Is religious social justice different from secular social justice?

[Galnextdoor]

Someone suggested to me that there was a difference between religious social justice and secular social justice. Religious social justice is philosophical and abstract, pertaining to the soul and human dignity, while secular social justice boils down to free public welfare for the masses. What do you think?

 

[pianistclare]

Social justice is our response to the Gospel message, the Beatitudes, and the teaching of the Church.

Can we really separate that from our spirituality? I don’t think so. Spiritual health is what gives our work purpose and success.

 

[Corki]

Someone suggested to me that there was a difference between religious social justice and secular social justice. Religious social justice is philosophical and abstract, pertaining to the soul and human dignity, while secular social justice boils down to free public welfare for the masses. What do you think?

There is a difference, but I disagree that religious social justice is more abstract. It just has a different set of core principles. Religious social justice has as a first principle the protection of human dignity. Because of that starting point, religious social justice includes things that secular social justice does not. This includes, for example, the rights and care of the unborn, elderly and disabled; the concept of raising people out of poverty rather then simply caring for the poor; meeting spiritual and emotional needs not just physical ones.

When you look at secular approaches, care for human dignity is often seen as a “add on” or optional aspect, rather than a core principle.

 

[commenter]

Someone suggested to me that there was a difference between religious social justice and secular social justice. Religious social justice is philosophical and abstract, pertaining to the soul and human dignity, while secular social justice boils down to free public welfare for the masses. What do you think?

Any “social justice” program is based on some underlying principles about the nature of humanity, marriage, parenthood, and life. The problem with secular social justice is that there are no fixed reference points, so it is what the government says it is, at the moment. So the Nazis had one approach to social justice, the Communists somewhat different, and the French Revolution different still. There is no one fixed reference point, and the government can change its values anytime.

Religious social justice depends on the religion. Islamic social justice is based on the Koran. Catholic social justice agrees with some of Islamic social justice, not others. It is based on subsidiarity; read Pope Francis’ Laudato Si, where he sets the ideal of each family having their own means of self support. Protestant and Jewish social justice is similar to Catholic.

Unlike secular social justice, religious social justice does have fixed reference points. Catholics relied on the Magisterium, Scripture and Tradition, Protestants rely on Scripture or Scripture/Tradition. But in recent years some, especially mainline Protestants, have been bending the Bible to fit their desire to follow the secular culture on things like contraception, abortion, divorce/remarriage, etc. The “Natural Law” was once a fixed reference point at least in Western Civilization for both secularists, and religious people. In 1900 atheists would have been totally opposed to gay marriage, and maybe to contraception and abortion. Today the Natural Law is only followed by religious people, and among them maybe only Catholics, Evangelicals, and Muslims.

 

[laircy]

When I think of secular social justice I think of something completely different and out-there… Have you heard of “social justice warriors”? Extreme radical feminism, outright denial of logical arguments for the supremacy of emotion, shameless hatred against the so-called “privileged” groups, basically endless ad hominem rants. Because it is supposedly social justice to now punish groups who were allegedly historically oppressors. Some are more extreme than others, but even the common less-extreme ones will be the ones complaining about “straight white male privilege” and dismissing their views on that alone. This is all for the cause of “equality,” whatever that is. It’s highly disturbing to say the least. So yes, I do think this social justice is different from the religious idea of social justice.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… What do you think?

I think secular social justice is about death and communism. :sad_yes:

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

“Social Justice” has morphed into so many realms that it has become meaningless…

Secular Social Justice = acceptance of homosexual lifestyle (Gay marriage)

Religious Social Justice = take from one and give to another (Redistribution of wealth)

What is Socail Justice anyway???

 

[Galnextdoor]

“Social Justice” has morphed into so many realms that it has become meaningless…

Secular Social Justice = acceptance of homosexual lifestyle (Gay marriage)

Religious Social Justice = take from one and give to another (Redistribution of wealth)

What is Socail Justice anyway???

Religious social justice does not take from anyone.

Christ encourages people to give. “Whatever you do for the least of thy brethren, that you do unto me.”

The parable of the Good Samaritan speaks to human dignity and stereotyping others.

