So I’ve been thinking about social justice and how little I know of its philosophy. I mean, I know enough about it that the very term annoys the hell out of me, but I really want to, you know, get in there and look around. I don’t like admitting a knowledge deficit in any area, but it is what it is. I hate it when people try to come off as knowing everything.
So I’ve been looking around, and though my research is hardly more than cursory, it seems that, though based in religion, (at least many theories of social justice seem to be), the social justice movement has devolved into the drive to make over the world into utopia–a concept that is flawed to the core. As I’ve pointed out before, it seems like someone (or more commonly, lots of someones) has to die to make utopia possible. I associate social justice, utopia, and all that hippie crap with drones, because there is always a small number of queens who don’t want to get their hands dirty as utopia is birthed.
As I’m reading Rawls’ theory of social justice, I’m amazed by the amount of conjecture involved. One assumes that all men in a society are reasonable and share a common concept of justice. A consensual objective morality. That seems quite presumptuous, given the moral relativism of our time. I mean, seriously–my morality can’t possibly be the same as yours. My reality might not even be the same.
It seems that social justice on the secular origin concedes that there is no one to help us correct the terrible wrongs that are done to people every day and therefore we must concentrate on leveling the playing field ourselves–wealth redistribution, access to “basic rights” like healthcare, living wages, etc.
And religious social justice seems to focus on Judeo-Christian ethics and the shared notion of justice, the belief that all societies must adhere to that ideal. Or something. I haven’t quite gotten that far yet.
I suppose its not fair to generalize and then toss social justice in with the rest of the crazy crap on the left, even if it’s usually only the nutjobs I hear talking about it. Caring for the less fortunate is quite important, as is attempting to rescue those in bondage. And as I said, this is all just the verbal processing of one lady blogger. I haven’t even dived deep into this yet.
Just thinkin’, which means I am sayin’. I’m extremely tired all of a sudden, so forgive the abrupt departure. See you soon.
I wrote about this very dynamic – “Jesus Christ wasn’t hated by the leaders in his day because he was a good teacher, nor because he told the rich to give to the poor, the powerful to protect the helpless, and the people to turn back to God” and then “Enter Constantine: there are many examples of how this temptation to shortcut God’s methods through collaboration with, or use of coercive power plays out. The collaboration starts innocently – a desire to change societal structures quickly, using a tops down policy edict instead of working towards a transformation of the hearts of man. It’s well intended, it’s faster. It usually ends up insidious. The purpose of the church is to be witnesses to the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ demonstrating the transformational power of His life in our lives here on earth. As a consequence of the collaboration/coercive power, we now have a history of crusades, inquisitions, and papal directed assasinations”
Well, Willie Sutton said he robbed banks because that’s where the money is and nonreligious men used the Church for their ends when that was the seat of power and wealth ceded by secular monarchs. Yet that in no way is an indictment of religion and Faith, only men.
I suggest that before you disparage the Crusades, as all the “right thinking” people do today, you spend a little time learning about the hundreds of years of unanswered slaughter and subjugation of the Christian (and Hindu*) people at the margins of the Muslim world–as they pursued their mandate of global domination. It was unanswered because of the way armies were decentralized in essentially private hands preventing a co-ordinated response. When people had enough and they were able to organize and assemble a sufficient army, they struck back. I was never one to shed a tear for the school bully that got what he deserved.
* Some scholars put the Hindu death toll at 600 million, at the upper end. Muslim history is full of stories of the rivers of blood flowing as the Hindus offered little or no resistance. I was debating this subject on another blog with a Pakistani professor and he finally said “So what? There’s too many of them now. Just think what it would be like today if we didn’t kill them?”
Underscoring the fact that even in the modern day, and dressed up with the benefit of an education (probably in part in England) and professorship, at its heart Islam hasn’t changed at all, and the attitude of complete indifference to the lives killed or brutalized in advancement of their domination is ingrained in the thinking.
His response was very informative. I do hope we listen.
