The injustice of "social justice"
I picked up F.A. Hayek's book Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2: The Mirage of Social Justice
that Glenn had ordered because the title was intriguing and I love Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.
I have never felt comfortable around academics who throw out the word "social justice" because it always seems restrictive and self-serving. Once I hear a group of social "scientists" employing the term, it generally means that are looking for reasons to favor some groups (almost always Democratic constituents), while excluding others. Hayek explains why he is not a fan of the term in his book on the topic:
We all have our own idea of social justice. My form of social justice is a little different. I would have people keeping the money they earn without the force of a gun to their head with orders to turn larger and larger amounts of it over to the government as they become more successful. I would also call it socially just to have people pay for their own health care without mandating others by force to pay for them.
Is the current form of "social justice" with its emphasis on government force for some special interest groups but not for others really justice? Not in my book and certainly not in Hayek's. But read the book and decide for yourself what you think of "social justice." Hayek might just change your mind.
that Glenn had ordered because the title was intriguing and I love Hayek's The Road to Serfdom. I have never felt comfortable around academics who throw out the word "social justice" because it always seems restrictive and self-serving. Once I hear a group of social "scientists" employing the term, it generally means that are looking for reasons to favor some groups (almost always Democratic constituents), while excluding others. Hayek explains why he is not a fan of the term in his book on the topic:
I have now become convinced, however, that the people who habitually employ the phrase simply do it as an assertion that a claim is justified without giving a reason for it....
What I hope to have made clear is that the phrase 'social justice' is not, as most people probably feel, an innocent expression of good will towards the less fortunate, but that it has become a dishonest insinuation that one ought to agree to a demand of some special interest which can give no real reason for it. ...I have come to feel strongly that the greatest service I can still render to my fellow men would be that I could make the speakers and writers among them thoroughly ashamed ever again to employ the term 'social justice.'
We all have our own idea of social justice. My form of social justice is a little different. I would have people keeping the money they earn without the force of a gun to their head with orders to turn larger and larger amounts of it over to the government as they become more successful. I would also call it socially just to have people pay for their own health care without mandating others by force to pay for them.
Is the current form of "social justice" with its emphasis on government force for some special interest groups but not for others really justice? Not in my book and certainly not in Hayek's. But read the book and decide for yourself what you think of "social justice." Hayek might just change your mind.
Labels: interesting books
posted by Helen at 2:47 PM
60 Comments:
I went to a Jesuit high school, so the "social justice" mantra. Some of them were concerned with taking care of those who needed it, but a lot of it was just dressed-up Marxism bagging on whatever scapegoat they wanted to blame society's ills on.
Of course, who did they rely on for their operating budget and auction donations? Parents in the capitalist machine. Much of my high school education was a collective guilt trip.
Shoulda read,
"I went to a Jesuit high school, so the "social justice" mantra was pervasive."
Of course "social justice" isn't justice. Justice is the process whereby violations of persons' rights are investigated, prosecuted, and redressed. Therefore, justice is wholly dependent on rights. If rights cannot be collectivized -- and they can't -- then neither can justice.
Alas and forsooth, those who need to read this most won't, or if perchance they do, they most likely will not understand it.
Interesting that this is coming up in several places. I have a post comparing the notions of "social justice" and a "just society" here, to the detriment of the former. It also points to Timothy Dalrymple's enjoyable, but somewhat different, take here, relating "social justice" to the Tea Party (hattip to Glenn).
"Social justice", obviously, is just a different name for socialism. Duh.
I've always thought that "social justice" means ...
... let the people who work and earn something keep what they work and earn. If I plant vegetables behind my house, and do all the work of planting, tending and harvesting, then you should probably just leave me alone.
The current paradigm is that you have to give a third or a half of your work up to people who just sit on their ass waiting for you to plant the vegetables.
So the income tax kind of sucks.
A further extension of my philosophy ... that you keep what you earn ... becomes very problematic for people, even on this Web site.
