unnecessary.”

Gibbons v. Ogden – 1824

“For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State…”

Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the constitutionality of a National Bank – 1791

“Upon the principles above laid down, the states are under no other constitutional restriction, and are, consequently, left in possession of a vast field of commercial regulation; all the internal commerce of the state by land and water remains entirely, and I may say exclusively, within the scope of its original sovereignty.  The congressional power relates to external not to internal commerce, and it is confined to the regulation of that commerce.”

Livinston v. Van Ingen, NY Court of Errors – 1812