But the term “social justice” does not define a moral cause; it is leftwing jargon to overturn those who have economic and political power.
Here's where I found it:
Why did 18-to-29-year-old evangelicals vote for Barack Obama despite his apostasy on the fundamental moral issues of abortion and same-sex unions? They voted 32 percent for Obama, twice the percentage of that demographic group who voted for John Kerry in 2004.
Many of these young people identify “social justice” as the reason that led them to relegate the prime moral issues of life and marriage to the back burner. But the term “social justice” does not define a moral cause; it is leftwing jargon to overturn those who have economic and political power.
What caused young evangelicals, the children of the so-called “religious right,” to change their moral imperatives so dramatically? Most likely it’s the attitudes and decision-making they learned in the public schools, which 89 percent of U.S. students attend.
The author is, of course, correct.
Update: Here's another view of so-called social justice.
8 comments:
This is same age group that no longer attends church (70%).
In four years they went from 16% to 32%? I don't think you can blame teacher indoctrination for that; Obama's got charisma and that really appeals to young people, even conservatives. 32% is still a minority though; we're far from the day where the Democrats will win a majority of self-professed Christians ... though with the increasingly convergent positions taken by the two parties on social issues it may yet happen.
Social Justice is a long held, and important part of at least one Christian group. It is a common theme in Papal encyclicals, including but not limited to Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno.
Social justice, as defined by the left, is exactly what the author I quoted says it is.
Yeah.. OK.. never mind. Why bother reading what people who talk about social justice say when you can listen to Phylis Schlafly?
I think the definition of social justice, while generally correct, leaves aside the underlying motivation which is rule by those inherently fit to rule, the intellectual titans and moral exemplars of the left.
"The masses" need the guidance, which is to say, the control, of our superiors. Most lefties are aware enough of the anti-democratic nature of that message to reflexively contest it but their ideas and policies leave little scope for personal action.
Whether it's generosity, personal expression, self-defense, transportation or education there's an approved authority to which "the masses" must submit and "Social Justice" is just a new coat of paint for the same tired, old philosophy built on the assumption that all men are *not* created equal.
"leftwing jargon to overturn those who have economic and political power"...actually, it is about increasing the economic and political power of certain favored groups. Leftwing policies have direct benefit to many already-affluent groups of people, including lawyers, tenured professors, elected officials and senior civil servants, school administrators, and the executives of "nonprofit" organizations.
It's about horizontal class struggle, not vertical class struggle.
Look at what the media picked for the GOP. I was a Thompson supporter and they couldn't get the media to show up. Yet they were at every McCain function. Past that, I have been at odds with my church's new definition of sin to include an umbrella of "social justice" for things as disparate as the death penalty and pollution. I would agree those things may be judgement calls, but I don't see pollution per se as a sin. It's bad use of materials and economically wasteful, but more and more I seem to get political lectures from the pulpit rather than spiritual discussions. I don't go to church much any more. I wonder if they have noticed the tithes going down as many of us drift away to private worship at home without the indoctrination of seminaries and Bible colleges.
Post a Comment