Difference between SJW and Social Justice in CCC

[pnewton]

Why do you think deporting illegal economic migrants doesn’t fit with the Samaritan parable.

If you notice, I have not said anything about that. I said that subsidiarity means we should listen to the bishops assigned over us. Sometimes deportation is just and needed, sometimes not, which is why we have local authorities to guide moral application. In any case, the needs of the people here that they Church can address, while they are here, are to be administered to by the bishop.

But don’t forget, immigration is but one social issue the Church speaks on.

 

[Theo520]

I had read that birthing was the most common hospital procedure for illegal immigrants. I couldn’t find a supporting link today but another link said research showed 1 in 12 newborns can be described as an anchor baby.(couple years old)

The Citizenship And Immigration Problems Of Anchor Babies And Surrogacy

 

[Vonsalza]

I keep telling you people that once upon a time I really was a conservative.

The two or three ideas they push that actually have merit have been retained.

 

[pnewton]

I keep telling you people that once upon a time I really was a conservative.

The two or three ideas they push that actually have merit have been retained.

Same here. I was a Republican all my adult life up until a few years ago. I will never be a Democrat, not as long as they keep abortion in the platform, but I see no party that is reflective of the Gospel.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I was raised in a democratic family and abandoned that pretty quickly in college. They want government to do too much, they want to spend this nation into oblivion, and far far too much of their social agenda is contrary to my beliefs. The Republican Party doesn’t really stand for much so far as I can tell. They pay lots of lip service to certain ideas, but there isn’t a lot of follow through. I’ve been registered unaffiliated and split ticket voter for at least the last 10 years if not more.

 

[JanetF]

Same here. I was a Republican all my adult life up until a few years ago. I will never be a Democrat, not as long as they keep abortion in the platform, but I see no party that is reflective of the Gospel.

Me too!!!..

 

[Ender]

To say that the government can play no role in social justice is counter to the Catechism. That is objective fact.

I have neither stated nor suggested that the government has no role.

I and others have quoted from the Catechism on this issue. You are welcome to scroll up and look.

Quoting the catechism is irrelevant given that the catechism at no point identifies specific policies that should be implemented. It identifies the ends toward which we should work but is utterly silent on the means we should use to achieve them.

I do not appreciate being misrepresented or discounted as a SJW.

You meet my understanding of the term. If you would like to supply your own definition we can discuss it.

 

[Ender]

I’m interested in your choice of words. To “believe” something is one thing, but to provide supporting evidence is quite another. So would you say that a “Social Justice Warrior” is one who claims without supporting evidence that the Church supports a particular position?

The assumption seems to be that if one will do the right thing if that is what one intends, and that the only reason to oppose an SJW’s proposals is if one does not want to do the right thing in the first place. I believe this is why they tend to see political conflicts as moral choices. They have no trouble believing their choice is the moral one because that is their intention, but if theirs is the moral choice then those who oppose them have made the immoral choice.

This explains why there is so much talk about the catechism and the church even though nowhere does either of them identify a specific political policy that should or should not be implemented. They view political battles as moral crusades.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

You meet my understanding of the term. If you would like to supply your own definition we can discuss it.

You say that your definition is based on the idea that a SJW believes their political beliefs are an embodiment of churich teaching or are morally superior? Do I have that right?

If I have that right, then I’m sorry to disappoint you, but I do not believe that.

As I keep say, the Church leaves the door open for government action. This is objective fact. You seem to concede that, so we will set it aside.

As I also keep saying:

I think you can definitely argue about how to implement certain aspects of doctrine that are left intentionally vague. But you can’t refuse to acknowledge that the Church leaves the door open when it comes to government action.

In other words, I neither think that my interpretation about how to uphold church teaching on social justice is the only interpretation nor do I think that my ideas perfectly embody catholic social justice teaching. Because the teachings are vague, no one can claim they’ve got it right.

You have in your mind a caricature of me. It is that caricature that you have decided is a SJW.

The actual me (the one that keeps saying I don’t think my way is the only way) is not a sjw.

How would I define the term? The term ‘Social Justice Warrior’ is a prejorative meant to disparage those who hold competing ideas on Social Justice. It is most often used by the far right to malign, marginalize, or otherwise dismiss those on the left who express a strong desire to have their government work to correct what they see as social issues.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

This explains why there is so much talk about the catechism and the church even though nowhere does either of them identify a specific political policy that should or should not be implemented. They view political battles as moral crusades.

None of this is true for me, so again I don’t fit your definition.

There were two reasons why I pointed to the Catechism.

1. to demonstrate that the door is left open for government action.
2. to point out that the Church does indeed have a doctrine on social justice.

