Beck: Social justice "is a perversion of the Gospel," "not what Jesus was saying"
March 11, 2010 10:41 am ET
From the March 11 edition of The Glenn Beck Program:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
I recall something about moneylenders getting chucked out of the temple as well.
~
Please explain. How does the sermon on the mount call Beck a liar? The sermon on the mount refers to the blessings in the afterlife, it doesn't say anytihng about social justice.
Do you know what social justice is?
Get a clue people, quit bashing people and posting scriptures that have nothing to do with social justice. GET A CLUE, I didn't realize ignorance was a admirable quality on the left.
Furthermore, Luke's sequel, the Acts of the Apostles, describes how those individuals who followed Jesus during his life pooled their resources so that each could take according to his or her needs. Sounds like Peter, John, and other first generation Christians valued Social Justice very highly.
Even I, an atheist, know First and Second Century promoted giving to a degree unthinkable to wealthy modern Christians who constantly whine about their tax money being used to educate or feed poor children.
Why am I not surprised that a disproportionate number of modern philanthropists are non-Christians?
"...his condemnation of the selfish rich..."
"...his disdain of the wealthy for their maltreatment of beggars, prisoners, and other lacking resources..."
The selfish rich, and the wealthy who mistreated, both are condemnations of selfishness and mistreatment of others. It is not however a condemnation of wealth.
I couldn't find where the Apostles were asked to pool their resources in the Acts. Please post a reference.
Even so, pooling resources in a small group to spread the gospel is a far stretchh to suggest that jesus taught the idea of economic (to make sure we aren't confusing terms) social justice.
"Why am I not surprised that a disproportionate number of modern philanthropists are non-Christians? "
I'd like to know what study or research you are referring to?
That's what it means, to YOU. However, that's not what HE meant in that passage. Christ taught that WE, as individuals, are to have that concern = NOT that we were to use the GOVERNMENT to force it. He NEVER taught 'social justice' in the sense that the Romans should be forced to provide for the needs of the people.
.
And Beck is saying, in effect, if your church leaders are calling you to LET GOVERNMENT have excessive control over society, they are NOT preaching the Gospel. And if they are not preaching the Gospel, why are you - as a Christian - supporting them by your attendance?
Neither Beck nor any of his supporters are saying we should not, as individuals or congregations, have a concern for the poor and needy. His point is that the Founders, in writing the Constitution, never envisioned that role as belonging to the Federal Government.
Yep; and they were charging exorbitant fees for processing the exchange ... and THAT was why Christ called them 'thieves'.
If you understand at all the Gospel then you would understand that the distibution of resources by a central organization whether just or not is not a tenet of Christianity.
If you think that Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple because they were rich, or because they were making money, then you don't understand the scriptures. He removed them because they were in a sacred place, he didn't rebuke their business, he rebuked the location they practiced their business and their decision to do business in the house of God.
Jesus was not a marxist, he didn't advocate giving to the poor to equalize status, he advocated giving to the poor to promote fraternal love of individuals one for another. In fact when the poor window women gave her last pence, he didn't suggest she keep it in an attempt to equalize her station, he in fact lauded her, and said how much more her offering was because she gave everything she had to give, her offering was more than the rich men who gave 1000 times her offering.
The gospel doesn't promote status equality through central resource distribution. What it does promote is individual desicion to help his neighbor, it does promote the fraternal love created when charitable acts are performed for another human being. Jesus taught that Charity was the greatest gift a person could have, the ability to give without expectation of recompence. Jesus, the gospel teaches, unfortunetly most people never learn, that charity creates a bond of love between the parties, and no amount of central resource distribution can create those bonds.
Jesus came to cleanse the temple, Jesus called it a place of prayer, something he considered quite sacred. Jesus brought a change in how the temple would operate, blood sacrifices were no longer necessary. He literally came to cleanse the temple, but it had nothing to do with Jesus damning the rich, or calling for them to give part with their riches as some (ifthethunderdontgetya) suggested above.
No one belives in "equal" distribution. This is one of the right's greatest straw men - set up to be knocked down whenever it seems convenient.