“killed or brutalized in advancement of their domination…”
Fact is, though, that every human being alive today probably owes their existence to having ancestors willing to kill or brutalize to advance their domination.
Except maybe the Eskimos.
Lovely … (the quote from the Paki prof) …
Regarding the Crusades: all boils down to the question of whether Christians should ever fight back. The NT gospel indicates a clear no.
That changed with Constantine, though, and early church scholars saying the Roman Empire’s conversion to Christianity was actually part of the divine plan to spread the faith worldwide — meaning Christians should not only fight back, but forth as well.
“The NT gospel indicates a clear no.”
That’s not true, though it is a common misinterpretation of Jesus’ “turn the other cheek” statement. I don’t have a whole lot of time at the moment but I’ll dig out my notes on the subject. A religion that forbade self-preservation would be suicidal. The Israelites fought to defend themselves, as well as to gain land and treasure.
As with most of Christianity, there is never a defined “pat” answer to a problem. Since God created our brains for thinking, we’ve got to do just that.
As for me, I’m all for killing or brutalizing to advance my domination. Just sayin’. :)
O.K., won’t be the first time I’ve been disabused…
Here’s a couple:
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword… ” (Matthew 10:34-36).
“From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it” (Matthew 11:12).
“As a consequence of the collaboration/coercive power, we now have a history of crusades, inquisitions, and papal directed assasinations”
Perhaps not yet, but he still has two and a half years in his first term, and he ain’t planning on leaving anytime soon.
I think he considers himself the better of the pope, morally, spiritually. He certainly considers himself better than the Prime Minister of Israel or the Queen of England. Didn’t he give the Queen an i-pod with his ‘best speeches’ on it, she she could hear that melodic drone all through those stormy, sleepless nights in England? What did he say to her? “Oh, and here is a recording of some of my best speeches.” And the Queen’s reply… “Seriously?”
Who would do that? I can see giving the grandparents pictures of their grandchildren, but a recording of me – talking, at length? nd he gave it to the Queen of England? I can’t imagine having such an elevated opinionof myself that I would be handing out recordings of me…talking.
Seriously though, that’s a fine comment, Lynn.
Yeah, I really liked her comment. Very good, intelligent stuff. I meant to tell her so, but I forgot.
I long for a return of the Inquisition, to clean out the heretics that populate the Church today. But, I’m not holding my breath. We’ll have to tolerate Liberalism and Modernism in the Church a while longer, until they’ve all but destroyed it.
When I hear the term ‘Social Justice’, I immediately think of the Roman Catholic Church. They have a strong commitment to social justice; indeed, a good portion of Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals addresses social justice concerns.
However, the way it is used in American politics is different: it has become a term meant to justify whatever happens to be the Democratic Party’s current remedy for any societal inequality. However, what I see that the Left means by “social justice” is not identical to what the Church teaches.
I will offer one example: both the Catholic Church and the Left believe that all people have a “right to health care”. However, the concept of “right” has different meanings in the language of the Church and in the language of the Left. When the Church uses the term “right”, there comes with it a sense that a “right” carries with it a responsibility to God, oneself, and the community. The Left’s version of “right” in “right to health care” is a bastardization of the concept of a “right” in which a “right” is equivalent to “entitled to, regardless of any responsibility to – or even concern for – others”. As the respective visions of “right to health care” are implemented, the difference in meaning of “right” creates two divergent paths: one I call “the cycle of grace” and the other I call “the cycle of tyranny”.
In the Church’s version, God (and the Church on His behalf) make positive claims as to how much and how often I should contribute to provide for others. My struggle to overcome my innate selfishness is rewarded by treasure in heaven, and I am encouraged to see my money not as “mine” but as a resource that I am a steward of. The recipients are cognizant of the fact that their needs have been met directly by their fellow citizens recognizing the inherent human dignity of those in need and responding in a just way. This inculcates a desire to respond in justice (that is, a sense of responsibility): those able will in turn seek to not take advantage of their fellow citizens and strive to move from “recipient” and join the providers; both they and those not able to help themselves will offer their thanks to God and the Church, both of whom will continue to make the positive claims on me….thus the circle of grace continues. In this cycle, both provider and recipient are engaged in a relationship of mutual respect that strengthens the community.
In the Left’s vision, I, being a member of the providing group – the “haves” – am commanded by the government, under the threat of imprisonment, to turn over ever-increasing portions of my income – not to provide communal services proper to government like a military, roads, or other infrastructure – but to provide for an ever-expanding set of entitlement programs. Here, I am encouraged to see my money not as mine nor as a resource I am steward of, but as belonging to the government, with the government deciding (without consent or even input from me) how much it is entitled to, and how much they are going to let me keep. As there is no consent or even input from me in this mode of “providing”, there is no spiritual value, nor the societal value of one citizen acting in communal concern towards others of his own free will. Thus, this is not a “positive” claim at all, but a tyrannical one.
The recipients – the “have-nots” – are cognizant of the fact that their needs have been met – NOT by their fellow citizens recognizing the inherent human dignity of those in need and responding in a just way – but because they are entitled to have these needs met for them by the government forcibly taking from others. This inculcates no desire in the recipient to respond justly (that is, no sense of responsibility), and certainly no earthly incentive to strive to provide this need for themselves. They will offer their thanksgiving to….the government (in the form of support and votes), which will reward their thanks by securing for them even more “rights”, which being “entitlements, procured regardless of any concern for or responsibility to others”, are to be provided by the “haves” in the manner described above….thus the circle of tyranny continues. In this cycle, both provider and recipient are engaged in a relationship of mutual contempt that divides the community into one group of people being repeatedly taken advantage of, and another group of people being patronized and weakened, all facilitated by their own government.
The above example illustrates how diverging views of the word “right” leads to similarly divergent implementations of the “right to health care’. This divergent view of what entails a “right” is a key element in the difference between what “social justice” means to the Church and what it means as envisioned by those on the Left.
GR
You attack organizations and institutions you want to destroy from without and within.
Don’t for one minute think that the Church has not been targeted and infiltrated by the Left. If you need any confirmation, look who the people at Notre Dame choose to speak at its commencement ceremonies. Then look at the Jesuits who defend abortion and euthanasia from a religious perspective. They popped up a lot during the Terri Schiavo
execution posing as medical ethicists. Some are just the useful idiots that Marx was hoping for and some follow the Sorbonne plan to use what’s at hand to accomplish the takeover.
Interesting dynamic, with faith and poliitics, because the Left essentially purged Christians* from their ranks over the decades from the 1930s to the 1980s, by blaming Christianity, along with capitalism, for all the wars and imperialistic developments occurring after like the 5th century.
*=White, not black.
This is a wonderful comment — you do a beautiful job of illustrating the very different interpretations of “Social Justice” — and I particularly like your “cycle of grace” concept.
Hear now the words of the prophet Sowell, from the book Intellectuals and Society (New York, Basic Books, 2010):
Social Justice, and related terms are “assertions of arbitrary authority by third parties to prescribe what others have never agreed to” (88). Moreover, “they are asserted as reasons why the majority or political leaders or the courts ought to impose what third parties want imposed” (89). Thus we may conclude, as the prophet has, that, “[s]ometimes the term ‘social justice’ is used to provide the semblance of a basis for [what are] arbitrary assertions [ of "rights," "social responsibilities," "contracts," "promises," etc.]. …. But what are these assertions … other than the feelings, visions or groupthink that happen to prevail currently among the intelligentsia? The groupthink of the intelligentsia is still groupthink and their prejudices are still prejudices” (89).
Go now, and think no more!
(N.B. the (ir)religious tone is meant to mock the pretenses of “social justice.”)
I like your blog April. First El Rushbo’s undocumented guest host, and then the Maha himself. You’ve been noticed by Influential People. Congratulations. Here’s hoping you get Insta-lanched for the trifecta!
Regards,
Hayden