Glenn Beck says to run away from churches who preach social justice?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Via_Dolorosa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Glen Beck has a good point. Social Justice as presented by the Catholic Church is a code word for Socialism. The preaching of Social Justice may have been appropriate in Europe in the Middle Ages when all people were ruled by kings who took everything from the commoners and just left them enough to starve on. Yes, tell the king to give more money to the commoners.

Well, we don’t have a king in the USA! We have public schools, colleges and money for the ordinary person to go there. We have laws against racial or ethnic prejudice. Any US citizen if he/she works hard in school can prepare themselves for a good job. Most poverty is brought about by women who have children without getting married beforehand.

Charity is fine and Biblical. Jesus said that if you have 2 coats and you see a brother with no coat; give him 1 of your coats so that you both will have one coat. Jesus did not say if you have 2 coats and your brother has none, take out a gun and steal a coat from someone else because you are too selfish to give him one of your coats.

Armed robbery is exactly what it is when people lobby the government to have programs to help people in need. The “government” has no stash of money on the planet Mars to pay for those programs. We are the government in the USA and all government programs are paid for by our taxes. Try not paying your taxes for a government program that you don’t believe in. If all else fails, the government will send a man with a gun to your door and say give me your money.

I am a Catholic and proud of it but I am ashamed of the church hierarchy that preaches and teaches socialism in the USA under the code name of Social Justice.
 
Albert_Nygren said:
Charity is fine and Biblical. Jesus said that if you have 2 coats and you see a brother with no coat; give him 1 of your coats so that you both will have one coat. Jesus did not say if you have 2 coats and your brother has none, take out a gun and steal a coat from someone else because you are too selfish to give him one of your coats.

Armed robbery is exactly what it is when people lobby the government to have programs to help people in need. The “government” has no stash of money on the planet Mars to pay for those programs. We are the government in the USA and all government programs are paid for by our taxes. Try not paying your taxes for a government program that you don’t believe in. If all else fails, the government will send a man with a gun to your door and say give me your money.

I am a Catholic and proud of it but I am ashamed of the church hierarchy that preaches and teaches socialism in the USA under the code name of Social Justice.
Click to expand...
This moral reasoning only applies if we agree that taxes are like robbery. Since taxes are a condition of living in this society and pay for all the public goods (highways, education, police, firemen, air traffic control, army, food stamps, social security, etc) I find this reasoning to be faulty. However, i doubt it will stop conservatives from using this comparison.
 
catharina said:
… as he shows his most negative feelings.
Very destructive move on his part.
That kind of bias stops me dead in my perceptions.
Click to expand...
You still haven’t addressed his premise, regardless of how you perceived it.

Do you think it is okay for people to be a drain on society?
 
csuliman said:
This moral reasoning only applies if we agree that taxes are like robbery. Since taxes are a condition of living in this society and pay for all the public goods (highways, education, police, firemen, air traffic control, army, food stamps, social security, etc) I find this reasoning to be faulty. However, i doubt it will stop conservatives from using this comparison.
Click to expand...
We get it. However, many call into question the efficiency, effectiveness and ROI of some of these programs.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
You still haven’t addressed his premise, regardless of how you perceived it.

Do you think it is okay for people to be a drain on society?
Click to expand...
His ugly bias caused me to dismiss his premise.

Now to answer you,
I’m aware that some folks hold the poor to be “less than …”
I’m stunned to find the attitude in a self-proclaimed “Vincentian”
but I know the world is riddled with such condemnation.
Is it “okay?” That’s not my call or my calling.
As a retired social worker, I believe Jesus and my experience.
“The poor you will have always with you.”

Want to get to heaven? A certainty:

“Feed the hungry
Give drink to the thirsty
Clothe the naked
Shelter the homeless
and so forth … .”

As we do so to others,
we do so to Him.

Trash the poor, such as preschool brats, etc.?
Hard to imagine it’s “okay” to slam a group that’s under the age of five years old .
or am I in the minority here? I doubt that.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
We get it. However, many call into question the efficiency, effectiveness and ROI of some of these programs.
Click to expand...
I think working to find the most effective program should be the goal - but is this really what is being objected to?
 
catharina said:
His ugly bias caused me to dismiss his premise.

Now to answer you,
I’m aware that some folks hold the poor to be “less than …”
I’m stunned to find the attitude in a self-proclaimed “Vincentian”
but I know the world is riddled with such condemnation.
Is it “okay?” That’s not my call or my calling.
As a retired social worker, I believe Jesus and my experience.
“The poor you will have always with you.”