The green party, is very much representative of the progressivism, especially in regards to wealth distribution. I don't remeber alluding to liberals...I looked through my posts and didn't see it, maybe I missed it. I did say marxists, which would certainly refer to equality status, especially refering to societal classes. Which is what i was referring to. :)
If it wasn't a distortion, please explain why you did it? Was it a joke? Was it a play on words, and innocent accident? Or was it a blatent attempt to discredit my arguement through distortion? I doubt you'll answer, but I'd like to know why.
"That is wrong for any society morally and politically."
Your words. I'd like to know what is wrong about someone having more money than another person. What is the issue of morality here? You never explained what moral or political issue being rich offends.
"Call it what you like but people won't sit by while Goldman Sach executives eat and shield themselves off behind gated communities while poverty increases. "
If what you ar saying is correct, the rich has [sic] the power, and run society for their benefit, won't they continue to shield themselves in their gated communities? What can you do about it? What will you do about it?
"... The progressive movement has always been apart of social justice, in the early 1900's it was "Equality" of gender, women's rights. Mid-century it was equality of race, the civil rights movement. Now, it includes "equality" of economy, the equalization of wealth..."---popprox
Those are your words right? Not to say how wrong your summarization of the movements were. Equality of gender was not to say that women were the same as men, viva the difference, what was being fought for and won by the progressives was that in this society women should have the same rights and protections as men under the law. The right to vote being one of them. The same goes for civil rights, equal opportunity and protection under the law,no where saying people are the same and should have the same outcomes. That is the distortion you make in order to argue that social justice is about making everyone equal economically. That is pure hogwash. Social justice is about leveling the playing field. I don't know why I have ot keep repeating to you that 1% of the population controls more wealth than the combined wealth of 95$% of the people in this nation. Unless you are saying that 95% of the people are lazy and underservsing why is there such discrepancy? If society is skewered toward the bottom 95% why wouldn't they control more of the wealth and run society in a more equitable way? The fact of the matter is they don't have control and society is not catering to them by robbing the rich just the opposite is true. If you can't see the immorality of poverty increasing while 1-2% of the population get wealthier then nothing I can say or do would convince you. And as far as what I will,am doing about it , I'll just say working,writing,talking ,organizing on behalf of those who have been left behind by this society trying to do my part to make this world abetter place than when I got here,I see this as my duty ,my responsibilty to my family and society. No man is an island.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I specified women's RIGHTS and minority RIGHTS. I didn't suggest that men and women should be the same in any other way. You are creating contention on a point I never made. That is distortion.
"...no where saying people are the same and should have the same outcomes."
I didn't define Social Justice. I let a progressive movement do that for me. I didn't change the definition of social justice, I've been arguing the same definition Beck referred to since the beginning. I defined it in my very first post. Social Justice as discussed in this thread is equality of outcome. Consider healthcare again, takig from the rich, and giving to the poor so that everyone has healthcare. That is equality of outcome, not opportunity.
If you define social justice as equal rights and protection under law (your words) then please tell me what rights rich people have that poor people don't. What ammendment do we need to change or add to "equalize the playing field." Where in the constitution does it enumerate the rights of the wealthy? What protections do the rich have that poor people don't have?
"I don't know why I have ot keep repeating to you that 1% of the population controls more wealth than the combined wealth of 95$% of the people in this nation."
I don't know why you keep repeating it either. The fact that there is a disparity doesn't mean that social justice is the only option to remediate the issue. The fact that there is a disparity does not conclude that Jesus taught about social Justice in the bible. So, I don't know why you continue to repeat it either. Just because there is a disparity doesn't conclude that rich people are bad and poor people are good. I really don't know why you keep repeating it either.
"Unless you are saying that 95% of the people are lazy and underservsing..."
You know I didn't say that, so your intonation that I assume that is the issue is completely false.
"...why is there such discrepancy?"
Greed, government failure, over regulation, under regulation..there a multitude of reasons.
"The fact of the matter is they don't have control and society is not catering to them by robbing the rich just the opposite is true.?"
First, I never said it was, *skewed toward the poor. If I did please remind me. Why should society cater to the rich or the poor? Shouldn't it be an equal playing field?