If you HAVE TO tax, take it away from people who have not earned the money.
There are tons of examples and tons of specific people.
Examples: Spouses of billionaires who become billionaires themselves without doing the work that led to the billions. Tax them before me.
Children and heirs of billionaires who become billionaires themselves without doing the work that led to the billions. Tax them before me.
Pretty much anyone who gets money without work. Tax them before me.
A consumption tax to replace the income tax would be more than cool. I earn money but don't spend a whole lot. I am taxed up the wazoo.
Some hooker who defrauded a rich guy by marrying him spends a whole lot and buys a whole lot of stuff, but she earns nothing. Tax HER instead of me.
Now to specifics:
Do you really think that Heather Mills deserves to be so rich vis-a-vis emergency room physicians, cancer researchers, firemen, policemen, computer scientists, veterans who were drafted into the Vietnam war and lost their legs ... and on and on.
Then quit being chivalrous and realize that life is unfair but society doesn't have to EXAGGERATE that unfairness. Take Heather's money away from her, give her a kick in the butt to boot, and give the money to several people who are WORKING but having trouble making ends meet.
Or don't tax at all.
And by the way, I personally stand to gain a very large inheritance. I would honestly give it up if they just eliminated the income tax.
Take the possessions off dead people, they don't need it where they are going.
But I get the drift from many, many people on this Web site, that they don't want to pay an income tax (like me), but they want to get a full inheritance, but they want to use publicly funded stuff.
That's just greed and not principle.
Web site after Web site after Web site, I see arguments that Heather Mills and Paris Hilton shouldn't be taxed or even bothered, but a working guy (like a cancer researcher or emergency room physician) should be taxed if you have to tax at all.
WTF?
I mean, what planet am I living on?
Maybe it's time to introduce the dumb cunt tax at a low level and shave a few points off the hard-working producer tax.
I think it was Hayek that also said that whenever you attach "social" to any word (like justice) it sucks the true traditional meaning of the word right out of it.
So instead of justice as people getting their due, good or bad, it becomes a simpering, mealy mouthed forced charity scam.
I think it was Hayek that also said that whenever you attach "social" to any word (like justice) it sucks the true traditional meaning of the word right out of it.
E.g. "security."
just dressed-up Marxism
Topher hit the nail on the head. It's taking from people who work and strive and giving to others according to their "need." Marxism tries to create a society that ignores human nature. Without proper reward few will produce according to their ability, but many always want more than they really need or are willing to work for.
Justice alone is hard to define. Social justice impossible to define.
"Social justice," like so many conclusory terms of the left, is code for "redistributive justice." Which means, tax those who produce wealth to prop up one of the Democrat party's victim group constituents that does not produce wealth.
Speaking of the politics of hate, today is the anniversary of the date that Lorena Bobbitt chopped off her husband's penis -- ya'll need to remind yourselves of the unspeakable reaction: http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/06/this-date-in-history-lorena-bobbitt.html
A start towards social justice:
- Establish a Department of Anti-Corruption. Make it high-level. Screen very carefully for people. Pay them a huge salary. Make it clear to them that if they personally have any whiff of corruption, they will be dismissed without advance notice. And subject to criminal penalties.
Set them loose with supporting laws to sniff out corruption. There is tons and tons and tons of it. You don't personally notice it until an inspected building collapses, or an escaped convict murders a relative, or you pay a lot more for some item in the supermarket, but corruption exists. Everywhere.
- Let hard-working people keep a bit more money. Take a bit more money from the leeches in society if you have to, to make up for the shortfall. See my post above.
- Quit being so utterly, utterly stupid with the Victim Olympics, and men should quit being so mindlessly chivalrous to women who don't deserve it.
-----> That's a start.
TO: All
RE: There Ain't No Such THINK....
....as 'social justice'. There is either justice or there is injustice.