The bible also says “…if any man will not work, let him not eat.” 2 Thessolonians 3:10

I think the key words here are “will not”.

 

[Galnextdoor]

I have been searching for hours looking for information about religious social justice and secular social justice.

What do you think about this?

secular social justice= public welfare for all= socialism

religious social justice= doing and caring for others from the heart=each working person is treated with human dignity in the workforce, entitled to a fair wage and safe working conditions

I found this article very interesting:

newadvent.org/library/docs_jo23mm.htm

In our culture today, has social justice become a euphemism for socialism?

 

[Galnextdoor]

I have been searching for hours looking for information about religious social justice and secular social justice.

What do you think about this?

secular social justice= public welfare for all= socialism

religious social justice= doing and caring for others from the heart=each working person is treated with human dignity in the workforce, entitled to a fair wage and safe working conditions

I found this article very interesting:

newadvent.org/library/docs_jo23mm.htm

In our culture today, has social justice become a euphemism for socialism?

 

[TK421]

Someone suggested to me that there was a difference between religious social justice and secular social justice. Religious social justice is philosophical and abstract, pertaining to the soul and human dignity, while secular social justice boils down to free public welfare for the masses. What do you think?

When people behave with pride, avarice, lust, wrath, etc., it will have an effect in the temporal world around us. In wars. In poverty. In broken families. In personal loneliness. In many other things. However, in addition to these natural consequences for not conforming to God, there are supernatural consequences as well.

So, all teachings of the Catholic Church concern public welfare (and much more than that).

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Religious social justice does not take from anyone.

Christ encourages people to give. “Whatever you do for the least of thy brethren, that you do unto me.”

The parable of the Good Samaritan speaks to human dignity and stereotyping others.

The bible also says “…if any man will not work, let him not eat.” 2 Thessolonians 3:10

I think the key words here are “will not”.

You are right

Allow me to re-phrase my statement:

Secular Social Justice = acceptance of homosexual lifestyle (Gay marriage) AND socialism

Religious Social Justice = Altruism

 

[Bradski]

secular social justice= public welfare for all= socialism

I think we all have a responsibility to those who are most in need. How we treat them is a reflection of our society. Especially those who have nothing except poverty.

If you want to call that socialism, then go for it.

 

[Genesis315]

There is only one social justice. There are true and false conceptions of it, however. The world often offers a false conception, whereas the Church of Christ offers the true. Social justice and social charity (aka solidarity) go hand in hand and it is often through social charity that social conditions that ensure social justice are brought about, especially through the sharing of spiritual goods.

As for social justice, this is what the Church teaches:

1928 Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation. Social justice is linked to the common good and the exercise of authority.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a3.htm

Of course, to know what a person is due according to his nature, one must understand human nature and dignity, which is why the paragraphs following this one in the CCC focus on that point. In the same section, the CCC then discusse social charity/solidarity and its relationship to social justice. The CCC mentions the tie of social justice to the common good and suffice it to say, the common good includes both the physical and spiritual well being of society.

Anyway, against the Communists, back in 1937, Pope Pius XI gave a nice description of social justice with some practical implications:

51. In reality, besides commutative justice, there is also social justice with its own set obligations, from which neither employers nor workingmen can escape. Now it is of the very essence of social justice to demand for each individual all that is necessary for the common good. But just as in the living organism it is impossible to provide for the good of the whole unless each single part and each individual member is given what it needs for the exercise of its proper functions, so it is impossible to care for the social organism and the good of society as a unit unless each single part and each individual member - that is to say, each individual man in the dignity of his human personality - is supplied with all that is necessary for the exercise of his social functions. If social justice be satisfied, the result will be an intense activity in economic life as a whole, pursued in tranquillity and order. This activity will be proof of the health of the social body, just as the health of the human body is recognized in the undisturbed regularity and perfect efficiency of the whole organism.

