bumper sticker
Posted on 05/16/2010 4:12:47 AM PDT by Scanian
The term "social justice" is now commonly used by leftist activists, clergy, educators, judges, and politicians to describe the goal they seek to achieve with many of their policies. No precise definition of "social justice" is ever offered by the left. Instead, the term is always used in a vague way -- as if everyone already knows, or should know, what the seemingly well-intentioned phrase "social justice" means.
So, what exactly is "social justice?"
Social justice is the complete economic equality of all members of society. While this may sound like a lofty objective, what it really means is that wealth should be collected by the government and evenly distributed to everyone. In short, social justice is communism. It is rooted in the Marxist idea that the money people make, and the property they own, do not rightfully belong to the people who make the money and own the property.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Screwing the White Man.
Uh, sorry to break it to Jayme the author, but they have used this term for well over a century.
Furthermore, you can go back to the Hitler era and find him campaigning in the slums of Germany in the 1920's using the same term, "social justice".
It’s whatever the liberal group using the term wants it to mean to push their agenda.
But normally can be translated as, "You BAD! Me GOOD!! Now pay up!!"
That's true - the specific expression of "social justice" can change, but this is it's essence.
Social justice does not mean socialism. The "common good" does not mean communism. The leftists have taken those concepts and perverted them to their own means.
Social Justice: the respect for the human person and the rights which flow from human dignity and guarantee it. Society must provide the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation.Catechism of the Catholic Church, Glossary
The term "workers of the world, unite" doesn't really make sense in a world in which their is no clear line between worker and factory owner.
Kids that write software (freelance) are on a par with factory owners (they are their own factories), yet senior managers at the Union Bank of Switzerland are merely workers.
The Left is so "bitterly clinging" to their outdated ideas, they can't see that the train has left the station!
“Social Justice”
The goal to which all progressive revolutionaries aspire.
(If you want to own property, lower taxes, protect the integrity of your state/country, move and speak freely, maintain the integrity of the voting process and love the U.S. Constitution, you are anti-revolutionary.)
IMHO
Ding, ding, ding! We have a winnah!
Like Truth (that which serves the Party the best), Social Justice, or fairness, is that policy, that outcome, that favors me the most (and my social class, to put it into Bolshevik terms).
Thus, both fairness and truth come with a built-in sliding scale. There is no objective standard because they keep moving the goalposts.
Thus, they are able to say that civil rights progress from the fifties, to the sixties, to the seventies, etc, has been virtually nil; and that the election of a colorful man to the White House proves nothing about our being newly-tolerant, either.
It's just a little bit frustrating, so it pays to know that it's because of a total lack of objectivity on the part of our opponents, not because of any objective malfeasance or misanthropy on our part. However, I must admit, their efforts to make racists out of us are starting to bear some fruit. And don't get me started on the fruit thing.
I think it is taking our stuff and giving to other people who are depicted as suffering under the boot of white men.
Great point. This whole notion of “social justice” is nothing more than a ruse to redistribute wealth at the point of a gun. I see very little difference between a hooded gunman demanding my treasure or an IRS agent threatening to garnish my wages or take my home. For all intents and purposes what’s the difference?
Correct you are.
the money people make, and the property they own, do not rightfully belong to the people who make the money and own the property....
Sounds fair to me. Count me in. /sarc
In other words, enslavement. Taxpaying white men are the new "N" word, and as usual, democrats are embracing the concept that they deserve the fruit of another man's labor.
“social justice” = toxic mix of socialism and racism, cf. “Nazism”
If “the rich” are supposed to contribute a higher percventage of their income to society. what are “the poor” asked to contribute?
Apparently, nothing - other than votes for Democrats.
And this doesn’t even take into account that poor people can become rich, or vice versa.
Annd what’s more “greedy” and “materialistic” - wanting to keep what one has earned, or trying to take what someone else has?
and we on the right will use “economic justice”
In the movie “Poppy”, W.C. Fields is a con man. His daughter confronts him after one swindle.
“Pa, stealing is wrong.”
“I’m not stealing,” Fields says. “I’m taking from the rich and giving to the poor.”
