social justice = cough up the money white boy...
Posted on 05/16/2010 12:44:01 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
It is communism.
It is. Why should a welfare queen be given the same wage as a brain surgeon? Why bother becoming a brain surgeon when there's no reward? Why not relax and enjoy the ride like the welfare queen instead?
If social justice becomes the norm - don't expect me to sweat. I'm going on a permanent vacation. Millions would join me. Why not? There's nothing to lose.
So what if people get hungry? Why should I work to bake the bread? As long as I have my mine, who cares? It would be all about me and my free stuff, right? Isn't that how it works?
since last year... when tax money was used for private good instead of public good... we have been living under communism
then again, progressive taxes are unConstitutional and socialistic/communistic by definition.
to fit with the Constitution, taxes would have to be even regardless of the person being taxed. percentages are percentages. to say one person should be taxed more than another, just because what? the color of their skin? religion? amount they earn? sexual preference? what’s the difference... it all infringes on the civil rights of the individual and no longer treats us all equal under the law
lady justice is blind folded to insure everyone is treated equally. the quality of the clothing being worn by those being taxed would be irrelevant.
then again.. progressive taxes are a tool of the left to redistribute wealth and keep people from ever getting out of the hole
I notice a lot of churches and seminary theologians are very attracted to this idea of “social justice”. Many pastors and seminary teachers seem to think that the Old Testament Levitical laws support this idea.
Don't think that the theft will stop when some sort of economic equality is established by coercion. There is a very strong element of revenge, of retribution, in the class relationships implied by "social justice." We have already seen a vicious and tragic example in history. "Privileged" Jews were not simply impoverished by their Nazi "victims," who were, after all, using as their excuse the attempt to remediate what they considered an unfair economic advantage, the Jews were beaten, ostracized, encamped, murdered. That was the doctrine of social justice in action, and the newspapers of the time proudly proclaimed it so.
"Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."
“Social Justice” has no definition and it’s why the left loves the phrase: because it sounds good but means different things to different people.
It’s like “Racism”. Ever wonder why in a world where everyone wants to get rid of “racism” the institution still exists?
This evil, parasitical ideology must attach itself to a Good, so as to move forward. Inferior to 'Good'; it must depend on it; By it's own inferiority to Good; 'evil' must depend on Good - use it/cloak itself in it. Otherwise it is helpless. And of course the challenge is always to 'recognize it'.
Anything that screws average whitey taxpayer.
“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions…”
Social Justice is where if you don’t work, you don’t get stuff from someone elses work by force of law.
social justice = cough up the money white boy...
But it bears repeating
As Cripplecreek posted
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
C. S. Lewis
When I was converting to Catholicism my group had to endure a lecture from some bitter old communist nun with the title, “Diocesan Director for Social Justice”. I can’t remember most of her painful blather but I do remember the part about the evils of buying Nike tennis shoes (no I am not making that up).
When leftist politicos use the phrase “social justice”, it, of course, goes undefined, because like all Newspeak phrases and words (”health care” as used lately, “comprehensive immigration reform”, “racist”, and so forth), it means exactly what The Party wants it to mean at any given time.
What is more interesting is to analyse the phrase in the mouths of ostensibly Christian clerics. Here it seems to represent an abrogation of Christian responsibility, and a failure to heed the words of Christ, when He said, “the poor you have with you always.” The Christian responsibility to succor the poor, “in as much as ye did it to the least of these, ye did it unto Me,” to imitate the Good Samaritan who voluntarily used his own money to pay for the care of the man who fell among theives, gets twisted by clerics who buy into “social justice” into a responsibility to badger ‘Caesar’ into succoring the poor out of tax revenues, which ultimately is no responsibility at all.
Replacing philanthropy with “social justice” denies the donor the opportunity to imitate the Father, who makes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on the just and the unjust alike, and gives the recipient a sense of entitlement rather than gratitude. In the end “social justice” turns out to be a demonic simalcrum of Christ’s command to love one’s neighbor as one’s self, and like all such delusions only leads to harm, both spiritual and material.
“Social Justice” is code for socialism.
The Good Samaritan voluntarily helped someone in need - once. He was not responsible for the mans health care forever. If he were, he'd be enslaved by the wounded man for life.
Unfortunately, the writer fails to mention that in England of the time, there was the landed gentry (distant relatives of the crown), and the aristocracy (direct relatives of the crown) and royalty. There really wasn't a middle class as such, and social mobility was almost nil.
Marx' theory was about how to break this deadlock of the upper classes of the time in the UK. They did have a stranglehold over the economy.
But today's Marxists are little more than thieves. They complain that the wealthy have the same strangelhold over the economy, yet there is unlimited upward mobility for anyone willing to make the effort.
just a way to control people & turn them against the only working economic system so that you can dominate & control.
same ol’ same ol’.
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.