The term 'social justice' is identical to 'situational ethics', another disproven belief that was only used to rationalize away 'ethics' in the first place. Likewise the concept of 'social justice' is an attempt to rationalize away REAL justice.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
P.S. I'm suddenly reminded of a—excuse the reference to Scientology—'suppressives'.
A suppressive is someone who twists definitions to justify their nefarious actions/activities. Another synonym for 'suppressive' is 'sociopath'.
P.P.S. If you look at the actions of former President Bill Clinton, HE, in my honestly held opinion, is a 'suppressive'.
Likewise, many other politicians, in my opinion, behave the same way. Especially those in positions of high authority. Such positions, attract 'supporessives'.
Yep. Human nature. Been screaming about that for a long time.
Social justice is just equal outcome, the common denominator, regardless of an individual's input. Everyone in equal misery, with no way out. That is unless you work for the government, then of course you will be given more in order to buy your loyalty. That is becoming clear as day too, eh?
Indeed.
Like 'fair taxes'; two words which IMO can in no way be logically associated.
Just an emotional cannard, an indication there is likely scant factual or logical basis for the position argued.
True justice is blind. It is as wrong to let a pauper get away with crimes as it is to let a prince get away with them.
This is why "social justice" isn't justice at all... it seeks to elevate the pauper over the prince, giving the have-nots a free pass to violate any laws they care to on the grounds that the haves are doing the same, because they MUST be doing it because they are evil and anyone who questions whether the upper classes get away with murder is clearly benefiting from their bribery and should be punished as well.
"Social justice" is nothing more than revenge by the failures against the successful, much like every other belief in the Marxist canon.
social justice is predicated on the notion that it is unjust for some people to have more than others, and therefore just for everyone to have the same amount of whatever. Never mind that in the process of achieving this, much of the whatever is permanently destroyed and the average lifestyle, the AVERAGE including the poor, goes way way DOWN.
Never mind that.
In the denomination we USED to belong to it was called Peace and Justice. Same turd, different name.
Trey
There is a legitimate sense of "social justice" within the Catholic intellectual tradition, closer to Hayek's notion of justice (as a virtue, with an emphasis on Aristotelian natural justice) than to a Marxist notion of justice (as a policy, more like Aristotelian distributive justice). Of course, the question of whether there is an historically legitimate use of "social justice" does not determine the question of its rhetorical significance today. But it is important to remember that when Christians speak of "social justice," if they are true to their own tradition, they cannot be assuming a Marxist meaning.
Here's some good background:
http://www.acton.org/publications/mandm/mandm_article_62.php
Related parody: Obama Submits Annual Philosophical Thesis to Congress http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/06/obama-submits-annual-philosophical.html
Above, by "natural justice" I meant even more specifically "legal justice" (where the relevant law is the natural or moral law). An excellent article is Paulhus, "Uses and Misuses of the term 'Social Justice' in the Roman Catholic Tradition," Journal of Religious Ethics, vol. 15 (1987), pp. 261-282. Available (by subscription) here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/40015068
it is interesting that in mother russia, religion was marginalised, yet they sold the idea of a workers`s paradise.
and by the way topher, my father was a jesuit and gave up the priesthood to marry my mother.
he was a bit of a marxist.
we live at the bottom of a well, and those above pour in words for us to respond to. occasionally they change the meaning of the words to confuse us...much like my local supermarket moves things around every few months, you know, to make things better for seniors and those tired from work and typing in blogs....
Social justice is actually anti-social injustice. Anti-social because it rewards bad behavior and punishes good behavior. Injustice because it corrupts government by making its purpose theft, and making the people recievers of of stolen property.
And yes, I say that it is a bad thing.
"...orders to turn larger and larger amounts of it over to the government..."
I think you mean proportions.
Whenever a concept like justice or democracy is modified by an adjective, especially social, it is inverted. Social justice is not justice. Social democracy is not democracy.
If you seek justice you want to eliminate injustice. If you seek social justice, you instead want an "equitable" distribution of injustice. You will therefore commit massive injustice to "balance" past injustices.