"If you can't see the immorality of poverty increasing while 1-2% of the population get wealthier then nothing I can say or do would convince you."
Your original post was
"The top 1% is controlling the wealth and has the power to run society for it's benefit. That is wrong for any society morally and politically."
My question about morality referred to this post, not your second post. They are completely different. Your second post suggests the wealthy are getting wealthier at the expense of the poor, your first post suggested it was merely immoral to control wealth.
Stick to the arguement.
"I'll just say working,writing,talking ,organizing on behalf of those who have been left behind..." But isn't it pointless if the wealthy control all the power,(your words) and move society in a way that benefits them? Shouldn't you do something more, surely writing and talking won't make them give up their power?
You are right on--refreshing to see a post from someone who obviously reads and understands scripture--forced "charity" cheapens the one forced and corrupts the receipient of anothers labor while empowering the mugger who purchased power from the indolent.--thanks for the comment
If you see my previous post, you'll see that Beck isn't off. Christianity and how it deals with poverty was never meant or taught as a means of class equalization. It was never meant to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor by resource distribution. Jesus was an idividualist, he believed that the way was indeed more important than the outcome. Jesus didn't ask the rich yound ruler to give up most of what he owned, in order that other people could enjoy the luxuries he had. Jesus ask the rich you man to give everything and follow him, it add nothing to do with class stratification, or ending poverty.
If a minister or preacher teaches social or economic justice to his congregation and claims to teach the word of god, he misunderstands one the other or both. Beck was absolutely correct, Christianity as it is found in the bible does not promote social or economic justice.
No one wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor. We DO want to stop the rich from hoarding all the resources at the top. The last time we had a distribution of wealth similar to today's was in 1929. That worked out so well the first time, we thought we'd try it again? Or did people just forget? Either way, those at the top who are taking more and more will find out one way or another and probably pretty soon, that that is not a sustainable situation.
You see, if the economy collapses, it hurts them too. You'd think they would do the right thing out of self-preservation, but I guess greed even trumps that.
"No one wants to steal from the rich and give to the poor." What do you think economic justice is, take from the haves and give to the have nots. Do you understand a progressive tax? Those with more, pay more. Jesus never taught that is what we should do, and Beck said to be wary of that being taught in churches. That is exactly what this thread is about.
The idea that because Christ did not address equality of opportunity v. equality of outcome specifically means that it shouldn't be addressed is not a very strong argument since Christ could never have possibly addressed every societal problem. He gave us principles, or an outline of how to behave. How to fill in the blanks is up to us, using the guiding principles he gave us.
The idea That Christian principles, such as giving to the poor, should not apply to government action, goes against the principles of political theory. Yes, we can argue Machiavelli v. St. Augustine and if the government should incorporate Christian principles into its decisions, like war, and there are problems reconciling the defense of a state and or war with Christianity. But the fact that we can't reconcile Christianity in some aspects of Government, like War or Crime and Punishment, doesn't mean we should abandon Christian principles in politics. This nation was founded on Christian principles.
Poproxx77 claims that because Jesus was addressing personal behavior, that it is a personal choice to give to the poor, and thus government should not give to the poor. Jesus teaches you will GO TO HELL if you do not follow his teachings. Jesus was not offering a real choice (economics claims we always have a choice but going to hell was never presented or meant to be a choice), since people at that time believed this life was unimportant compared to the afterlife, and further that people had a life expectancy of less than 45.
Poproxx, you say we do not all understand what scripture means. Please educate us, you have yet to give any teachings of Jesus. Telling someone they are wrong is meaningless if you don't explain why.
Luke 20:22, 24 Is it right for us to pay taxes to Caesar or not?" He said to them, "[G]ive to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
Luke 12:48 For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.
Matthew 25:34. "Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.
35. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,
36. I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'
37. "Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink?
38. When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you?
39. When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'
40. "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'
41. "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
42. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink,
43. I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'
44. "They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'
45. "He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'
Luke 18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
Hmmm, sounds like a progressive tax and social justice to me.
What sounds like a progressive tax? I'm not seeing it. You'll have to explain.
