Galatians 3:28 The basis for the concept of basic human rights?

The claim:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
~ Galatians 3:28

This is the basis for the concept of basic human rights.

The abolitionist movement, women's suffrage, and the civil rights movement all started in Christian churches."
-----------------
Reply: 

1. An early Christian saying a thing ... doesn't demonstrate they were the first to think or say such a thing.

2. The concept of human rights far predates the Hebrew religion.

Example: Code of Hammurabi.
And that's not even the oldest of similar codes.

3. Out of all the America's Civil Rights battles, the only one started by Christians was the abolitionist movement. 

Granted, this is a big one. 

But they didn't fight it alone. 

Although, there's no way to know how many people within their ranks weren't true believers.

Christians made it dangerous for non-Christians to out themselves.

This is, after all, the reason Abe Lincoln tried to appeal to the churches without actually being a Christian.

It would have rendered him powerless, in a society where Christians were only willing to give power and respect to other Christians. 

So we'll never really know how many non-Christians were among the "Christians".

In any event,
their anti-slavery views weren't really found in bibles. 

They were derived from personal conscience; under the influence of the secular enlightenment. 
 

4. That text doesn't actually say
what you seem to think it says.

It's just presents:

another addition to humanity's pool of divisive ideologies.


It's an artificial premise for prejudiced ~other-ing~;

- where Christianity functions as a race.

It's a master-race, using religion instead of skin color, as the foundation for their superiority;
 
- which people can ~enlist into~.

So then:

Everyone inside of it ... values and treats each other equally (according to that writer; which really did not reflect a common view among Christians)

It was a new-to-them sentiment;
- which they quickly lost track of, afterwards.
-And then literally never re-embraced. 

That passage in Galatians 
says ~nothing~ about humans outside of their religion.

Thus, it says nothing about "human rights" or universal equality.

According to that passage, ...

People in the group
are just equal to each other.

---
In order to ~actually~ embrace the ideals you're claiming the earliest Christians embraced, ...

they had to (but didn't) get rid of the religious beliefs that:

All married women owe their husband subjection. 
(how is THAT compatible with seeing no difference?) 

Also, Women should STFU in church (thanks, Paul).

 Worse yet,
The belief that:

everyone's default state is:

unworthy of their very existence,
and is thus: due for death (or worse)
~except for~:
people who embrace their core religious beliefs
(in other words, join their religion).

THEN you can go
from:

being an equal to all the other hell-bound/unwashed people, ...

to:

being a spiritually cleansed
and redeemed ~equal with Christians~;

-graduating/maturing into
what was otherwise only ~potential value~.

At that point, ...

Finally, GOD can stand to look at you.

Finally, you are worth not-killing and not-torturing.

Finally, you are worthy of entry into eternal (ironically hedonistic) bliss.

And if you don't CHOOSE that
after hearing the message,
then:
there must be something really spiritually
wrong with you.

No wonder their "God" said that only worthless FOOLS question if there's a god.

No wonder their "God" said that there is nothing good at all ... in the heart of a non-believer.

No wonder the OT "God" had his people slaughtering and enslaving foreigners.

No wonder "God" sanctioned slavery in the Old Testament.

No wonder "God" had different standards of treatment for non-Jewish slaves compared to Jewish slaves.

No wonder Jesus felt that all earthly slaves owe their masters excellent service.

If slavery was wrong, in the eyes of Jesus (according to the stories)
then:

He wouldn't have agreed with slave owners ... that slaves owe that to their owners.

He would have said something like
"Since the paradigm and institution are abhorrent to God, there is no premise upon which to say slaves owe anything to their masters. Instead, all masters owe freedom and restitution to their slaves."

You can't have it both ways.

You can't think slavery is illegitimate,
and (at the same time) think slaves owe excellent service to their masters, and think good slaves are due moderating beatings, while crappy slaves are due many more welts ("stripes") from their beatings.

You can't think it's an evil social dynamic (like breeding dogs for dog fights)
and then (at the same time) hold it up as a shining example of the sort of relationship humans should have with their "God".

You also can't be outraged about it ... and then just forgot to ever say so; even when slavery is the topic.

Instead, he vouched for the entire OT, without ever saying "oh wait., except for these bits. Like slavery; that was wrong."

Also:
No wonder Christian bibles say that Jesus is going to come back to violently murder every man, woman, child, and baby ... who isn't on the winning team. 
 Our lives don't matter, within the context of that religion. 
--------------
Meanwhile, ...

No "God" is even RUMORED among Christians ... to have showed up hundreds (or thousands) of years after the "canon" was sealed, ...
to say "oh yea. I changed my mind about that slavery thing".

It was, instead,
progressive secular values
that exerted the gradual influence needed
for Christianity to gradually become
what modern Christian likes to pretend it always was.