Whenever I've heard the term "social justice" used, it has always been a thinly veiled euphemism for simple stealing.
It is especially disheartening that the Catholic Church has been pushing "social justice" given that there's a specific Commandment against stealing. I guess they must have found a secret "unless you can paper-over your actions with rhetoric" clause in that one though.
Just as Global Warming became Climate Change, Redistributive Justice became the more politically palatable Social Justice.
Anyone demanding social justice should be made to explain why ordinary justice is not good enough.
What thoughtful comments, beginning with Topher's, whose HS experience I apparently share.
Recently, in connection with a Jebbie HS reunion, some classmates started sharing e-mail memories, oh, oh, memories. Lots of fun. But one guy, rather gratuitously, opined that "Tea Parties" were contrary to Fr. X, S.J.'s "principles of Social Justice".
Such persistence in proselytizing is met but rarely.
But a personal anecdote: bien pensant Liberal parents of a 1980s Queens RC HS white-ethnic senior, with perfect grades SATs, etc., community helper, who could play the tuba upside down in the bathtub (OK, I made that up) was not admitted to any Ivy, though Black & minority kids in her class with lesser scores & accomplishments were. The response of her rarefied, air-ified parents sounded more like that of KKK members than members of their parish Catholic “social justice” group against racism & war & other Bad Things. Something like: “My kid is more accomplished & credentialed; why should she miss out on this once-in-a-lifetime thing? OK, minorities deserve a break, but not at my kid’s expense. This is just, well, unjust. Wawawa.” No fine expressions, no lofty arguments, no soft timbre in their voices; no searching for an appropriate PC euphemism. Boy, did I think them unenlightened!
In copying from Word, I left out my opening sentence:
What a brilliant, intellectual post.
Thank you Dr. H.
I suspect that Dr. Hayek eventually found is that people who derive their morals from the crowd they interact with don't feel personal shame. They can be embarrassed, but only if you can convince the crowd.
Hayek may have seen the good intentions of the writers and speakers he referred to, but those seem to be just as shallow as the concept of "social justice" itself. To actually be ashamed, you have your own internal concept of right and wrong.
Spouses of billionaires who become billionaires themselves without doing the work that led to the billions. Tax them before me.
Children and heirs of billionaires who become billionaires themselves without doing the work that led to the billions. Tax them before me.
Leaving aside the question of whether the spouse of a billionaire "worked" to earn that wealth, why do you disparage the billionaires' right to dispose of the wealth they produced as they see fit?
If the billionaire truly owns his property, then it is his right to convey that property to anyone he desires. That right does not terminate upon his death. Estate taxes, beyond the level to fund the probate court system, are immoral confiscation of the property of the deceased.
In the phrases "social justice" and "social security", both prefixes serve merely as meaning-reversers. Social justice is not just, nor is social security secure.
Good reason to react skeptically when 'social' appears in a discussion, unless it's precisely defined.
Has anyone ever asked a person advocating "social justice" what is just about it? Or what happens if everyone decides to let others pay for their needs? I agree with Helen's version: earn or create what you get instead of demanding it from others.
My short version of a response to social justice is "If somebody doesn't want to earn what they want, why on earth would anybody want to earn it for them?"
The long version is at http://goodgov.blogspot.com/2009/09/needs-wants-and-karl-marx.html
and its companion http://goodgov.blogspot.com/2009/10/abilities-and-karl-marx.html
Whatever it is, you're right, it's not justice. If society decides to have a social safety net because it benefits society to do so, that's one thing. For example: twenty years ago, I was widowed and pregnant. I was estranged from my family and unemployed - and being visibly pregnant, there was no chance of me getting a job. I applied for and got Medicaid (health care), a cash benefit, and enrolled in a computer training program that paid a daily stipend. I also got some help from churches and private charity, and by the time my daughter was a month old, I had a job and have been paying into the system ever since. In fact, until Hurricane Katrina, I employed others. My time on welfare was an investment that paid off. But calling it 'justice' implies I was owed something, and I certainly was not.