1. But social justice cannot be said to have been satisfied as long as workingmen are denied a salary that will enable them to secure proper sustenance for themselves and for their families; as long as they are denied the opportunity of acquiring a modest fortune and forestalling the plague of universal pauperism; as long as they cannot make suitable provision through public or private insurance for old age, for periods of illness and unemployment. In a word, to repeat what has been said in Our Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno: “Then only will the economic and social order be soundly established and attain its ends, when it offers, to all and to each, all those goods which the wealth and resources of nature, technical science and the corporate organization of social affairs can give. These goods should be sufficient to supply all necessities and reasonable comforts, and to uplift men to that higher standard of life which, provided it be used with prudence, is not only not a hindrance but is of singular help to virtue.”[37]

w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19031937_divini-redemptoris.html

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I think we all have a responsibility to those who are most in need. How we treat them is a reflection of our society. Especially those who have nothing except poverty.

If you want to call that socialism, then go for it.

Agree totally.

 

[JerryZ]

There is a huge difference.

Religious Social Justice is derived from the teaching of Jesus.
“Whatever YOU do for the least of these YOU do to ME”

Secular “social justice” is a program to take from everybody a portion of your yearly income and “redistribute” it to the most needy people of society. However the problem is that a large portion of the income remains to pay the salaries of those that administer the program (bureaucracy). These are non productive people who leach out of society their income.

In countries like Europe they make up a sizeable portion of the labour force and they are a drag on the economies of their respective countries.

By the way the model of the “secular social justice” can be found in Israel. The Levites became precisely that. They had 10% of the income of the country and were supposed to help the poor and destitute. It seems that it did not work out too well for them.

…

 

[ComplineSanFran]

One of the church’s great women was Dorothy Day. Her Catholic Worker movement was, for me, the epitome of social justice within a religious context.

catholicworker.org/forest-history.html

Does anyone know the status of her canonization?

 

[Galnextdoor]

I think we all have a responsibility to those who are most in need. How we treat them is a reflection of our society. Especially those who have nothing except poverty.

If you want to call that socialism, then go for it.

We do have a responsibility to those who are most in need. That’s why I donate and volunteer at a food pantry. How we treat people in need should be a reflection of our soul.

Christ told us we should give. He told us we should love our neighbors, like we love ourselves. It is a choice we are supposed to make from our own freewill.

If the government takes money from you to give to those who they deem are needy, that is not Christian charity, that is socialism. You are not giving; you are being taken from.

In our country, the government gives grants (tax payers dollars) to organizations that are supposed to be assisting the needy. One of these nation wide organizations is nothing but a voting coalition. I worked at a place where people were registered to vote and voted. The organization would bring in homeless people in school type buses and promise them a cheeseburger if they registered to vote. They would bring them back at voting time with a promise of a cheeseburger if they voted. Many of these homeless people could not read and were told who they were supposed to vote for as they came through the door.

This is the problem with the government deciding who receives help.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

We do have a responsibility to those who are most in need. That’s why I donate and volunteer at a food pantry. How we treat people in need should be a reflection of our soul.

Christ told us we should give. He told us we should love our neighbors, like we love ourselves. It is a choice we are supposed to make from our own freewill.

If the government takes money from you to give to those who they deem are needy, that is not Christian charity, that is socialism. You are not giving; you are being taken from.

In our country, the government gives grants (tax payers dollars) to organizations that are supposed to be assisting the needy. One of these nation wide organizations is nothing but a voting coalition. I worked at a place where people were registered to vote and voted. The organization would bring in homeless people in school type buses and promise them a cheeseburger if they registered to vote. They would bring them back at voting time with a promise of a cheeseburger if they voted. Many of these homeless people could not read and were told who they were supposed to vote for as they came through the door.

This is the problem with the government deciding who receives help.

 

[Bradski]

This is the problem with the government deciding who receives help.

Are you saying that there should be no government welfare at all? And please bear in mind I am nor asking for your opinion on the best way to overcome societies problems. I am not asking you to give any suggestions as to what should replace what is currently in place. We all have ideas on the best way to run things. And let’s face it, I’ll bet you’ll jhave some good ideas.,

But in the world that we have right now, with society as it is right now, with people in the situation that we have right now, do you think that welfare should be immediately stopped?

On the assumption that the answer is ‘no’ (I can’t believe that you’d say yes), then what you are agreeing to is a continuation of what you call socialism until such time as we can make changes to society when welfare is not required.

Would that be reasonable?