‘Social Justice’ is pure folly

[ugmug]

The pursuit of ‘social justice’ is pure folly that will be undone by man’s own sin.

Ecclesiastes 2:26 (New International Version)

26 To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God.
--------------
“1992 United Nations Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population (which is Judeo–Christian) controlling 82.7% of the world's incomeâ€

 

[handy]

That's an interesting stat. I hadn't realized that the bulk of the world's wealth is controlled by Judeo-Christians.

I agree that 'social justice' is folly. It places the emphasis of God on making this world a better place to feel comfortable living in, rather than man's need of a Savior.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it's important that Christians extend God's love via their social interactions and that Christians stand up for what is right, whatever that might be. For example the idea of "fair trade" when it comes to making purchases. I like the idea of fair trade. I like the idea that if I drink a cup of coffee, the grower of those coffee beans was paid a living wage for their work.

But, having been in a 'social justice' church for a while, and still working for that church, I see the folly in it. Too often the lines between 'social justice' and 'political correctness' are blurred and what is promoted as socially just isn't exactly what God tells us is right. For churches that are sold out on the 'social justice' *gospel*, being socially just can put the church in the position of being counter to God's word. We left the church for just that reason.

 

[Pard]

"Social justice" implies that Christians have some obligation to the secular world. It implies that the secular world has been victimized by Christians, this is anything but the truth. No Christian ought to do something for the world because it is the "just" thing to do.

Perhaps they ought to rename the whole thing "Social love" or "Christian love tot eh heathen world"...

 

[coffeeelover]

IMHO OP has twisted the scripture to mean the opposite of what is supposed to mean.

Christians should be for social justice. For if we are not for justice... we are to be for injustice?

Ending slavery was social justice. Giving women, minorities the right to vote is social justice.

The philosophy that oh well I am Christian and not off this world so I don't have to care. Combined with Oh well those people would not be suffering if it wasn't Gods will. Is true Evil. It blasphemes God, and the message of Christ.

 

[elijah23]

The pursuit of ‘social justice’ is pure folly that will be undone by man’s own sin.

Ecclesiastes 2:26 (New International Version)

26 To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God.
--------------
“1992 United Nations Development Program Report, which showed the distribution of global income to be very uneven, with the richest 20% of the world's population (which is Judeo–Christian) controlling 82.7% of the world's incomeâ€

Is greed a factor also?

 

[Drew]

I agree that 'social justice' is folly. It places the emphasis of God on making this world a better place to feel comfortable living in, rather than man's need of a Savior.

I disagree. I think that one of the biggest mistakes Christians make is to ascribe to an implicit dualism that says that "getting saved" is what its all about and that working for God's kingdom in the form of pursuing social justice is of secondary importance.

One of Jesus' was most central proclamations was that the kingdom of God has been inaugurated on earth and that this was good news for the poor.

One of the most central responsibilities of the Christian is to seek to implement the kingdom of God right here on earth.

I can provide much more defense for the "scripturality" of this position if need be.

 

[jasoncran]

what good is it help the lost and they never know the lord die and enter hell, as that is what handy is saying. she isnt against assisting the poor. but that the church only does that and NEVER tells the lost about jesus.

we can help the poor and do tell them about the lord.

my church does that. we have a pantry, as i have mentioned before we had a homeless group try to help the alcoholic homeless but were stopped by the local govt.

they wanted to use the bible and aa principles to get them off liqor and saved, and teach them a skill.

 

[old_tractor]

"Social Justice" is indeed folly in that it is simply a euphemism for cultural marxism. The left is very good at making evil things sound "nice" - that's why all communist countries were named "Peoples Democratic Republics" or something along those lines.. If you aren't for "justice", you must be in favor of "injustice". How mean! Shame on you!

"Social Justice", as a practical matter, always involves redistribution of wealth, giving extra priviledges to certain groups (radical feminists, homosexuals, sacred minority groups) and power to the government to enforce political correctness (actually cultural marxism).

One political insider once said that you could pass a declaration of war on Canada if you called it a civil rights bill. If you're against it, you must be a rascist!

Christians should see through this rubbish and label it for what it really is.

 

[Drew]

"Social Justice", as a practical matter, always involves redistribution of wealth, giving extra priviledges to certain groups (radical feminists, homosexuals, sacred minority groups) and power to the government to enforce political correctness (actually cultural marxism).

How is the gospel not good news for the poor if Christians do not "re-distribute" their wealth so the poor are taken care of?

And do you not think Jesus was advocating "re-distribution of wealth" when he said this?:

If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor

How, exactly, do Christians care for the poor if not, at least in part, giving them some of our money?

 

[Pard]

Drew,

What Jesus was talking about is charity... Donations... You take your money and willingly give it to others who are in need of it. This is what Jesus said to do.

Charity (practice) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Redistribution of wealth" means that the government takes your money and then gives it to whomever they deem needy.

Redistribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Jesus was for the "redistribution of wealth", as opposed to outright charity, He would have said, "If you want to be perfect, let the government take your money and give it to whomever they wish, in order for them to gain votes come November," or something to that effect.

 

[jasoncran]

drew which is better letting a secular govt give to the sinners and NOT tell them about thier sin. or the church doing the same thing but they lovingly tell them about the lord?

we in america do give and i have said that to you numerously. I prefer that the feds not take their "fair share" and resdistribute to their back pocket.That is happening now and has and will continue.

that is what welfare is, few dollars are used wisely. we cant track where our dollars go.if i want to give to a charity, i have the right by law to ask them how my money is being used.

cant get a straight answer on welfare and who is actually is being helped. some that are cheating or in need. a church will often ask those hard questions such as:

are you addicted to drugs?
how do you spend your money?
why do you need this money?
what skill set do you have?
can you work for this person in church as he has an opening( i have gotten a job by this method when i was in need)
we can pay your rent how much is it? used this my self and was blessed to repay
are you in need of food? we can help.

 

[Ed the Ned]

57 Hindus convert to Islam in 10 days


SIALKOT: A total of 57 Hindus have converted to Islam since May 14 in Sialkot. As many as 35 Hindus converted on May 14 (Friday), 14 on May 17 and eight on May 19.

The people belong to adjacent Pasroor town and embraced Islam in to ‘survive in the society’, their Hindu relatives told The Express Tribune on Monday. Mangut Ram, a close relative of some of the new converts, who lives in Chobara village of Sialkot said that 35 members of a family embraced Islam because they were under pressure from employers. He said that he was the first cousin of the family.

He said four Hindu brothers along with their families lived in the village of Nikki Pindi. Two of them and their families embraced Islam on May 14 in a local mosque (Haidri Mosque) in the village. Ram said that Hans Raj, Kans Raj, Meena/Kartar and Sardari Lal along with his with nephews and sons worked at an eatery in Karachi.

He said some Muslim people from his village also worked in Karachi. Ram said that his co workers often spoke against Hindus in Karachi where his family worked. “The owner of the shop where I worked said that after a few months of his employing me the sales dropped drastically because people were avoiding purchasing and eating edibles prepared by Hindus,†Ram said. “Many people opposed the large presence of Hindu employees at his shop and my boss felt pressured to change the situation,†he added.

Mangut Ram said that Sardari Lal and his brother Meena/Kartar had worked at the sweets shops for several years and made a decent living,that allowed them to support their families. He said that other Muslims employees of the nearby shops discriminated against them and persecuted them. The shop owner was forced to think about their future at his establishment. “That was when the two brothers and their families decided to embrace Islam in order to keep their jobs and be secure,†he said.

Ram confirmed that 13 family members of Sardari Lal, 12 members of Meena/Kartar, their nephew Kans Raj’s son Boota Ram along with three adults and several children of these families embraced Islam on May 14. “I don’t blame them, Sardari Lal, has succeeded in saving his job and can support his family,†Ram said. He said that Sardari Lal’s older brothers Hans Raj and Kans Raj remained Hindus. Hans Raj too has said that he might consider converting to save his job. He said that life was ‘just easier if one was Muslim’ and he wouldn’t be discriminated against. Ram said that 14 Hindus of the Tapiala village had embraced Islam on May 17 because they were extremely poor and could not get jobs because no one would employ the large Hindu family.

He said that another relative of his, Parkash, who lived in the village of Seowal, along with his eight family members had embraced Islam in order to save their lands. “After embracing Islam Parkash Ram usually came to the village and wept before me, he told me that Muslim neighbours had been mistreating him and had forced him to convert,†Ram said. Approximately 700 families in various villages in Sialkot do not have any temple for worship. The only temple in the area was situated in the Chobara village.In 1965 it was demolished,†Ram said.


57 Hindus convert to Islam in 10 days – The Express Tribune

57 Hindus forced to convert to Islam in 10 days

 

[coffeeelover]

I think this argument comes down to semantics. If you define social justice as cultural Marxism then who will argue that such "social Justice" is folly.

If instead one sees social justice as simply providing people with the equality, dignity, and rights all people deserve then I think we can agree it indeed isn't folly at all. No separate but equal. No denying anyone representation. No denying the right to vote. Equal pay for equal work etc. That IMHO is social justice.

We can argue separately if social welfare programs which transfer wealth from one group to another are actually justice, but it seems to me most like welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

What Jesus was talking about is charity... Donations... You take your money and willingly give it to others who are in need of it. This is what Jesus said to do.

Charity (practice) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Redistribution of wealth" means that the government takes your money and then gives it to whomever they deem needy.

I think this is a false distinction.

It is deeply misleading to suggest that the government "takes" your money. You presumably live in a democracy don't you. Well then you are free to vote in a government that will not tax you at all, or very little. And we'll see how things proceed under such a system. Who will pay for roads, airports, hospitals, the police, the military, etc?

The fact is that "taxation" is something you "ask for" with your votes and when people vote for a government, they are entering into a contract where they agree to "give" some money for the common good - roads, hospitals, taking care of the poor, etc.

There is no fundamental distinction between supporting the poor with "tax dollars" and doing so directly. I suspect you will dispute this, but I suggest that a "government" body of some sort will always be needed to engage in the complex tax of taking "donations" from citizens and applying them where the need exists. If this were all done by "charities" acting independently, it would be very inefficient.

In short, "re-distribution of wealth" from the rich to the poor, as necessarily implemented by some form of "governing body", is entirely in line with the gospel message.

 

[lovely]

We do need to be careful what we label 'social justice', and make sure that we do not support something that it is against God. We should also make sure we have accountability in place so that those systems are not easily abused...because then we have more 'social injustice'. Our resources belong to God, and should be used to do good and further His Kingdom. I guess we just need to pray and ask for wisdom when we vote, but also pray for our leaders that God will guide them.

 

[Pard]

Drew,

I don't understand (so please make with the enlightening) how there is no "fundamental" difference between taxation and charity... Charity means taking money, WILLINGLY, from your own pocket and, with LOVE, giving it to either a charity or directly to the people who are in need of it. Charity is far more than that also, I think that Wiki link is enough for you to see that.

Taxation is totally different. If you think that you are doing enough by God just because you pay your tax dollars and perhaps some of that money makes it to the needy, that is hardly cause to call you a charitable man. You HAVE to give that money to the government. If you don't the IRS comes and takes everything you have (or enough to make up the money you owe) and/or sends you to jail. Taxation is not a loving thing nor is it a willful thing. It is a forced thing.

 

[Drew]

Drew,

I don't understand (so please make with the enlightening) how there is no "fundamental" difference between taxation and charity... Charity means taking money, WILLINGLY, from your own pocket and, with LOVE, giving it to either a charity or directly to the people who are in need of it. Charity is far more than that also, I think that Wiki link is enough for you to see that.

But you also willingly pay taxes. No one has a gun to your head when you vote in a party that promises that it will continue to tax you.

I suspect the reason why this is hard to see is because of the "complexity" of how this all works.

Let me try again: When you decide to vote for party X, you do so with full knowledge that you are thereby "committing" yourself to pay the taxes that they will levy. No one forced you to vote for a party that taxes you, you are free to vote for a party that will not tax you.

But no reasonable person would do that. We all know that we need roads, hospitals, police, etc. So when people say that the government is "taking" their money, as though against their will, they are not really being accurate.

Now when it comes to "re-distribution of wealth" and taxation. Again, you are free to vote in a government that will not provide welfare and other benefits to the poor. Why any Christian would do that is a deep mystery to me, however. When people pay taxes to support welfare and other benefits, this is not "forced wealth re-distribution", it is instead the act of a compassionate society whose members collectively agree that they are going to ensure that "the least of these" are cared for.

And you need some kind of "governing" body to do this.

This idea that taxation is "forced" is really a myth. Yes, there is a sense in which it is "forced" - you have to pay your taxes. But what do you expect? Do you think that it should be optional for people to pay to support roads, hospitals, and police? That is both impractical and unrealistic.

Ultimately taxation is something you vote for freely. Yes the "mechanism" of collection involves "force". But it is only the deeply sinful members of a society who would try to get away without paying their fair share for the benefits they will take advantage of - hospitals, roads, police, etc. And when it comes to welfare, surely you do not think that a bunch of private charities will ensure that all are cared for? Only the government has the resources and the implicit apprval of the public who voted them in to implement the will of the people that money should go from the rich to the poor.

Remember - you are free to vote for a taxation system where wealth is not "re-distributed". But thank God, people have more sense and charity than that.

 

[old_tractor]

How is the gospel not good news for the poor if Christians do not "re-distribute" their wealth so the poor are taken care of?

And do you not think Jesus was advocating "re-distribution of wealth" when he said this?:

If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor

How, exactly, do Christians care for the poor if not, at least in part, giving them some of our money?

Friend, Jesus tells us to do so from our own free will. It is an individual imperative. Jesus never said that we should create a marxist state to *by force* take from one group and give to another. That's the redistribution of wealth that is being referred to in modern America.

Christians have always been the most generous of people, building hospitals (I bet soem where near you is a hospital with the name "Saint X Hospital" or "Methodist Hospital) colleges and universities, building orphanages, homeless shelters (I spent every Saturday working in one for six months a couple years ago), food banks and a myriad other ways to give help to people. Christians have always done these things.

"Social Justice" is simply a modern euphemism for marxist ideology.

 

[old_tractor]

I think this is a false distinction.

It is deeply misleading to suggest that the government "takes" your money. You presumably live in a democracy don't you. Well then you are free to vote in a government that will not tax you at all, or very little. And we'll see how things proceed under such a system. Who will pay for roads, airports, hospitals, the police, the military, etc?

The fact is that "taxation" is something you "ask for" with your votes and when people vote for a government, they are entering into a contract where they agree to "give" some money for the common good - roads, hospitals, taking care of the poor, etc.

There is no fundamental distinction between supporting the poor with "tax dollars" and doing so directly. I suspect you will dispute this, but I suggest that a "government" body of some sort will always be needed to engage in the complex tax of taking "donations" from citizens and applying them where the need exists. If this were all done by "charities" acting independently, it would be very inefficient.

In short, "re-distribution of wealth" from the rich to the poor, as necessarily implemented by some form of "governing body", is entirely in line with the gospel message.

No, it isn't misleading to say the government takes your money - it is completely accurate. Try not paying your taxes on April 15th. The government will show up with armed agents and sieze your property.

To say that there is no distinction between supporting the poor with taxation and charitable giving is absurd. It is the difference between giving a homeless man $20 and a homeless man robbing you of $20 at knifepoint.

To say that helping the poor through charaities is less efficient than government doing it is laughable. Charities have far lower overhead, work directly with those in need, and withhold assistance in the case of people refusing to support themselves. The government maintains a massive bureaucracy that often creates unintended consequences such as multi-generational dependency.

The difference is "free will". Jesus commands us to help others from our own convictions, from our own freedom of choice. What you are defending is marxism. How did that work out in the USSR and the PRC? It made everyone poor. Your argument was destroyed when the Soviet Union collapsed, friend. It's a pity you're so wedded to the failed ideology that you refuse to accept fact, much less truth.

 

[Drew]

Friend, Jesus tells us to do so from our own free will. It is an individual imperative. Jesus never said that we should create a marxist state to *by force* take from one group and give to another. That's the redistribution of wealth that is being referred to in modern America.

Simply not true.

As per my other posts, you vote to be taxed. And more specifically, you vote to have money "re-distributed" from rich to poor. No one is forcing you to vote to be taxed.

Now perhaps you, as an individual, do not want the government to be the means by which money is re-distributed to the poor. But, if you are an obedient Christian, you certainly agree that money should be "re-distributed".

"Social Justice" is simply a modern euphemism for marxist ideology.

I suggest that many people resist social justice because they simply do not care for the poor as Jesus instructs us to.

Is Jesus not lord of all? Is he not lord of all human institutions including governments? Why then, do you resist the enshrinement of what is clearly a "kingdom of God" value - giving to the poor - in the very way a country is run?