Posted on 05/16/2010 4:07:28 AM PDT by Scanian
Behind the social justice banner lurks an ugly choice.
Nineteenth century French thinker Frederic Bastiat's summation of free will is quite succinct: "Society has for its element man, who is a free agent; and since man is free, he may choose -- since he may choose, he may be mistaken -- since he may be mistaken, he may suffer."
A basic understanding of free will elicits a particular truth about God's ordained relationship with man: that He wishes for us to obey Him, but for us to obey Him freely.
Can a comprehension of free will -- of our relationship with God -- give us clues as to how He would have us relate to each other? Can it give us clues as to how He would have our institutions relate to each of us individually?
If it is agreed, for instance, that charity is a desirable human action, should charity therefore be a forced action? And if charity becomes a forced action -- if governments, rather than citizens, mandate its application -- does it cease to be charity? Is it reduced to mere obedience?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Good article. The term “social justice” makes my hair stand on end when I hear it coming from the pulpit.
Yes, it's called Communism...tyranny...theft. It's inherently anti-American.
“Social justice” is to liberals as happy hour is to drunks. No matter how hard you try there’s no convincing a liberal that there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Free will? They gave that up a long long time ago when they embraced the welfare state with a death grip.
Just think, we now have Nancy Pelosi telling churches what should be preached and National Council of Churches pushing “eco-justice”.
Ping
When considering the term “social justice,” the word “social” negates the word “justice.”
As I said on another thread, you can have justice, or you can have social justice. You can’t have both at the same time.
We should take back these words and restore them to their true meaning. And while we're at it, let's take back the "rainbow," which truly symbolizes, not polymorphous perversity, but God's world-saving promise; "marriage," which means sacred fertile union, and "reproductive health," which means sacred fertile union resulting in a healthy baby.
Push back the socialists and sexual shape-shifters who have seized and twisted our words. Take back the power to define the terms. And then go out and win those hearts and minds.
Yeah, I thought that was pretty rich. Bishop Pelosi.
I think “social justice” is also a lot more vindictive and aggressive than just wishing for the welfare state, though; the implication of the word “justice” is not that it is optional, but that it can and must be imposed. That’s how everbody from the Soviets to Hitler (who also used the term) and on forward has seen it.
I agree, they have definitely taken over these words and given them a whole new meaning. But I’m not so sure it’s possible to take them back.
I suppose the think to do is to vigorously confront these people and reveal their lies. Of course, I guess fighting back is exactly what restrictions on “hate speech” are supposed to prevent; once the left (whether gays, black radicals, Obamaites, etc.) have seized a word, it becomes part of their specially legally-protected sphere.
Mark Steyn got in trouble for merely discussing the word “Islam.”
I just recently discovered the thrill, when discussing Illegal Immigration, of using the word “immoral.” Frequently and firmly. What a feeling.
They always leave out the “ist”, it’s nothing but ‘socialist justice.’
Leftists just cannot get it into their heads that some people will be more successful in their lives and some will fail none of it having anything to do with fairness or "social justice." In short, like the old saying, some people are born to lose, you might also say some are born to win. But there will never be total social justice the way leftists view it. Because people's abilities are inherently unequal.
Capitalism has created a system where even the very poor can eat and live better comparatively well in the U.S. That is not good enough for most leftists. That is why conservatives, who know about inherent inequalities in abilities, will always have a battle with leftists...who know nothing about human nature and are condemned by their ignorance to remain that way.
It is insane to concede them the power to define this concept, just as they have been conceded the power to define "compassionate," "enlightened," "progressive," "reform," and every other key concept in the public forum.
We should take back these words and restore them to their true meaning.
Then we should properly demonize the term "Socialist" down into the negative connotation it truly deserves.
First off, "Socialist Justice" and "Socialist Security" should be used when describing the serious shortcomings or destructive nature of either issue.
Otherwise, definitively put "Socialist" in front of any PC term or initiative as you refer to it before you commence to rip it apart...especially when you have a hint that the recipient of your rant even marginally agrees with you.
eg: "socialist compassion" "socialist enlightenment" "socialist progressives" "socialist reform" etc.
Oh yeah...don't forget "Democratic Socialist"
Also “Christian” Socialism.
On frigid days you can say, “Man, it’s as cold as socialism out there.”
Or when a tornado strikes, gazing on the rubble: “Looks like socialism’s been through here.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.