Reaching tentacles of the Social Justice movement

[kindofbelieve]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

It's not stealing if it's a Democracy. An unpopular policy can be appealed. An unpopular idea can be vetoed by those representatives you and I voted for. Is it truly "stealing?"

I don't care what the "popular" vote is, if I don't want to pay for an idea and the money is taken from me using force (through threat of assault or kidnapping) then it is theft. So, since I don't agree with the popular social justice.. then the stripping of my money from my possession without my consent is stealing.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by vrblackwell

That is a gross misapplication of scripture. Nowhere in those verses do I find Jesus saying that we should steal from those who have worked hard to support the lazy and irresponsible.

Of course we are to show charity to the elderly, the weak, the handicapped, and even those are are simply going through hard times. But know where in scripture will you find that we should support those who are lazy and those who have been irresponsible.

In Matthew 25 Jesus gave talents to three different men, and by liberal standards he was not fair about it. He gave some more then the others. He ended up taking the one from the irresponsible man and gave it to the responsible man. Mean old Jesus left that man with nothing.

And you will never find in scripture Jesus supporting anyone being forced to be charitable. That would be stealing.

The term "social justice" has taken on a new meaning than what it once had. The liberal democrats have stolen the term and now it simply means stealing from those who have worked hard and give it to the lazy and irresponsible so they will show up on election day and vote for them.

This is destroying America and creating a country of lazy idiots who thinks the party will last forever. However, we are now getting to a point to where the lazy and unproductive are becoming more in number then the hard working. 45% of Americans now depend on some kind of support from the government. This country is on a quick path to destruction and it seems as though people are to stupid to recognize what the problem is.

But know where in scripture will you find that we should support those who are lazy and those who have been irresponsible.

It always amazes me that this is how some, who are apparently far-removed from the situation, view those who are recipients of charity. You've bought the lie and drank the kool-aid that poverty is only a surface-level epidemuc, that all homeless people are drunks (because those are the obvious ones you see in public), that all families needing assistance are lazy bums, etc.... Please, study poverty. I urge. I plead with you. Take a social science class on it. I really think you'll at least reconsider your perspectives.

And you will never find in scripture Jesus supporting anyone being forced to be charitable. That would be stealing.

Matthew 25:31-46
It's certainly not a proof-text for how a government should work, but most definitely an implied command that we can harmonize with many of his other teachings, as well as the attitude of GOD in the OT stories.

Roll up your sleeves and get involved in the slums of your neighborhoods. Your perspective of lazy, unproductive bums will probably change and your heart will break for the things that break God's heart.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by kindofbelieve

I don't care what the "popular" vote is, if I don't want to pay for an idea and the money is taken from me using force (through threat of assault or kidnapping) then it is theft. So, since I don't agree with the popular social justice.. then the stripping of my money from my possession without my consent is stealing.

It's not stealing. You must define stealing.

If you don't like the Democracy you live in, maybe you should consider living on a remote island with a better system of government.

In the meantime, if you don't like the policy of taxation for social programs, then vote for you guy. There's an endless supply of candidates.

As far as "assault" and "kidnapping" what are you referring to?

Using your logic, I shouldn't have to pay any taxes, despite living in a representative government. I can find countless issues I don't agree with to justify such action. Let's see that meet the Romans 13 criteria though.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I'm not sure how you equate all those who promote social justice as socialists. Seems to be a great leap of logic, coadie.

It really isn't When we read the books from the socialists over time. It is very obvious.
There are long lists of authors on these topics. Take some classes in sociology and watch how the people are set up and shaped in their thing over time.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

It's not stealing. You must define stealing.

If you don't like the Democracy you live in, maybe you should consider living on a remote island with a better system of government.
In the meantime, if you don't like the policy of taxation for social programs, then vote for you guy. There's an endless supply of candidates.

As far as "assault" and "kidnapping" what are you referring to?

Using your logic, I shouldn't have to pay any taxes, despite living in a representative government. I can find countless issues I don't agree with to justify such action. Let's see that meet the Romans 13 criteria though.

How do you define stealing?

I take it you are not an accountant.


Unjust enrichment.
one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another

west law

Gain or benefit that is the result of another's efforts or acts but for which that other has received no compensation, and for which the one receiving the benefit has not paid. A person who is deemed by law to have been unjustly enriched at the expense of another is required to make restitution to the other.

we are not in a true democracy.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by kindofbelieve

I don't care what the "popular" vote is, if I don't want to pay for an idea and the money is taken from me using force (through threat of assault or kidnapping) then it is theft. So, since I don't agree with the popular social justice.. then the stripping of my money from my possession without my consent is stealing.

Socialists have a different starting point. They think the authority of use and application of assets and money is vested in the society. The decisions on the use iof money and assets is not under the authority of the "owner".
Social justice means catching up for previous shortcomings in equal distribution of money.

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

I mostly agree.

However, we are no longer a communal society where we take care of our own. We are a world of cities, a world of corporations and profits. If completely unchecked, the powerful can dominate and oppress the powerless. Speaking for justice on a governmental level doesn't mean once must support policies that don't make sense or that turn charity into an obligatory matter (though the Bible certainly had obligatory governmental measures to care for the poor). It does mean to be a voice of justice on each issue, no matter the political grandstanding behind the issues.

Well, yes, I suppose that could happen and probably needs to in the environment we are in today (meaning big government). But, I think we are no longer a communal society because of this. Which came first the chicken or the egg and would people be more communal with less government?

[ILG]

Originally Posted by Maximilian

It always amazes me that this is how some, who are apparently far-removed from the situation, view those who are recipients of charity. You've bought the lie and drank the kool-aid that poverty is only a surface-level epidemuc, that all homeless people are drunks (because those are the obvious ones you see in public), that all families needing assistance are lazy bums, etc.... Please, study poverty. I urge. I plead with you. Take a social science class on it. I really think you'll at least reconsider your perspectives.
.

Very good point.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by coadie

It really isn't When we read the books from the socialists over time. It is very obvious.
There are long lists of authors on these topics. Take some classes in sociology and watch how the people are set up and shaped in their thing over time.

Uh... I've taken classes in sociology

Everything you said here reinforces the "leap in logic" factor

Socialism is an extreme. It also is an idea of how government should work. It's amoral in theory. It's amazing to me how we view it as evil. Communism, the logical governing-next step carries with it more reason to be skeptical of its moral value as a system of government. While I think Socialism is a faulty method of governing and can even prove disasterous, neither do I believe it's evil as an idea. Would you befriend a brother who believed in the Socialistic model of government, Coadie?

Back to the point, connecting social justice to communism is indeed a drastic leap in logic, and very much unfounded.

[Maximilian]

Originally Posted by coadie

How do you define stealing?

I take it you are not an accountant.


Unjust enrichment.
one party is unjustly enriched at the expense of another

west law


we are not in a true democracy.

It's a REPRESENTATIVE government, Coadie.
You have to work with what you have, work to create new Constitution or decide if you still want to live here. I'd hate to see you suffer the agony of living in a system that causes you such pain.