Neither of those things has anything whatsoever to do with trying to establish that a specific public policy position is in the Catechism.

“Protect human dignity” is not a specific policy position. My point is that the Church leaves the door open to creating a public policy that works to this end. People of goodwill can argue about what that policy looks like.

 

[J_the_Centrist]

The thing is that the media is intentionally misquoting him and he’s not even addressing it. I’m not crazy about Donald Trump but I can’t deny that media has been unfair to him and has even lied about him but at least he fight back. Still, I think that that’s the least of the church’s problems.

 

[abucs]

But what I was addressing is the fact that secular governments have to be extremely leery of mixing their books with those of a religious organization - and that might be a big part of the issue. We can’t have a nation-wide “Catholic solution” (20% Americans) to the problem anymore than we can have a nation-wide “Sharia solution” (1% Americans).

The problem we have is that SJW’s are making political correctness the religion of government and a lot of people are objecting to this. By your own standard we can’t have a nation wide solution to social problems based on this religion. I think that is another clear description of the term SJW. They have a politically correct religion and want to force that religion on others through the state.

 

[abucs]

I might steal your chart for the next time I teach the government subject. I think the biggest movers in the last 10 years are those going from the Liberal camp to the Libertarian group.

I also put the National Socialists on the far left and although many on the left would disagree there is a strong link between monarchical systems and communist ones as far as their claimed right to control what the populace produces and claims to exclusively establish ethical norms and hierarchies.

 

[abucs]

How would I define the term? The term ‘Social Justice Warrior’ is a prejorative meant to disparage those who hold competing ideas on Social Justice.

I would also add that SJW’s have a strong tendency to use many aggressive tactics to disparage people who disagree with their morals. This includes emotional shaming, insisting on others to use their manufactured language, punishment through government legislation and bullying of economic and social groups to ostracise their enemies.

 

[bobperk]

The secular social justice movement seems to have one major goal in mind: forced equal outcome based on victim status rather than actual effort or merit.

 

[Vonsalza]

The problem we have is that SJW’s are making political correctness the religion of government and a lot of people are objecting to this.

That’s just you playing fast-and-loose with the definition of “religion”.

Unfortunately, the sentence “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” does ultimately mean that secularism must carry the day by rule of exclusion. Americans toe-the-line with vague institutional references to God (like on our money and in our pledge), but the minute you want to specify which God that must be is the same minute I’m more than happy to take-up arms against you in the name of religious liberty - in the finest tradition of our Founding Fathers.

IF American does indeed have a founding religion, it’s vague, Masonic deism.

By your own standard we can’t have a nation wide solution to social problems based on this religion.

That’s not true because my standard doesn’t employ a definition of “religion” that is so self-servingly vacuous.

I think that is another clear description of the term SJW. They have a politically correct religion and want to force that religion on others through the state.

Is it so odd that some folks believe that problems encountered by a nation are to be solved by the nation?

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

How would I define the term? The term ‘Social Justice Warrior’ is a prejorative meant to disparage those who hold competing ideas on Social Justice.

I would also add that SJW’s have a strong tendency to use many aggressive tactics to disparage people who disagree with their morals. This includes emotional shaming, insisting on others to use their manufactured language, punishment through government legislation and bullying of economic and social groups to ostracise their enemies.

You might be right, but then, in recognition of the perjorative nature of the term, I’d have to add that often those who label others as SJWs are doing so because they seek to shame and bully social and economic groups that they reflexively view as their enemies.

So, in my definition, people who label others as SJWs are really just the other side of the same coin.

In th end, one is much more likely to achieve his or her end if he or she engages the other side based on the issues without the ad hominem attacks.

 

[MikeInVA]

We can’t have a nation-wide “Catholic solution” (20% Americans) to the problem anymore than we can have a nation-wide “Sharia solution” (1% Americans).

When you take Christianity to the extreme, you get the likes of Mother Teresa.
When you take Islam to the extreme, you get the likes of Bin Laden.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

We can’t have a nation-wide “Catholic solution” (20% Americans) to the problem anymore than we can have a nation-wide “Sharia solution” (1% Americans).

When you take Christianity to the extreme, you get the likes of Mother Teresa.
When you take Islam to the extreme, you get the likes of Bin Laden.

I super-duper wish you were right. But Christianity to the extreme is also Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church. The Northern Crusades (which were substantially less just than the Crusades for Jerusalem). Bombing abortion clinics. God hates fags.

Zealotry is a two-edged sword with the bad edge often being larger and easier to observe.

 

[MikeInVA]

Those are not examples of proper Christianity and I would hope you understand the difference.