Want to get to heaven? A certainty:

“Feed the hungry
Give drink to the thirsty
Clothe the naked
Shelter the homeless
and so forth … .”

As we do so to others,
we do so to Him.

Trash the poor, such as preschool brats, etc.?
Hard to imagine it’s “okay” to slam a group that’s under the age of five years old .
or am I in the minority here? I doubt that.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that it is easy to forget our roll - I would acknowledge that the big difference in this discussion is those who come down on the side of “it is the roll of government” / “it isn’t the roll of government” - (Beck and his defenders)

I believe that the government (which in my mind is us) has the roll in society to ensure for safety, and SHOULD, strive for the Common Good that the Holy Father speaks so passionately about - Social Justice teaching of the Catholic Church is, IMHO one of the best kept secrets of the Church - it calls on us as INDIVIDUALS and as members of SOCIETY to act for the Common Good.

Good people of faith can come down on both sides of nearly every discussion - what is the most effective way to achieve the Common Good - however we can not deny that the teaching of our Catholic Church invites us to make choices that reflect our acknowledment that we are responsible for our brothers and sisters in this country and beyond.

Blessed Holy Week to one and all!
 
4elise said:
I agree with you that it is easy to forget our roll - I would acknowledge that the big difference in this discussion is those who come down on the side of “it is the roll of government” / “it isn’t the roll of government” - (Beck and his defenders)

I believe that the government (which in my mind is us) has the roll in society to ensure for safety, and SHOULD, strive for the Common Good that the Holy Father speaks so passionately about - **Social Justice teaching of the Catholic Church is, IMHO one of the best kept secrets of the Church - it calls on us as INDIVIDUALS and as members of SOCIETY to act for the Common Good. **

Good people of faith can come down on both sides of nearly every discussion - what is the most effective way to achieve the Common Good - however **we can not deny that the teaching of our Catholic Church invites us to make choices that reflect our acknowledment that we are responsible for our brothers and sisters in this country and beyond. **
Blessed Holy Week to one and all!
Click to expand...
Yes, Elise. So well-said.
A very blessed Holy Week to all.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
We get it. However, many call into question the efficiency, effectiveness and ROI of some of these programs.
Click to expand...
catharina said:
Who is “We?”
You speak for you, I speak for me, etc…
Click to expand...
I did for one. I think there are few things the government can do more effectively than private charities, but I respect those who vote otherwise. The only thing I do not respect are absolute statements like “Social Justice is a codeword for socialism,” as Glen Beck and at least one poster here has said. This shows an ignorance of Church teaching. We should be the students of Mother Church, not her teacher. It is equally ignorant and naive to think that some clergy have used the teaching of the Church to recruit for socialism and marxism. This has happened, but it is not inherent in the teaching, or the term, itself.

The reasonable person can move beyond such absolute black and white in their judgementalism of others and focus on the moral truth that drives those principles.
 
RWMorris said:
Really? Would you please define for me the exact meaning of the following. Please let me know exactly how much of my income and property I am to allow the government to take and use to help the poor. Since “Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority,” please define “common good” for me.

I am not trying to be difficult, but since you said there is no confusion on this subject I would like for you to clear up mine. Please be specific. I want to do the right thing.
Click to expand...
“Truth” is the REAL issue. “Truth” concerning who is genuinely needy and who claims to be needy is the crux of the problem. Those who have been conditioned how to feel by the unelected mainstream media will not like the Truth, but we can’t move past so many diametric opinions until we address it. There is only one Truth. They didn’t have big screen TVs, air-brushed nails, and $200 per month drug habits 2000 years ago. “Entertainment” is not a right. People gladly pay for things that make them “feel good,” then ask the govt.'s magic money machine to pay for their healthcare. As our wealth has grown, so has the number of soft-living people who consider themselves to be needy. “Mom and Dad used to pay for everything, but now that I’m an adult, I’ll whine to the govt. to pay for it.” This soft living has robbed us of fortitude. It’s all relative to what we “think” we need.

I think what Beck meant was for each of us to open our eyes and discern between the unelected mainstream media’s emotional pleas to dream of a soft, beautiful world and ignore this emotional abuse of the system (mainstream media’s version of social justice) versus true charity for the genuine needy (the Church’s version of social justice). The squeaky wheel gets oiled. If people are rewarded when they passionately plea for more aid, they will only plea louder, more often, and more passionately. It only makes sense. If it worked before, why not keep doing it? The false needy steal respect from the genuine needy. If the false needy is permitted to continue to spend taxpayer aid on luxuries, then how could taking from the true to give to the false possibly be social justice???

We have been conditioned into the ultimate “customer service” society, where we feel the need to make everyone happy all the time. This coerces us into “yes” people who actually feel guilty saying no or placing limitiations. Emotions are easy. Paying the bills is not. This is what Beck is talking about, yet the people’s knee-jerk reaction is to dismiss it. It will collapse us into third world socialism if we don’t realize our folly. The degree to which the unelected media has romanced the people’s values and emotions is formidable and a little disconcerting. People foolishly believe that if we change this one thing, nothing else will change. Nothing could be further from the Truth.

The unelected media discovered a long time ago that many people will continue to ignore the Truth as long as they are romanced into feeling good.
 
pnewton said:
I did for one. I think there are few things the government can do more effectively than private charities, but I respect those who vote otherwise. **The only thing I do not respect are absolute statements like “Social Justice is a codeword for socialism,” as Glen Beck and at least one poster here has said. This shows an ignorance of Church teaching. We should be the students of Mother Church, not her teacher. ** It is equally ignorant and naive to think that some clergy have used the teaching of the Church to recruit for socialism and marxism. This has happened, but it is not inherent in the teaching, or the term, itself.

The reasonable person can move beyond such absolute black and white in their judgementalism of others and focus on the moral truth that drives those principles.
Click to expand...
**The moral truth is the only reality re this issue.
We are to serve Our Lord in each other.
The Church has given us a “preferential option for the poor.”
It’s sheer ignorance to imagine that life is fair and
that some are “deserving” poor and others “undeserving” poor.
We are to serve the poor.
Let Our Lord sort out the rest.

The bias that underlies any “charity” that leads to a notion
of “preschool brats” is horrific to me and it’s antithetical
to Christianity in every way. When people decide to use
such a bias to justify selfishness then much is lost to the Church.**

**
Such attitudes can lead to a societal notion of restricting births.
Prevent the birth of the preschool brats and all is well?
Promote abortion … well, why not?
Yes, I’m dwelling on the term because it underscores
an attitude that spells out an “entitlement” of those with “more.”

PS -
One unchallenged bit of ugliness leads to much worse.
“Preschool brats” do not exist in the training or works of the Church.**
 
catharina said:
**The moral truth is the only reality re this issue.
We are to serve Our Lord in each other.
The Church has given us a “preferential option for the poor.”
It’s sheer ignorance to imagine that life is fair and
that some are “deserving” poor and others “undeserving” poor.
We are to serve the poor.
Let Our Lord sort out the rest.

The bias that underlies any “charity” that leads to a notion
of “preschool brats” is horrific to me and it’s antithetical
to Christianity in every way. When people decide to use
such a bias to justify selfishness then much is lost to the Church.**

**
Such attitudes can lead to a societal notion of restricting births.
Prevent the birth of the preschool brats and all is well?
Promote abortion … well, why not?
Yes, I’m dwelling on the term because it underscores
an attitude that spells out an “entitlement” of those with “more.”**
Click to expand...
Sounds like you are one who would “help” them by compounding their self-destructive behaviors. That kind of “help” they can do without. As far as “suffer” the little children goes, in that context it means “permit”; it does not mean “experience pain” and has nothing to do with my point about brats.
 
sedonaman said:
Sounds like you are one who would “help” them by compounding their self-destructive behaviors. That kind of “help” they can do without. As far as “suffer” the little children goes, in that context it means “permit”; it does not mean “experience pain” and has nothing to do with my point about brats.
Click to expand...
Your level of ignorance is profound.
Getting people into counseling, job training, medical help is no dis-service.

Referring to the youngest children of the poor as “brats” speaks only to your own notion of self-WORTH.
I’m so glad I pinned you down regarding your “Vincentian” stance.
Your posts have sounded ‘off’ since the beginning of your entrance in this thread.

‘Permit’ means “allow” oh yeah, duh, thanks.
You can make no point about ‘brats’ as a Catholic or a Vincentian.
Get a clue. Your biases define you.
 
 
Thoughts on Rev. Kevin E. McKenna’s You Did It For Me, re: “social justice” [continued]

The Individual’s Participation in the Economy

McKenna states that people should be allowed to participate in the economy, but offers no suggestions other than to say that we as individuals have an obligation to see that it happens. The problem of bringing about the type of economic social justice McKenna seems to propose is so immense that it cannot possibly rest with the individual; we would have to give a lot more power to government. Do we want that? We have seen those with a political goal abuse and twist government’s attempts to bring about increased social justice, resulting in a net decrease in social justice:

– Abortion is the classic case. Did those who advocated the elimination of laws against birth control (in the name of “privacy”) do so just to establish government-funded abortion mills all over the country? Or to distribute condoms in public schools? No. They did it so women, by having fewer children, could get more “social justice” by being “freed” of domestic duties and “empowered” by entering the economy and earning money. Shortly after abortion was also declared a matter of “privacy”, those with a different agenda noted that “rich” women could afford all the abortions they wanted while “poor” women could not, and social “justice” demanded the government fund abortions for the poor.

– We have seen a law against sodomy overturned in Texas in the name of social justice, and as a result, others seeking more “social justice” are renewing their demands for gay “marriage”. What the end result of this ruling will be is yet to be seen, but it probably WON’T be increased social justice as the Church envisions.*

– There are federal government programs to provide living expenses to workers who are supposedly disabled and cannot work. When the media exposed specific cases of fraud and the agency in question did nothing to remove benefits from a single one those abusing the system, we learned the reason was that for each person on the disabled roles, the more the agency was funded not only for the amount the individual received, but also for higher program“management” fees.** Where is the social justice for those lower economic classes, struggling to make ends meet, who have to work to pay for a self-serving bureaucracy?

– As previously stated, the Bolsheviks did not revolt to overthrow the czar just so they could establish gulags throughout the Soviet Union. They did it in the name of social justice.
McKenna talks about the “distribution” of wealth. In order for wealth to be “distributed”, it must first be created, and that’s done by people in an economic system. In our system, people create wealth by becoming educated (see above) and by their resulting labor. The purpose of education is to enable the person to better himself by using his talents to enter the economy and meet opportunity with preparation. In doing so, he then engages in the trade of his labor for wages. Notice here that his goal is to better his condition. This means that people do not want to be equal and is why equalization of incomes can be accomplished only by taking away their rights; this is what happens under all socialist schemes by whatever name, and that’s why they ultimately result in gulags. If a person is allowed freedom to better himself, the whole society benefits because he will necessarily need to exchange the results of his labor for the goods he needs (or wants) produced by others with different (even less valuable) skills who provide those goods and who also need to exchange them for the ones they need / want. As a result, society’s over-all well-being is increased,*** and workers maintain their concept of the dignity of work. If, however, the individual’s attempts to better himself are frustrated by income “equalizing” schemes, incomes will consequently be equalized at a LOW level**** (why bother if I’m paid the same?), resulting in a net loss of social justice. It seems our only choices are 1) some are wealthy and some are poor; or 2) all are poor. Choice 1 is the result of free people engaging in a free economy. Choice 2 is the result of a lack of freedom.

Notes:
  • Q: Would social justice be increased by instituting federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish? This might sound ridiculous now, but just wait a while; someone will propose it.
** Only about 19% of the federal welfare tax dollar collected reaches the intended recipient. The rest is skimmed off for program management expenses as it wends its way down the various government levels to the individual.

*** Google R.A. Radford’s “The Economic Organization of a P.O.W. Camp”, Economica, November, 1945

**** One of economist Vilfredo Pareto’s observations.
 
catharina said:
Your level of ignorance is profound.
Getting people into counseling, job training, medical help is no dis-service.

Referring to the youngest children of the poor as “brats” speaks only to your own notion of self-WORTH.
I’m so glad I pinned you down regarding your “Vincentian” stance.
Your posts have sounded ‘off’ since the beginning of your entrance in this thread.

‘Permit’ means “allow” oh yeah, duh, thanks.
You can make no point about ‘brats’ as a Catholic or a Vincentian.
Get a clue. Your biases define you.
Click to expand...
Would you stop with the ad hominem attacks?
 
sedonaman said:
Thoughts on Rev. Kevin E. McKenna’s You Did It For Me, re: “social justice” [continued]

The Individual’s Participation in the Economy
Click to expand...
You have fully discredited your own views, IMO.
Calling innocent children “brats” reveals your biases.
Preschool children are aged 2, 3, 4 years old.
The Church herself defines these children as ‘infants’ in the code of Canon Law.

It would be lovely (and inspiring) if you would retract your use of the term “BRAT.”
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Would you stop with the ad hominem attacks?
Click to expand...
Mr. (or Miss?) Computer Geek:
The Real ad hominem attack was aimed at innocent children.
Will I stop objecting to it?
Not in this lifetime.

Why aren’t YOU objecting to it?
Aren’t you another “Vincentian?” Maybe not.
If you are one, then you should know better!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top