UPDATE
What Glenn Beck meant about social justice
By Stu Burguiere
executive producer, The Glenn Beck Program>
Like everyone else in America, Glenn Beck thinks "social justice" ---if its defined as charitable outreach to the poor----is a good idea. He supports it, he believes in it, he does it.
So, what's the problem? I mean, "social justice" seems like such an innocuous phrase, right? It paints a picture of fairness. I guess that's why Father Charles Coughlin used it when naming his National Union for Social Justice and his publication Social Justice Weekly. Coughlin was an anti-Semitic religious broadcaster in the 1930s, and he used the banner of social justice to attack capitalism, warn of Jewish plots against "Christian civilization", and to promote his adoration for Italian Fascist Benito Mussolini.
This is part of the information Glenn revealed in a special TV show about American extremism of the 20th century. In the context of promoting that special, he began talking about how the far left was once again using this terminology to politicize churches. The specific example he named was Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
He told his listeners that if they were in a church that preaches Jeremiah Wright-style social justice, they should leave--or at least get educated on what exactly that means. It took him all of eight seconds to clarify the type of church he was speaking of, but that was long enough for most in the media to end the transcript.
Suddenly, Glenn was accused of attacking the central tenets of the bible, because he supposedly believed that any church that wants to help the poor should be immediately evacuated. This absurd narrative is mainly the product of Rev. Jim Wallis.
To restate the obvious, some simply use the term "social justice" as a substitute for "outreach to the poor." This is not the kind of "social justice" Glenn was talking about. The fact that this term has been utilized for purposes other than good Christian charity is well documented. One scholar explained it quite clearly: "it is true that term [has] been used by the right and the left for all kinds of ideological purposes that aren't necessarily the purposes of Christ." That scholar was Jim Wallis.
But for Wallis to continue getting attention, he must act as if he believes Glenn is against churches helping the poor. Any honest observer would realize that isn't the case. Is anyone on earth against charitable outreach to the poor?
Certainly not Glenn.
In his book Arguing With Idiots, Glenn describes helping those less fortunate as an "obligation." He wrote that capitalism "will inevitably fail if individuals stop caring about the welfare of others." He just believes the bulk of the help should come from people like you and me, not government bureaucracy. When is the last time you felt charitable on April 15?
Of course, these attacks are just opportunistic politics. Jim Wallis - and his politically motivated faux anger - are now doing interviews about Glenn at the pace of a fame seeking Tiger Woods mistress. The left is taking a break from calling Glenn too religious, to call him not religious enough.
But Wallis' repeated attempts at becoming the victim are laughable. He wrote to Glenn: "I have no reason to attack you." Some would find that sentence questionable, considering he's a spiritual advisor to President Obama. The New York Times reported Wallis was one of five pastors meeting with the Obamas for private prayer sessions and "discussions on the role of religion in politics." The Times noted "In contrast to the other four, his contact with the president has been focused more on policy than prayer." Time magazine notes "he has the ear of the man in the Oval Office." (During their reporting of Wallis' attacks on Glenn, both Time and the New York Times mysteriously forgot their own reporting on this topic.) A report by Religious News Service says Wallis is one of a small group helping to "shape decisions about the Iraq war, health care reform and the economy."
It's up to Americans to decide whether this--or any--level of presidential access is appropriate for someone like Wallis. Just 13 days after 9-11 he was already blaming the attacks on the "sins" of U.S. foreign policy including "global domination" and "militarism." He hoped 9-11 would become a "teachable moment" in which we could all learn our role in creating "desperation" among the terrorists. "Desperate people do desperate things," he explained. He later described our foreign policy as "dangerously messianic" "arrogant" and "bordering on the idolatrous and blasphemous."
Wallis is just as revealing when speaking of his current economic views: "I'm not a liberal, I'm a radical." Asked if he was calling for the redistribution of wealth across society, he responded: "Absolutely. Without any hesitation. That's what the gospel is all about." This is a man that believes an affluent church is no less than "an affront to the gospel" and he's talking about Glenn being divisive?
But, on the bright side, he has illuminated some common ground between Glenn and the President. While Wallis describes Rev. Wright as "mainstream", both the President and Glenn believe that leaving churches like Rev. Wright's is a good idea. The difference is that Glenn just advised it. The president actually did it.
Stu Burguiere is executive producer of The Glenn Beck Program.
UPDATE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE: A COUPLE MORE ARTICLES
May 16, 2010
The Ugly Side of Social Justice By Sean Parr
Behind the social justice banner lurks an ugly choice. Nineteenth century French thinker Frederic Bastiat's summation of free will is quite succinct: "Society has for its element man, who is a free agent; and since man is free, he may choose -- since he may choose, he may be mistaken -- since he may be mistaken, he may suffer."
A basic understanding of free will elicits a particular truth about God's ordained relationship with man: that He wishes for us to obey Him, but for us to obey Him freely.
Can a comprehension of free will -- of our relationship with God -- give us clues as to how He would have us relate to each other? Can it give us clues as to how He would have our institutions relate to each of us individually?
If it is agreed, for instance, that charity is a desirable human action, should charity therefore be a forced action? And if charity becomes a forced action -- if governments, rather than citizens, mandate its application -- does it cease to be charity? Is it reduced to mere obedience?
This is the essence of the debate over social justice.
The faith-inspired proponents of social justice seek not only to assist the poverty stricken, but to altogether dissolve the conditions that allow for poverty. These noble ends, though they may appear universally appreciated, have drawn vehement opposition due to the coercive means through which they are to be obtained.
On his website, Reverend Jim Wallis -- ringleader of the leftist anti-poverty group Sojourners -- has outlined the mission of his organization: "... to articulate the biblical call to social justice." Further perusal of the site elicits how this "biblical call" is to be answered:
By means of a government-directed redistributive effort.
By spreading the wealth through taxation.
By force.
To this end, the Sojourners site stipulates that, "There is a biblical role for the state," and "social justice requires economic support from government."
It is this governmental role that has the critics of social justice reeling. One such critic is conservative Fox News host, and liberal media lightning rod, Glenn Beck. Beck has been attacked for his opposition to social justice, most vocally, by Reverend Jim Wallis and the clash between the two has been much publicized.
Although Beck has been adamant in expressing that his objections are solely concerned with how -- not whether -- the needy should be assisted, Wallis nonetheless seems content in portraying him as antagonistic to the plight of the poor. And because of this unfair portrayal, Beck has been painted in the media as a monster for simply emphasizing his belief that it is better for individuals to donate their assistance to the downtrodden by choice rather than by dictate.
During a March 12th interview on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, after repeatedly mischaracterizing the subject at the core of Glenn Beck's criticism, the Reverend offered Beck a challenge: "Let's go back through the bible, verse-by-verse, and look at what in fact God says about justice."
Here, Wallis uses the term justice as if it were synonymous with coercion. This is no mistake. However, if such a verse-by-verse challenge were ever to take place, the results would likely have the Reverend quite dismayed because such a detailed biblical review -- once the subject of the debate had been adequately defined -- would place the onus on Wallis to demonstrate where the Good Book calls for a governmental role in charity.
Its often the case that liberal Christians, like the Sojourners and others, will operate under the misconception that government is the subject of the Gospel's appeal to charitable action. Christian apologist Greg Koukl, in articulating this error, aptly describes the fallacy upon which it is based:
A significant mistake... is to take the commands that Jesus has given... applying to the church; the followers of Christ; the believers... and then apply that principle to government. Government cannot be loving because an organization -- a government -- cannot love.
Such mischaracterizations of biblical verse are representative of the way in which the advocates of social justice would prefer the debate be carried out: based on subjective interpretation. Passages like Luke 4:18 are perverted and said to express God's desire for man to strong-arm his brothers into donation. And for every 2Corinthians 9:7 that the conservative claims for his side, the liberal will find countless other verses to misconstrue.
The subscribers of social justice -- socialists using the guise of Christianity to promote their unpopular view -- offer their deliberately twisted interpretation of the gospel as a means of having the public at large conform to their notions of proactive and coercive government redistribution.
These constant manipulations should prompt conservative Christians, and indeed all opponents of redistribution, into redirecting the debate away from the analysis of biblical verse and toward that which is objectively evident in the truth of our existence -- the nature of free will.
Our experience shows us that we are not forced to love God, or to obey Him, or even to acknowledge His existence. He has left those decisions to us.
But which philosophy should we adopt based on this reality: Conservatism or Progressivism?
Freedom or obedience?
Bastiat acknowledged that he found this choice to be quite simple when he declared, "I have faith in the wisdom of the laws of Providence, and for the same reason I have faith in liberty."
What Exactly is 'Social Justice?' By Jayme Sellards
The term "social justice" is now commonly used by leftist activists, clergy, educators, judges, and politicians to describe the goal they seek to achieve with many of their policies. No precise definition of "social justice" is ever offered by the left. Instead, the term is always used in a vague way -- as if everyone already knows, or should know, what the seemingly well-intentioned phrase "social justice" means.
So, what exactly is "social justice?"
Social justice is the complete economic equality of all members of society. While this may sound like a lofty objective, what it really means is that wealth should be collected by the government and evenly distributed to everyone. In short, social justice is communism. It is rooted in the Marxist idea that the money people make, and the property they own, do not rightfully belong to the people who make the money and own the property.
Karl Marx's ultimate criticism of capitalism is its recognition of private property. The reason private property is so evil, Marx contended, is that it is a function of economic class warfare. In other words, "the rich" use the concept of private property to oppress "the poor." In order to understand this convoluted thought-process, Marx's view of money must be examined, since money is the means by which private property is acquired.
According to Marx, money is really a "collective product" that belongs to everyone. His reasoning, as described in The Communist Manifesto, is that money can only be made "by the united action of all members of society." Factory owners, for example, cannot manufacture goods by themselves. Rather, the factory owners need workers to run the machines that produce goods. Consequently, in Marx's mind, when the manufactured good is sold, the worker has as much right to the proceeds of that sale as the factory owner.
Marx transposed that idea to the societal level, professing that the aggregate wealth of the rich was actually created by the aggregate work of the poor.
As a result, capitalism is seen by Marxists as a system invented by the rich to ensure that the poor do not get their fair share of money. Instead, the rich keep most of the money for themselves. In turn, the rich use this "stolen" money to selfishly purchase private property in the form of factories, land, houses, and anything else they choose. As such, Marxists see all privately owned property as the fruit of a massive capitalist fraud against the poor.
What about wages? Aren't worker's compensated for the work that they do under a capitalist system? Not according to Marx, who saw wages as merely part of the capitalist scheme.
First of all, Marx believed that capitalists pay workers only the bare minimum to survive -- an amount that "merely suffices to prolong and reproduce a bare existence."
Secondly, Marx stated that every cent a worker makes is paid back to the rich in the form of rent, groceries, car payments, and the like. As Marx said, "no sooner is the exploitation of the laborer by the manufacturer ... at an end ... than he is set upon by the other portions of the bourgeoisie, the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc."
Consequently, Marx held that workers, by design, can never make enough money to acquire private property of their own under the capitalist system.
"Social justice" is intended to remedy this exploitation of workers by capitalists. Marx saw man only in a social context -- meaning not as an individual, but as a part of a class. Thus, the word "social" (in "social justice") refers to classes in a society.
"Justice," in the Marxist context, means economic equality. This is Marxist utopian ideal that all members in a society should receive the same amount of compensation, regardless of occupation, skill, or work ethic. The oft-quoted socialist mantra, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," comes from this concept.
Social justice can only be accomplished in one way in a capitalist society -- by wealth redistribution. This is done by seizing the wealth of the greedy rich and giving it to the poor, using the government as the agent of redistribution. This is the true aim of the left's social justice agenda.
Marx's dim view of capitalism must be put in context, taking into consideration the time and place in which he lived. In 1848, the year of The Communist Manifesto's publication, the Industrial Revolution was at its height in Europe. In many European towns, the skies were filled with black smoke spewing from massive factories that employed scores of workers in horrible conditions.
However, just as Marx's understanding of capitalism was limited to factories existing in 1840s Europe, his criticisms of capitalism must be likewise limited. Marx's philosophy is demonstrably false in the modern day United States.
To begin with, Marx contemplated only two classes. One was a very small and privileged class of property and business owners; the remainder of the population was grouped into a massive class of impoverished workers. Therefore, Marxism cannot account for the millions of American middle class property owners, nor can it explain the existence of any small businesses, which are the backbone of the American economy.
People who enjoy their job or make more than a subsistence wage are also inexplicable under Marxism, as are "rags to riches" stories and anyone advancing in salary or position. Those people simply don't exist in the Marxist world.
The truth is that the only "class" in the United States excluded from reaping the benefits of capitalism is the class that chooses not to participate in American society. Fueled by the rhetoric of leftists, this class sits idle, dreaming of perceived wrongs that justify its inactivity. The only exploitation in America is committed by politicians, who use stolen money to subsidize this class in exchange for votes. That is not justice, it is criminal.
No comments:
Post a Comment