Social justice, for the children, for the environment, for the good of all, and many more, even if they ever where used appropriately, have been hijacked by a particular form of populist politics with very clear aims. If you want to see how successful they really have been, read the communist and socialist manifesto's, the simpler listed ones (don't bother with the longer treatises on the topics, Mein Kampf, the Little Red Book, etc, ugh).
Despite people in the know, knowing that these are lies to promote evil governance through populism, half of those in the know are for that, most of those who are for it choosing politics as a way of life. The rest of us seem to be a disarrayed group of non-collectivists with little power. We, non-political knowers, simply have enough education and brainpower to know what that leads too, yet without good (or any real) leadership away from it. When we find a leader, they either get blackmailed somehow, blackballed, or simply roll for the treats offered through power and money.
If you are a Christian, however, it is not something that should surprise you. Why, then, would one of Christ's temptations been to rule the world? Because he would have had to bow to Satan in order to obtain it.
We can try to fight this, and should. However, we should also know we cannot win, not here, not now. If it was not this thing, it would be an emperor, caesar, general, horde, revolution (which this sort of is, communards being first discussed, to my knowledge, back to 1003, or so)., or other attempt at power by some man or group of them.
We have no worries about going into the lion's den. We are indeed in it. Now, whether we will become martyrs, real ones, is the only thing we might have to consider in shorter or longer order. Not, actually, whether we will face that, but more, whether we will face that successfully.
Never worry.
SERIOUSLY! Now in trying to keep as much of your earnings as possible contact My Evo.com .
Well, I went to a Jesuit high school, but that was in the 1960s. Back then the Jesuits taught Latin, Greek, history (world and American), physics, chemistry, mathematics, literature, and religion.
Then I went to a Jesuit college, where they taught Latin, Greek, history, physics, biology, chemistry, economics, philosophy, languages, literature, mathematics, etc.
Now the same college teaches all this social justice c#%p. What the hell happened?
"social" anything - justice, security, science - increasingly means "purely social," or "virtual."
As I recall (badly), Dr. Sowell had something to say about "social justice". Along the lines that there is simply "justice" and any adjectives, such as social or environmental, simply refute the word they modify.
Foxy Mike & Topher
I think that the RC schools are still teaching what Foxy learned in the 60s & I in the 50s. You might consider reading: The Street Stops Here - A Year at a Catholic High School in Harlem, McCloskey 2008. Times (here the turn of the Century) have indeed changed; whereas RC schools & racial minorities were generally mutually exclusive in my day (most public schools were segregated), RC inner city schools have mostly minority students who see these schools as their last great hope. And yet something endures; these RC schools are not elitist or unreasonably selective: & as the author notes to the whining latte elites who claim their lives were ruined by RC education:
“that Rice [the HS in question]and other similar schools can succeed in educating the most difficult demographic despite scant resources as well as underpaid teachers is a powerful argument for applying the Catholic school model to urban public schools."
But, there is no question that the religious teaching in Rice HS (or, in any RC HS today) is not that of The Baltimore Catechism or the pious books which I was educated in religious matters. Today, the Rice religious experience, shall we call it, since many of the pupils are Christian but non-Catholic, consists of basic Christian tenets, somewhat dumbed down with a plug for Martin Luther King & for assorted rabble rousers, a/k/a rights activists, who were not like MLK. Oh well, at least Sharia Law has not been mandated.
It’s clear to those of us raised in the Pre-Vatican II, Pre Humanae Vitae Church that much of what we learned about matters religious would be regarded by not only the Rice kids but also by all current RC HS kids, OOPS, men, as quaint & robotic; not cool, not progressive, not independent thinking. I mean when The Hon. Pelosi can lecture The Pope on Catholicism (at the expense, no less - no worry about separation of Church & state here - of the U.S. taxpayers! Er, all 500 Million of them in Nancy’s faulty math; not a glowing tribute to her RC school education), we, the hidebound, must progress, no? Aside, a few years ago I was told by one of my daughters’ Newman Club priest that my wife & I were “Pre Vatican II Catholics”. (He said it in a soft voice & made it seem that he was just, kinda, sorta, you know, trying to come to grips with what he divined to be my retrograde obduracy. Some think that faux civility is better than no civility. You know: “It’s immoral, but why quarrel?” Faux people, insecure & afraid to defend themselves.)
