Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: bamabound; Viennacon; EBH; livius; bronxville; Mad Dawg; Mrs. Don-o; STJPII; D-fendr; NotTallTex; ..
I am extremely ang[ry] with the high jacking of our language and the communist/socialist use of the term 'social justice' is an excuse for implementing totalitarian policies.
And why wouldn't you be? It is disgusting. The problem is, we have to pick our fights. Especially when the propaganda heights are commanded by the enemy. IMHO the root of your problem is the co-option of the word "society;" if people don't understand that word, how are they to understand "social justice?"

Thomas Paine is not every Christian's cup of tea, but IMHO he is correct in this, which George Washington associated himself with by ordering Common Sense to be read to his troops:

Common Sense

By Thomas Paine
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamities is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer! Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform, and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.

Add to that the objection that justice is a different thing from grace or mercy, and that calling grace or mercy (our only pathway to Heaven) "justice" (which, apart from grace and mercy, is our inherited ticket to Hell) is inherently confusing if not actually confused. Freepers
bamabound;Viennacon;EBH;livius;bronxville;MadDawg;Mrs.Don-o;STJPII;D-fendr;NotTallTex;
, I beg you to be patient with FReepers
DarrellZero;jiggyboy;SecretAgentMan;FijiHill;UncleMiltie;Rashputin;Skepolitic;Patriotic1;
and myself if we ask,
"If it was true in 1776, and is still true today, that most people entirely confound ‘society' and ‘government,' precisely how do you expect to redeem your own intended meaning of the term 'social justice' when there are arguments against your intended meaning which are accepted even by conservatives, and you are up against the headwind of so-called ‘objective' journalism?”
Thomas Sowell can be added to the list of intellectuals who consider actual justice to be in contradistinction with “social,” or any “other kind” of “justice.” I don’t think that Isaiah 5:20 applies to those who think so. I do think that, unfortunately or not, you need to rethink your choice of language in this instance.

Of course if you want to make me be in a similar position to where you are with “social justice," just get me going about “liberalism!” Right up to 1920, “liberalism” meant what you and I now call, quite inaccurately, “conservatism.” Other than in America, it perhaps still does. According to Safire’s New Political Dictionary, the meaning of the word transformed - essentially inverted - in the 1920s. And “conservatism” simply does not do our philosophy justice, yet we have no word that actually means liberalism. The word that used to mean that, now means its very opposite.


22 posted on 03/14/2013 8:26:28 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: conservatism_IS_compassion

bamabound;Viennacon;EBH;livius;bronxville;MadDawg;Mrs.Don-o;STJPII;D-fendr;NotTallTex;

, I beg you to be patient with FReepers


I didn’t realize I was being impatient rather was under the impression it was a discussion on the term Social Justice.

This term encompasses the whole political arena on which road the country is taking - Marxism or Scripture-ism. Yes, Liberalism was also co-opted but it was a clearly delineated meaning word (”gay” is yet another) while on the other hand “social justice” can be two things (Church or Scriptural teaching vs a politically charged buzzword). The two things are blended just enough to cause a calculated confusion.

Here are just a few examples of “social justice” terms and how they are misused:

Human rights and human dignity belong to each and every person by virtue of his being created in the image and likeness of God, and upon the natural law. Marxists now assert that such rights and dignity are determined by the state or the “will of the people.”

Freedom reaches its perfection in seeking what is true and good, which ultimately leads one to God. Marxists now define “freedom” as the license to do whatever one feels like doing (as long as it isn’t illegal), without regard to truth, goodness, or God.

Truth involves correspondence to objective reality. Marxists now claim that “truth” is merely a relative term that can vary from person to person. In the process, they deny objective truth, particularly in the moral realm.

Common good refers to the good of the entire community, as the proper object of a just law, which nonetheless presupposes respect for the individual person (cf. CCC 1907). Marxists now equate the promotion of the common good to the redistribution of wealth, entitlement programs, and an exaggerated deference to the federal government.

Culture of life derives from Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae. While it provides a coherent presentation of the range of life issues, the document hones in on abortion and euthanasia as the key issues of our time. Marxists use “life” or “culture of life” (without meaning anything in particular) to give credence to their position, even as they persist in their permissive position on abortion and other nonnegotiable issues.

