Difference between SJW and Social Justice in CCC

[philipl]

Then collect those taxes through sometime like the fair tax. We are not a democratic republic. we are a republic. The voters in TN dont get to vote for the senators in Kentucky. I only get to vote for my representative for my district. Not the one for the next one over.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

We are not a democratic republic. we are a republic.

We are a democratic republic. That is to say that some aspects of our government are republican (electing representatives, legislative process, etc ) and other aspects are democratic (voting on referenda or bonds, voting on changes to state constitutions and sometimes the US constitution, etc. ).

If we were just a republic all of the decisions would be made by elected representatives.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t think that’s what the Church says. Now, it might be what the Catholic people say, but that is something else entirely.

You’ll find Church polity on the matter somewhat divided.

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).

So if your vision of the government giving money to private orgs. instead of government programs to take care of the afflicted is to happen, they can’t be explicitly Catholic organizations. They’d just be aid organizations that just-so-happen to be staffed by Catholics.

The Church is against excessive government that violates individual freedoms and human dignity. So long as the State allows for and protects human dignity it can operate with some level of moral authority.

That is a far cry from saying the Church and the State can co-exists unless the state religion is something other than Catholic.

My point there was that the state absolutely cannot depend on any particular religious organization to carry out any of its functions. Now you could argue that taking care of people isn’t one of those functions - but there we put it to a vote and most Americans tend to disagree. Or at least they’ve historically elected representatives that disagree.

Edit to add: there is only one system that is specifically excluded and this is Communism. And, again, it’s not simply because the Church decided to be reflexively anti-Communist. There are lots of reasons why, but one of the big ones is that it denies its subjects individual freedom.

 

[Vonsalza]

Then collect those taxes through sometime like the fair tax.

There isn’t such a thing.

Taxes should be a flat fee of $10,000 per person because that’s a fair amount.
Taxes should be a flat 20% because that’s a fair rate.
It’s fair that the rich pay more because they largely control the governmental institutions that have promoted their success.
It’s fair that the poor pay more because they typically use more services.

“Fair” is endlessly subjective.

We are not a democratic republic. we are a republic.

@mrsdizzyd beat me to it.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

So if your vision of the government giving money to private orgs. instead of government programs to take care of the afflicted is to happen, they can’t be explicitly Catholic organizations. They’d just be aid organizations that just-so-happen to be staffed by Catholics.

There definitely are challenges, but there are also ways around them. As you said, the government can aid charities staffed by Catholics just as it can aid any other charities it chooses.

It is not necessary that the government support churches directly or that the government provide aid to every charitable organization.

My point is that the Church supports and encourages governments working with the charitable organizations of the members of its society.

 

[Vonsalza]

My point is that the Church supports and encourages governments working with the charitable organizations of the members of its society.

Sure.

I guess it’s just really, really hard for most to see the “why” of it. Why pay a private org to do a job we’re already doing? They might claim to do it cheaper, but that ends up not being the case in most of the public-private joint programs I’ve ever seen. Someone usually ends up making a lot of money, though. Even in non-profits. “Reasonable compensation” is whatever your legal team can argue it to be.

I’m reminded of one of these publicly funded charter schools that started up in Ohio where it turns out that in the last year the kids got virtually no instruction and a year of their lives ended up not counting. They all had to repeat their grades - most of them back at the public school they were positive was so much worse.

 

[MikeInVA]

I’m reminded of one of these publicly funded charter schools that…

I thought most charter schools were very successful for the students? This sounds like an exception, not the rule.

 

[Ender]

The problem is that several of the folks in this thread are Catholic, yet they have no problem ignoring Catholic doctrine on Social Justice and Subsidiarity…

Here it is again: my definition of someone who is an SJW. Disagreement with their political solutions is the same as “ignoring Catholic doctrine.” It is not that we disagree on what the most effective solution is, it is that one side is morally deficient.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I guess it’s just really, really hard for most to see the “why” of it.

And that is a valid and responsible question to ask, but we shouldn’t just stop there. The Church has explain its answer in the Catechism, and other church organizations, such as the USCCB, have added to that.

I’m reminded of one of these publicly funded charter schools that started up in Ohio where it turns out that in the last year the kids got virtually no instruction…

And, I’ve seen and worked with some very well-run charitable organizations that use government funding effectively.

If the government is going to fund charitable organizations it also has a duty to make sure our money is being used for the stated purpose. As electors, it is our job to ensure we are electing representatives who take this responsibility seriously. The other donors to these groups also have a responsibility to hold them accountable for mismanagement.

In the end, we ALL have responsibilities here.