“What poor?” she asks incredulously.
“Us poor,” he responds.
That’s Social Justice. We know it as theft.
ping
It’s interesting how socialists have basically dropped the notion that the state should own the means of production. I guess a few of their fringe still believe it, but the typical leftwinger really doesn’t. What they do believe in, though, is the redistribution of wealth. The deal seems so be “Okay greedy class enemies, you get to keep your factories (since when we socialists ran them it was a disaster of epic proportions) but we’re going to regulate you and bully you and demonize you, and the wealth you create we’re going to snatch out of your hands and give it to its rightful owners, the people”. But that’s really just fascism, isn’t it?
No, that's a leftist term too. They use it to mean social justice as it applies specifically within the sphere of economics.
Were nations or businesses to enslave anyone they would be abhorrent. But these people, they think it is all right for them to use their intellect to enslave all to them. They think becaue they deem themselves smart, its ok, it’s the proper order of things. I don’t think give a care about greed, etc. They just want to be in charge, and they could never be in charge of anything with their slovenly habits and whacked out ideas except government.
An oxymoron.
Conservatives by and large believe that charity is something that is a private matter between an individual and his or her community. Something that is looked upon as uplifting to the spirit because it is done freely and without compulsion with the expressed purpose of removing the impediments that keep one in poverty. For example, a job instead of a handout.
Liberals on the other hand view government's role in the elimination of poverty as an absolute. In fact I would go as far as to say that this view borders on a religious belief on their part and is certainly a linchpin of liberalism. The problem I see with this is two fold: 1) when “social justice” becomes compulsory it is neither social or just; and 2) liberal entitlement programs only further the dependence of the poor and keep them in a never ending state of poverty which is where liberals look for their base of support every election cycle.
When someone uses the term “social justice” it is an admission by them that they are a loser. You should reject whatever they say, shun them and get away quickly. If you are a policeman, arrest them immediately and deport them.
For all intents and purposes what’s the difference?
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The hooded gunman is more apt to be nervous because he lacks the full backing of the REAL criminal class.
Someone said that the only legitimate function of government is to protect the citizenry against criminals (both foreign and domestic) but the government inevitably usurps the function of the criminal and becomes a greater danger to the public than the criminal could ever be.
When I told an Obamabot last year that Obama is the current equivalent of Mussolini he said I had gone off the deep end but he certainly seems to fit Benito’s definition of a Fascist to the letter.
Social Justice = the Marxist rendition of the story of Robin Hood.
At one point social justice was called “distributive justice” but that was to easy to understand. Social justice as a term is easy for liberals to work with, it is a living term that grows with the times.
When I visited MT Rushmore and listened to one of the movie presentations I learned our country was established for life, liberty, and the pursuit of social justice. Go listen for your self, you will hear it.
What Exactly is ‘Socical Justice’? Cultural Marxism
Same thing.
Actually I view it as “Government Shoplifting the Booty”
Whole hog thievery......and there is NO HONOR among thieves.
>“social justice” = toxic mix of socialism and racism, cf. “Nazism”>
‘Social justice’ is a BS term considering a thing it is used for.
The real social justice means that one who did a job is getting fruits of it. The one who didn’t gets nothing which is same justful.
Raising equality is giving a hand to a loser and it is a winner who is to pay a price for ‘equality’ sharing his result.
There is no need to do your best to be a winner and there is a reason to be a loser who gets the same doing nothing. A bad thing is if both are to become a losers they have nothing to share.There is no justice. That is just a simple reason why socialism is always about a poverty and failure at the end.
Ping
Jonah Goldberg does a great job of linking liberalism and fascism in his book Liberal Fascism, and he gets a lot of very convincing mileage out of Mussolini.
Prior to Liberal Fascism, there was this classic piece by David Ramsey Steele called The Mystery of Fascism which puts its finger right on the connection between socialism and fascism in Mussolini:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm
It’s an analytical piece but is also jampacked with interesting anecdotes and quotes from Mussolini that make it clear he never thought of himself as anything other than a socialist.