Development involves access to the basic necessities of life, especially for the poor. Marxists use “development,” consciously or otherwise, as code for exporting—or even imposing when necessary—American secular values, most notably an anti-natal agenda.

Taken from:
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/social-justice-isn%E2%80%99t-left-or-right

Saul Alinsky was an expert at twisting Catholic Social Justice.


23 posted on 03/14/2013 9:55:42 AM PDT by bronxville (Margaret Sanger - “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion; All

Social Justice - continued...

What Does the Compendium Say About . . .

Human rights: Pope John Paul II has drawn up a list of [human rights] in the encyclical Centesimus Annus: the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the growth of the child’s personality . . . The first right presented in this list is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, which is the condition for the exercise of all other rights and, in particular, implies the illicitness of every form of procured abortion and of euthanasia (155).

Contraception: Also to be rejected is recourse to contraceptive methods in their different forms: this rejection is based on a correct and integral understanding of the person and human sexuality and represents a moral call to defend the true development of peoples. . . All programs of economic assistance aimed at financing campaigns of sterilization and contraception, as well as the subordination of economic assistance to such campaigns, are to be morally condemned . . . (233-34)

Abortion and Direct Sterilization: Concerning the “methods” for practicing responsible procreation, the first to be rejected as morally illicit are sterilization and abortion. The latter in particular is a horrendous crime and constitutes a particularly serious moral disorder; far from being a right, it is a sad phenomenon that contributes seriously to spreading a mentality against life, representing a dangerous threat to a just and democratic social coexistence (233).

Same-Sex Marriage: The family, in fact, is born of the intimate communion of life and love founded on the marriage between one man and one woman . . . No power can abolish the natural right to marriage or modify its traits and purpose. Marriage in fact is endowed with its own proper, innate, and permanent characteristics. . . . (211, 216).

Subsidiarity and “Big Government”: Subsidiarity is among the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church’s social doctrine and has been present since the first great social encyclical. . . . The principle of subsidiarity protects people from abuses by higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfill their duties. . . . Experience shows that the denial of subsidiarity, or its limitation in the name of an alleged democratization or equality of all members of society, limits and sometimes even destroys the spirit of freedom and initiative (185, 187).

Social Engineering and the Concept of Justice: Justice is particularly important in the present-day context, where the individual value of the person, his dignity, and his rights—despite proclaimed intentions—are seriously threatened by the widespread tendency to make exclusive use of criteria of utility and ownership. . . . Justice, in fact, is not merely a simple human convention, because what is “just” is not first determined by the law but by the profound identity of the human being (202).

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is available online at the Vatican’s Web site (www.vatican.va).
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/social-justice-isn%E2%80%99t-left-or-right

And this is just a very brief overview of the significance of the term Social Justice in the Catholic Church.


26 posted on 03/14/2013 10:06:09 AM PDT by bronxville (Margaret Sanger - “We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

Thanks for your interesting post.

My 2¢:

If you just say “justice” it connotes legal.. crime and punishment. We are talking about something different.

Should a different term be used? I can’t see that without the same problems arising.

I think Social Justice is an apt term. What we are seeing, IMHO, is different philosophies and means to address it. We have the extremes of marxism and free markets on the economic system side for example.

The way I look at it we are all talking about the same thing with different ideas and approaches to it. Social Justice applies in all cases just as ‘economics’ applies whether it is capitalism or socialism.

What I think is needed is to differentiate the different values and approaches to accomplish Social Justice as well as their effectiveness.

But I don’t know how to do that.

:)


29 posted on 03/14/2013 11:13:50 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

I’m all for institutions that promote a just society where justice prevails in the affairs of individuals. Such institutions include the government and the church to the extent that they establish and promote sound rules for just conduct.

Why qualify the ideal of “justice” with adjectives like “social”, “distributive”, “environmental”, “economic”, “racial”, “restorative”, etc., etc.? These only confuse understanding. Why not identify principles for just individual conduct?


35 posted on 03/15/2013 12:12:07 PM PDT by Skepolitic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson