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

[ComputerGeek25]

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!

Because I am giving sedonaman the benefit of the doubt; maybe his statement was inflamatory to some people, but I’m willing to let him explain what he meant by it, and issue an apology as necessary.

 

[catharina]

Because I am giving sedonaman the benefit of the doubt; maybe his statement was inflamatory to some people, but I’m willing to let him explain what he meant by it, and issue an apology as necessary.

He has done neither.

There is no maybe about “inflammatory.”
“Preschool brats” speaks of a mindset that dismisses the needs of the poor.
It is without understanding and without a semblance of compassion.

… and from “a Vincentian?” Must be one of a kind.

 

[sedonaman]

Because I am giving sedonaman the benefit of the doubt; maybe his statement was inflamatory to some people, but I’m willing to let him explain what he meant by it, and issue an apology as necessary.

Human beings are naturally defiant to authority; it’s Original Sin. Some are more defiant than others.

 

[catharina]

Human beings are naturally defiant to authority; it’s Original Sin. Some are more defiant than others.

Those who disparage little children might be most defiant of all.
Those who pretend to lead in social justice while defiling innocent children by word, deed, example might be on another road altogether.

"Luke
Chapter 17
1
He said to his disciples, “Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur.
2
It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.
3
Be on your guard!”

Defiling the existence of children whose “sin” is poverty … that’s a new one.
Calling others to think less of these children? Astounding.
“Preschool brats?” Yeah sure … NOT.

 

[sedonaman]

He has done neither.

There is no maybe about “inflammatory.”
“Preschool brats” speaks of a mindset that dismisses the needs of the poor.
It is without understanding and without a semblance of compassion.

… and from “a Vincentian?” Must be one of a kind.

“Suffer the children” does not mean that we are prohibited from disciplining unruly children. Nor are we restricted on this forum to using only words used by the pope.

I do not intend to get sidetracked onto a discussion on child-rearing. Instead of getting all worked up by one word that offends apparently only you, why don’t you, for example, provide a substantive* comment on the mindset of a caseworker who was “compassionate” and “helped” a woman continue a relationship with a boyfriend of obvious dubious character?

• substantive – adjective. Having practical importance, value, or effect: substantive issues under discussion. dictionary.com

 

[catharina]

“Suffer the children” does not mean that we are prohibited from disciplining unruly children. Nor are we restricted on this forum to using only words used by the pope.

I do not intend to get sidetracked onto a discussion on child-rearing. Instead of getting all worked up by one word that offends apparently only you, why don’t you, for example, provide a substantive* comment on the mindset of a caseworker who was “compassionate” and “helped” a woman continue a relationship with a boyfriend of obvious dubious character?

• substantive – adjective. Having practical importance, value, or effect: substantive issues under discussion. dictionary.com

Grow up. The negative connotations of “brat” are insidious.
Child-rearing? I wouldn’t allow you near a poor child.

 

[sedonaman]

…
“Preschool brats” speaks of a mindset that dismisses the needs of the poor…

Can you explain this non-sequitur?

 

[sedonaman]

…
Defiling the existence of children whose “sin” is poverty … that’s a new one.
…

You are equating conduct with economic condition. How did you make that leap?

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

“Suffer the children” does not mean that we are prohibited from disciplining unruly children. Nor are we restricted on this forum to using only words used by the pope.

I do not intend to get sidetracked onto a discussion on child-rearing. Instead of getting all worked up by one word that offends apparently only you, why don’t you, for example, provide a substantive* comment on the mindset of a caseworker who was “compassionate” and “helped” a woman continue a relationship with a boyfriend of obvious dubious character?

