It's interesting that you seem to see the role of religion as being beneficial to the US civil rights movement and supporting the belief that 'all men are created equal.'
I see traditional religious attitudes, especially at the time the US constitution was written, during the civil rights struggle, and in many churches right up to the present day, as being a stumbling block to the acceptance of the concept that 'all men are created equal' and something to be overcome before that credo can be manifested and enacted in our society.
The fact that Martin Luther King was a religious man was helpful to his image and made him slightly more palatable to white Americans, many of whom frankly, were threatened by and viewed the idea of integration, one man/one vote and the abolishment of Jim Crow and the ideals behind separate but equal with abject fear and distaste. I think it's because it was easier to accept someone with a shared 'Christian' emphasis as a leader of ANYTHING, even though he was a black man, for him to help black people access civil rights than it would have been had he represented something entirely foreign - say like Malcolm X- who was fighting for the same rights from a different stance. You can still see it in the reservations the religious right have about accepting leadership from Barack Obama.
I think 'all men are created equal' is a convenient stance religions and governments have got to give the impression they support to be taken at all seriously - but I don't think most people act and live as if they believe that. In fact I think most of the behavior of individuals - whether they're leading governments or attending churches or just going about their daily lives- evidence the fact that equality of their fellow man is a fairly foreign concept- and it flies in the face of universally ingrained tribalism and individualism and self interest and preservation which is the biological and sociological fact that I most often see manifested- around the world, in fact.