Those Who Count know, with absolute certainty, that Vatican II was just a case of good Progressives (none dare call them Liberals) battling bad, uncompassionate, insensitive, rigid Conservatives, straight out of The Crucible, for control of The Church. OOPS, for the soul of The Church. Which turned out to be the control (a) of form: by instituting liturgical kitsch as a “necessary antidote” to baroque churches & tedious Gregorian Chants, as well as the adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, Stations of The Cross, & the pièce de résistance, St. Patrick’s Day (which is now a Hallmarkian Day, so all is not lost in that regard!) & (b) of substance: Cafeteria Catholicism. (“These are my principles and if you don't like them...well, I have others” said Groucho.) Those fundamentalists who miss the clarity of the Pre-Vatican II Church? Tough; it was all, you know, so judgmental.
(Continuing my previous post)
If I’m correct in translating my opinions & perceptions into a coherent, thorough but not obtrusively detailed argument, avoiding oversimplification & misplaced emphasis, I would note the following regarding religious practices today as I understand them:
What Rice, like most RC schools, has done is to remove what they feel is sentimental emotion from religion & substitute their concepts of “social justice”, “distributionism”, “multiculturalism”, & “diversity”, empty vessels into which one can pour many things, some Christian. Viva Castro & assorted tyrants who did no good for anyone but themselves & two cheers or even three cheers for the Bomber Left which did much evil to everyone while surviving (at least the technically proficient of lucky ones) to bother us today without regrets. And apparently, most RC HS students today can recognize Che, but not all four gospel authors. Oh and fish on Friday, the rosary, the Sodality – good riddance.
I find this disconcerting at best & appalling at worst.
But I take heart because I know that many, who would not otherwise have been able, will, unlike their friends in the ‘Hood, rise out of the poverty class into the middle class because of their Rice experience. I frevently hope that they will, upon reflection based on real-life experience, end up with something more than a dumbed-down moral code, will be Christians in spite of themselves (apologies to Molière) & some of their teachers, & that some will someday look back with fond memories of their Rice experience & support the school & the Church’s mission to educate the poor. That’s enough to make me feel not completely depressed after reading the book.
Thanks for the post & recommendation, Helen! I too am a fan of Hayek's, and will be interested to read more of his thoughts on this subject.
"Justice", to me, implies a matter of law. For without law to clearly define what we agree upon as "just", the concept of "justice" is so amorphous as to be meaningless, or twistable without limit.
I think a more honest term for what most people mean by "social justice" would be "social fairness". But the term "justice" ends up being hijacked instead, because that phrasing carries more weight in a culture devoted to "liberty and justice for all" (not "liberty and fairness for all"). The seeming goal of this Orwellian bending of word meaning is to lead us to believe that what "social justice" proponents want is authentically American in philosophy, when in fact it is quite the antithesis of the foundational American ideal: treat people as free individuals, not members of grievance groups.
I didn't read Hayek's book, but from the blurb it sounds like the same material Thomas Sowell addressed in "The Vision of the Annointed."
More bad news, here from the Art Indoctrination & Propagana front:
The Political Assault on Art Education
***********
What sort of social justice would [social-justice education proponents] like to achieve? The answer becomes clear from the paper that sounded the NAEA convention keynote. The author is Therese Quinn, who teaches at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago and has co-edited texts on social justice in education with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers, now on the faculty of the University of Illinois.