• substantive – adjective. Having practical importance, value, or effect: substantive issues under discussion. dictionary.com

For the record I, too, find the post in which you call poor children brats offensive. I am also offended by your calling a whole generation destructive and arrogant. In reading your posts I have wondered if I’m not having a series of mini strokes because they seem offf the wall. Gay nuns demanding sandals for a foot fetish? Sodomy Laws? Get a grip, wil you.
I read a review of Fr. McKenna book and I don’t think you got the point.,

 

[sedonaman]

For the record I, too, find the post in which you call poor children brats offensive. I am also offended by your calling a whole generation destructive and arrogant. In reading your posts I have wondered if I’m not having a series of mini strokes because they seem offf the wall. Gay nuns demanding sandals for a foot fetish? Sodomy Laws? Get a grip, wil you.
I read a review of Fr. McKenna book and I don’t think you got the point.,

Guess what. I read the book, the entire book. And I don’t think you are getting my point.

Free speech means we are all going to hear things we find offensive; and besides, there is no right not to be offended. There are plenty of things that offend me, but no one is rushing in to assuage my hurt feelings. Grow up.

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

Guess what. I read the book, the entire book. And I don’t think you are getting my point.

Can I assume you disagree with Fr. Mckenna?

 

[kbkam]

I think the entire point of this discussion, which is drifting in and out of pettiness can be summed up in an actual current event. (I can’t find sandals for gay ex-nuns, but here’s one that’s far worse because it’s true.)
This is ultimately what happens when one abdicates one’s responsibility to help those in need, and delegates the gov’t to do it.
On the floor of the US senate:ow.ly/1qzlN

XML U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 2nd Session
as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate

Vote Summary

Question: On the Motion to Table (Motion to Table Coburn Amdt. No. 3556 )
Vote Number: 73 Vote Date: March 24, 2010, 08:21 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Motion to Table** Agreed to
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3556 to H.R. 4872 (Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010)
Statement of Purpose: To reduce the cost of providing federally funded prescription drugs by eliminating fraudulent payments and prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists and for drugs intended to induce abortion.
Vote Counts: YEAs 57
NAYs 42
Not Voting 1

**table, motion to - A Senator may move to table any pending question. The motion is not debatable, and agreement to the motion is equivalent to defeating the question tabled. The motion is used to dispose quickly of questions the Senate does not wish to consider further.

I guess all but 2 Democrat Senators (see link for roll call ) think it’s too controversial to prohibit Viagra prescription coverage for child molesters and rapists? Governments are not moral, so when we jump on the bandwagon of giving the gov’t the responsibility of doing what we are morally responsible to do ourselves, this is what happens. That is what GB said and what he meant.

Blessed Easter everyone.

 

[sedonaman]

Can I assume you disagree with Fr. Mckenna?

No.

 

[sedonaman]

I think the entire point of this discussion, which is drifting in and out of pettiness can be summed up in an actual current event. (I can’t find sandals for gay ex-nuns, but here’s one that’s far worse because it’s true.)
This is ultimately what happens when one abdicates one’s responsibility to help those in need, and delegates the gov’t to do it.
On the floor of the US senate:ow.ly/1qzlN

I guess all but 2 Democrat Senators (see link for roll call ) think it’s too controversial to prohibit Viagra prescription coverage for child molesters and rapists? Governments are not moral, so when we jump on the bandwagon of giving the gov’t the responsibility of doing what we are morally responsible to do ourselves, this is what happens. That is what GB said and what he meant.

Blessed Easter everyone.

Thanks for your help. I didn’t mean to imply that federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish was an actual program, but only an outlandish example of what someone will eventually think of and ear-mark into a bill [or rule from the bench]. Looks like I’ll have to replace it with your real-life example. Thx.

“Government doesn’t give to benefit the receiver but to benefit the giver.” – George Soros

 

[catharina]

Can you explain this non-sequitur?

A non-sequitor? Your ramble about Fr.McKenna’s book was a non-sequitor.
Instead of presenting your own petty, deadly biases
(slipped in among you purportedly grave thoughts)
it might have been best to present a precis of Fr. McKenna’s actual points.

If you can’t understand that this simple statement:
"Preschool brats" speaks of a mindset that dismisses the needs of the poor…"
then perhaps you should not present yourself as a “Vincentian.”

Your later attempt to equate “unruly children” with “preschool brats” is ridiculous.
A bias that speaks of “brats” reveals a lot -
especially when the term is applied to little ones who are
not anywhere near the “age of reason.”

Backpedal as fast as you can and as much as you want -
but your statement about “preschool brats” is incredibly offensive.

Best to you, to all, on our journey this Holy Week and beyond.

PS - claiming that only I found your term offensive because I was first
to raise the point would be actually laughable were it not such a tragic gasp from you.

 

[csuliman]

Thoughts on Rev. Kevin E. McKenna’s You Did It For Me, re: “social justice” [continued]

– 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.*

The rules against sodomy were not overturned just because of social justice, but because it is a gross infringement on the freedom of individuals. The fact that an atheist could be charged because he chose to have oral or anal sex with a woman or a man (Note that sodomy also means heterosexual oral/anal), especially when they do not believe it is immoral, is a gross violation of their liberty.

Anything that takes the government out of the bedroom of two consenting adults is a good thing.

 

[sedonaman]

The rules against sodomy were not overturned just because of social justice, but because it is a gross infringement on the freedom of individuals. …

Isn’t an infringement on individual freedom a form of social injustice?

 

[csuliman]

Isn’t an infringement on individual freedom a form of social injustice?

There is a difference between social injustice and government intervention on individual freedoms. I meant to use individual freedoms in a constitutional context.

For example: it is a social injustice for people to discriminate against gays and lesbians. However, it is an infringement on individual freedoms when the government makes a law prohibiting them from doing certain actions. It is not unconstitutional for people to discriminate against gays, it is unconstitutional for the government to do so.

This is the same reason that I do not think legalized abortion is not about social justice, it is about the government unconstitutionally intervening into the decisions of women about their bodies. I think abortion is wrong, but I agree that limiting the liberty of women in such a way would be unconstitutional.

 

[sedonaman]

Thoughts on Rev. Kevin E. McKenna’s You Did It For Me, re: “social justice” [continued]

The term “wealth distribution” also carries with it the implication that government should have the authority to distribute society’s wealth, ostensibly in a more “just” manner. One of the two great lessons of the 20th Century is that re-distribution does not work (see socialism and gulags above).* Pope Leo XIII was highly critical of capitalism but condemned socialism because of its inherent denial of property rights and resultant inefficient use of God’s gift of property.** He also made a good case for the worker’s entitlement to the fruits of his labor.

Other Attempts at Equalizing

Much of what McKenna writes fails to account for human nature, mainly what F. A. Hayak calls “rent-seeking”. There has also been discovered a strange phenomenon of a desire by individuals to hurt those better off even if it means hurting themselves in the process. Some examples:
Few would agree that the American graduated income tax is fair, even though it was initially conceived and still maintained as one in which those (i.e., the “wealthy”, who are never defined) with the ability to pay should be the ones to pay, and those who cannot should be exempt. Virtually every tax increase is sold with the notion that the resulting burden will fall on those “who have won life’s lottery” (again, the “wealthy”), and as a result, incomes will be “more equal”. But this notion of taxing “the wealthy” ignores several important considerations. First, the wealthy are no different from anyone else; they dislike paying taxes as much as the next guy and are generally unmoved by someone else’s concept of morality, just like anyone else. Second, the truly wealthy are powerful because of their wealth and can afford the lobbying expense to have their economic activity given a favored (i.e., tax exempt) status. Any lobbyist worth his salt will provide his client greater value in deductions / exemptions than the original lobbying expense. At the same time, government does not pass a tax increase without the expectation of collecting more taxes, so where do the taxes come from? Since it’s politically unpopular to be Scrooge and get it from the “poor”, it must come from the middle class who cannot afford the lobbyists or accountants to escape.* In the days [1950s and ‘60s] of the 70% marginal tax rate, the most the truly rich paid was only 48%, the same rate the middle class was paying! So, has social justice been increased as a result in using a graduated tax over a flat tax? The Lord levied a flat 10%; do our elected believe they are wiser than the Lord? Perhaps a flat tax would let the lower income individuals realize that it takes money to run a government and that they too have the ability to give of themselves. Imagine the impact on social justice that would have.

Over the last 50 years or so, attempts at increasing social justice have been through some form of radical egalitarianism (sometimes referred to as “cultural Leninism”), and have ranged from the ridiculous, like affirmative action, to the frankly bizarre. Earlier this year (2005), a group of (favored minority) parents noticed their San Diego school’s gifted student program contained none of their (favored minority) students, and consequently demanded that the school board end the whole program, claiming that students were being treated unequally based on race. Indeed, one (favored minority) parent even flatly stated, “We believe that the school should not create differences between students who know more and students who know less.” Ignoring the charge of racism, how is society benefited by limiting the achievements of its brightest students? Or even failing to take advantage of their gifts? Is the Gospel being satisfied when a student is artificially limited in the use of his talents? How are the less bright (or their parents) benefited, other than a temporary assuaging of their envy and feelings of inferiority by a sort of “revenge” brought about by their abuse of the franchise?

The more equal individuals become, the more unbearable and unjust seem the remaining differences. Therefore, what started as a demand for basic civil rights (voting, education, etc.) has mutated into a demand to overturn the whole society, along with its traditions and norms, its standards and laws, its history and heroes, since in all these things still not everyone is “equal.”
Man is made in the image and likeness of God. God creates, so man also likes to create. It is a fact that there are people who are more talented, more beautiful, or more intelligent than others. In a free society, their creativeness translates into more income. How to equalize those incomes? Take away freedom by limiting those with more talent, more beauty, or more intelligence because that is a lot easier to do than to increase them in those with less? With that approach, everyone loses. Remember, whenever we try to make people equal, there will always, it seems, be those who demand to be made more equal than others. Even in equality, people want inequality!

We must also be careful to avoid the basic assumption that all the goods of civilization, not only the tangible but also the intangible, such as the institution of marriage, are like rocks or stars – things that will always be there regardless of what we do – and that the only social justice problem is how to distribute them more equally. They will not be.

[To be continued]

Notes:

• Sidebar Question: What is the other lesson?

** Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 1891.

*** Ever wonder why those who argue for higher taxes on the wealthy are themselves wealthy, or why those who support them most are middle class?

**** For the record, almost ALL (96%) of the income taxes are paid by those above the median income level (about $26,000 in 2005).

 

[sedonaman]

There is a difference between social injustice and government intervention on individual freedoms. I meant to use individual freedoms in a constitutional context.

For example: it is a social injustice for people to discriminate against gays and lesbians. However, it is an infringement on individual freedoms when the government makes a law prohibiting them from doing certain actions. It is not unconstitutional for people to discriminate against gays, it is unconstitutional for the government to do so.

This is the same reason that I do not think legalized abortion is not about social justice, it is about the government unconstitutionally intervening into the decisions of women about their bodies. I think abortion is wrong, but I agree that limiting the liberty of women in such a way would be unconstitutional.

An interesting distinction. I would say that government discrimination would be constitutional in any situation in which the government has “a compelling interest”. Also worth noting here is that not all discrimination is bad. My secretary once said, “But that’s discrimination!” to which I responded, "Come the next annual personnel reviews for determining cash bonuses, don’t you want me to discriminate between your excellent performance and another’s not so good performance? “Well … yes,” she said sheepishly.

Re: “it is a social injustice for people to discriminate against gays and lesbians.”
When I chose a person to marry, I eliminated from consideration all other men as possible mates. Was my action a social injustice to them?