In my view, the fact that humans have failings is not enough of a reason to disregard the limited role governments can play in social justice.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

mrsdizzyd:

The problem is that several of the folks in this thread are Catholic, yet they have no problem ignoring Catholic doctrine on Social Justice and Subsidiarity…

Here it is again: my definition of someone who is an SJW. Disagreement with their political solutions is the same as “ignoring Catholic doctrine.” It is not that we disagree on what the most effective solution is, it is that one side is morally deficient.

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

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

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

As I said earlier:

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.

 

[Vonsalza]

And that is a valid and responsible question to ask, but we shouldn’t just stop there. The Church has explain its answer in the Catechism, and other church organizations, such as the USCCB, have added to that.

I would hazard to guess that your first goal should be to increase the percentage of Americans that are Catholic.

As electors, it is our job to ensure we are electing representatives who take this responsibility seriously. The other donors to these groups also have a responsibility to hold them accountable for mismanagement.

In the end, we ALL have a responsibilities here.

In my view, the fact that humans have failings is not enough of a reason to disregard the limited role governments can play in social justice.

It’s not just that. It’s an arbitrary and unnecessary increase in moving parts to satisfy a specific interpretation of an auxiliary teaching shared by a fraction by a faith group that itself only represents roughly a fifth of Americans.

I’m a “more parts = more bad” kinda guy. but I don’t share the same interpretation nor religious conviction to the idea as you.

Thanks for the chat!

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I’m reminded of one of these publicly funded charter schools that…

I thought most charter schools were very successful for the students? This sounds like an exception, not the rule.

I think most of the success stories are sorta like post-law school employment numbers - extremely doctored.

 

[Theo520]

I think it would also be pertinent to realize that a good portion of those we broadly paint as SJWs probably aren’t Catholic - at least in America.
So any appeal to a more conservative Catholic understanding of subsidiarity would likely fall on deaf ears for those folks.

Yes, most SJW are very Socialist in their politics, and the Church doesn’t support that flavor of governance.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Thanks for the chat!

Thanks to you as well!

It’s refreshing to have a conversation about competing ideas without having someone reflexively sling perjoratives at you and misrepresent your position on an issue.

 

[Theo520]

I’m reminded of one of these publicly funded charter schools that started up in Ohio where it turns out that in the last year the kids got virtually no instruction and a year of their lives ended up not counting. They all had to repeat their grades - most of them back at the public school they were positive was so much worse.

Anecdotes of isolated incidents shouldn’t be used to represent the norm. We should rely on statistics, not incidents of gross corruption and incompetence. I do agree Charter schools still need oversight to minimize corruption though.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

I think it would also be pertinent to realize that a good portion of those we broadly paint as SJWs probably aren’t Catholic - at least in America.
So any appeal to a more conservative Catholic understanding of subsidiarity would likely fall on deaf ears for those folks.

Yes, most SJW are very Socialist in their politics, and the Church doesn’t support that flavor of governance.

No, the issue there is that they’re generally not Catholic.

I known more than a few who claimed to be anarchists. What would be less socialist?

 

[Theo520]

No, the issue there is that they’re generally not Catholic.

I known more than a few who claimed to be anarchists. What would be less socialist?

The correlation is with politics. Plenty of SJW Catholics pushing a socialist agenda.

The anarchists want to overthow the current govt to implement socialism. They aren’t libertarians.
WAPO confirms ANTIFA are predominantly communists
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-antifa/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c85241f070a4

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

No, the issue there is that they’re generally not Catholic.

I known more than a few who claimed to be anarchists. What would be less socialist?

The correlation is with politics. Plenty of SJW Catholics pushing a socialist agenda.

The anarchists want to overthow the current govt to implement socialism. They aren’t libertarians.
WAPO confirms ANTIFA are predominantly communists
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-antifa/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.c85241f070a4

Ok, but that makes me start to think that you consider pretty much anyone who isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool conservative to be a SJW. Your “who is a SJW” net seems to be pretty wide.

And no, anarchists don’t necessarily want to overthrow government to implement socialism. They just don’t want any government.

 

[Theo520]

Ok, but that makes me start to think that you consider pretty much anyone who isn’t a dyed-in-the-wool conservative to be a SJW. Your “who is a SJW” net seems to be pretty wide.

Don’t follow your logic, please support it and not throw out ad hominems

How does my connecting SJW with socialism support your assertion about me? Do you think everyone who isn’t hard conservative qualifies as a socialist?

 

[blackforest]

I tried defining the term back in post #35:

an SJW is someone who believes the church supports his proposals for the solution to political (social) problems.

Thank you for the reference. It’s helpful in these longer threads! (I honestly miss the old CAF format, which seemed much more navigable).

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?