The Problem is between the words Should and Must,
and the application of the word Rights
It is the act of a Christian, in Obedience,
to Give of Self and Substance
But “Society” is not Christian, and Governance is not God
I cannot compel one to give of self and substance
If God gives you Free Will, I cannot remove it without Great Error
A Christian, in Obedience, Serves as they are called to do.
I, and by extension, Governance,
cannot Compel Service without reducing one to Slavery
The use of “MUST” in the definition above
pertains to Society and hence a
varying mix of believers and non-believers,
and a varying degree of Obedience.
Also,
“obtain what is their due”
Is a bizarre concept in Christianity when applied this way.
I OWN nothing, God does
At best I have Stewardship of a thing, for a time
I am due nothing but Death, except through Grace and Repentance
And even that as God's Gift to us.
Society, not Christianity,
has established a Very imperfect mechanism
for “Distributing the Loot”
Christ, Christians, and the Church
Stand as beacons on the hill
To show "Society" that there is a better way
I Must act in Obedience to God's Will toward Me
As I have placed myself under submission and obedience
I Cannot Compel Your Behavior without Great Error
Without You, Yourself, Placing Yourself under God Law
Society to a great degree is comprised by those
who have not done this...
I Give of Self and Substance, in Obedience to God's Will
Society, when Compelled to do so
Is reduced to Slavery
Oh Yes...
Dignity, in this Context, is a bizarre concept also
Submission knows nothing of Dignity
The Founding Father's understood these concept
Separating Church and State
And the early history of this Country is replete with examples of
the consequences of Church compelling Governance
Failing in Submission and Obedience,
causing great harm...
Good grief. They actually used that phrasing -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of social justice? Some leftwinger obviously got the job to write the script for the little film they play at the visitor center.
You can have justice or social justice.
Don’t ever count on having both at the same time.
Well, perhaps you are making the same mistake that leftists make when reading this. (Not, repeat, not accusing you of being leftist in any regard...just saying that you might be making the same error in reading that they do)
Society must provide the conditions…
You will note that it says society. It does not say "the State."
Social justice means that the elderly are taken care of (by society). The leftists pervert that and create government run social security.
Social justice means that charity hospitals are created (and funded by society). The leftists pervert that and create medicare, medicaid, and obamacare.
Social justice means that the poor are fed (through means generated by voluntary contributions), are given a roof over their heads (in shelters run by the Church), and are clothed (through thrift stores run by charities). The leftists pervert that and create food stamps, government housing, and cash welfare subsidies.
Social justice means that society takes care of each other. Those who are in a position to give, do so voluntarily and receive the blessings from having done so. Those who are in a position of need receive the blessings given by those who are in a position to give, realize that they are being given a gift, and are thankful for that gift.
The leftists pervert that and take (at the end of a gun) from those who may have and then make whole classes of people "entitled" (i.e., enslaved) to receive "benefits."
Social justice is a commandment of the Lord. Socialism is a perversion of the devil.
To quote Pope John Paul II,
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State…
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending…
Encyclical Centesimus Annus, paragraph 48
(Social Justice types absolutely hate when that document is quoted!!!
The ‘rats mean Socialist Justice.
Or at least for Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest of the Socialist ilk who Oboner is trying to emulate!
Seig Phooey!
I See...
The Differentiation then is between Society and State
Hmmm.
Individuals Love and Care for Individuals
Neighbors Love and Care for Neighbors
Families Love and Care for Families
Community Loves and Cares for Community
State (ie Caesar)
Having the Temporal Power to Compel (enslave)
Does not Love or Care for things without
reducing “Subjects” to Slavery
OK
The problem is in the confusion between Society and State
If Society is defined by the State,
then Slavery Results
If Society is defined by God,
Obedience, Submission, Kindness, Love, and Caring
Doing Justly, Loving Mercy, Walking Humbly
Become Possible, and as Christians, manditory
If Society is defined by the State,
then Slavery Results
If Society is defined by God,
Obedience, Submission, Kindness, Love, and Caring
Doing Justly, Loving Mercy, Walking Humbly
Become Possible, and as Christians, manditory
I think you and I are in perfect agreement.
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.
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.