According to Ms. Quinn, social justice boils down to what feminist theorist Nancy Fraser termed "redistribution and recognition." What that means, in effect, is redistribution of wealth by government fiat, and equal recognition of all cultures, however inconsequential their contribution to civilization.
Hailed as heroes by the social-justice proponents are "art activists" who employ "new media" (anything but the traditional media of drawing, painting and sculpture) to create what one activist praised by Ms. Quinn calls "a model for sedition. . . and. . . political transformation." Such proponents would also teach about "visual culture"—literally everything visible, from Barbie dolls and teddy bears to the local shopping mall—most often viewed from a leftist perspective....
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704853404575322860798054430.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
TO: All
RE: Yeah....
According to Ms. Quinn, social justice boils down to what feminist theorist Nancy Fraser termed "redistribution and recognition." What that means, in effect, is redistribution of wealth by government fiat, and equal recognition of all cultures, however inconsequential their contribution to civilization. -- Inwood, citing article
....Right....
That would be "all cultures" except Christian. Or any other that disagreed with them.
I'm reminded of a song by the Newsboys where in one verse goes....
full on dead sure anything goes
until you go stepping on his own toes -- Truth Be Known.
If you want to hear the whole tune, it's HERE!!!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The 'fun' is just beginning.....]
Yeah, from a Christian perspective, this social justice and progressive shit is just sin. It is the rejection of Godly authority and the magnification of the self and human wisdom and power.
The heuristic fits very well to tell the truth.
Trey
TO: TMink
RE: Heh
The heuristic fits very well to tell the truth. -- TMink
As the song says....
If the Truth be known....
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Everybody gets their shot....]
P.S. From the human perspective, it's not so much the rejection of God. Rather, it's the rejection of treating all people equally. But that's what God wishes in the first place. Isn't it?
After all. It's what HE'LL DO....in the fullness of His own time.
Chuck P
and equal recognition of all cultures ... except Christian
OMG, I forgot: some cultures are more equal than others.
Hey, is a Che T-shirt an example of "visual culture"?
Re Obama Submits Annual Philosophical Thesis to Congress
What a find. Sent it to all those on whom I inflict my e-mails, including some who actually play “social justice” as a trump card at cocktail parties/Bar-B-Qs.
Chuck, I respectfully disagree. I think the Biblical perspective is that I live the best life when I follow the rules and suggestions that my Maker laid out for me. Because I am fundamentally not qualified to know right from wrong without His help.
The progressive perspective is that smart people can create a government and society which is fundamentally good. And it is done through our own ingenuity instead of compliance with divine authority.
Hence the left's intolerance of Christianity. They reject the message for one of their own, one easier to hear and more comfortable to hold: that we are good and wise and can solve things on our own.
Just my take pal. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.
Trey
TO: TMink
RE: Not Disagreeing....
....merely agreeing from a different perspective.
The 'rejection' I'm referring to in my item (above) at 1:22 PM, June 25, 2010, is that 'social justice' rejects treating all people alike.
I KNOW they reject God. That's a 'given'. Heck. Even people who CALL themselves 'Christian' are widely known to reject God. The Leftistas are just honest about it.
And a lot of people who call themselves "'Christian' buy into 'social justice'. But, as I stated above, it's just an excuse to rob one and give it to another. Thereby increasing injustice.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[As blood begets blood, so does injustice beget more injustice.....and likely a good deal of blood to boot.... -- CBPelto]
TO: Inwood
RE: Che[ap] Shots & 'Visual Culture'
Hey, is a Che T-shirt an example of "visual culture"? -- Inwood
It's some kinda 'culture'. And, if you swiped the underarms of it on a petri dish of nutrient auger, you'd find it was a rather filthy one at that.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Nobel Peace Prize has officially become just like a Che t-shirt: if you have one, there's something wrong with you.]
Chuckie
Never thought of those two points. :-)
Will use them somewhere.
PS Assume you meant nutrient agar
i saw an obama t-shirt done like che`s recently.....
Post a Comment
<< Home