What sounds like social justice? I'm not seeing it, you'll have to explain.
Part of the reason behind posting is to give reasoning to why you are posting. If you don't give reasoning, then I don't know what point you are trying to make. I can read the scriptures, but obviously we see them differently, so you need to put reasoning behind the posting of them. Otherwise, it is fairly pointless.
DO YOU HEAR ME MMFA? PUT REASONING BEHIND YOUR POSTS. IF YOU DON"T HAVE REASONING I WILL CONSIDER YOU UNREASONABLE. :) Unless you are just making smart ass remarks, then if I think they are funny I'll laugh.
ââ¬â ââ¬ÅGlenn Beckââ¬â¢s desire to detach social justice from the Gospel is a move to detach care for the poor from the Gospel. But a church without the poor, and a church without a desire for a just social world for all, is not the church. At least not the church of Jesus Christ. Who was, by the way, poor.ââ¬Â ââ¬â Rev. James Martin, an editor at the Jesuit magazine America
You quoted many scriptures applicable to idividual conduct exampled of a spirit led person filled with the love of God: but forced giving is used by scoundrals to gain power over others---give me an example of any Nation, Goverment of men that succeded with such a system---The individual giving from his OWN resources controls his destiny and attains the serenity of mind only given to those who cheerfully give---FORCED charity produces only resentment and anger-- only a self-agrandizing fool believes he knows what is and is not "Equitable"
Wrong, Jesus did not teach about those thing because they were not part of his message. If in fact he was the Son of God, and the Saviour of the world, then he had an infinite understanding of both the past, present, and future. The absence of Jesus' discourse on tax procedure was not due to lack of understanding or awareness.
"...that it shouldn't be addressed is not a very strong argument..."
You obviously suffer from MMFA syndrome. Your attempt to twist my arguement into something I never argued is endemic here. I in fact, preempted your arguement, I claimed the principles Jesus taught were in opposition to social justice. Jesus advocated individual charity, and the fraternal respect it promotes. He advocated poverty when it promoted humility, such is the story of the rich young ruler. He decried the rich for being prideful, not for being rich. He was not concerned about social justice, or economic unity, and when a person who professes to teach the words of God proclaims Jesus was an advocate of social justice they are mistaken. He never, not once, promoted the idea that men (in the general sense) were entitled to economic equility. But nowhere in my arguement did I claim that; "because jesus didn't talk specifically about equality or inequality of oppotunity, it should be discussed." If I did please show me where. I and Beck both warn people that Jesus never taught it, principles or specifics, and if a minister or preacher claims he did, you should find a new church because that man is not teaching the principles of Jesus Christ.
"The idea That Christian principles, such as giving to the poor, should not apply to government action,..."
More twisting. I never alluded, or insinuated that "...we should abandon Christian principles in politics." This is a common tactic here in fantasy land, if you can't argue the points a person makes, make-up arguements for them. Nice try. If you can, show me where i argued for the abandonment of christian values in politics, or where I claimed this country wasn't founded on christian principles. (There is an arguement to be made for that. But that is beside the point though.)
I did argue that social justice was not taught by Jesus. If ministers who supposedly teach the word of god claim that it was a teaching of Jesus, they are wrong. That was my claim. I also argued that economic leveling of social justice dillutes the reason Jesus asked us to be charitable. Jesus taught charity was much more individual, and was done to promote humulity, thankfulness, and love. So my arguement wasn't that christian values don't have a place in government, but social justice doesn't have a place in government because it dilutes christian principles and the purposes for helping the needy.
"Poproxx77 claims that because Jesus was addressing personal behavior,..."
When did Jesus address a nation and how it should function? Jesus taught how individuals should act, Jesus did not concern himself with the rule of nations. If he did please expound.
Again twisting my words, I never said the Government should not give to the poor. If I did please tell me where. (Since I know you can't, I'll continue.) What I did suggest is that social justice should not be the modicum the government uses to deal with poverty. Thanks though.
"Jesus was not offering a real choice...."
Ummm....I'm not sure how you don't see this as a choice. He did command us to follow his teachings, but he didn't force you to. You still have agency, the ability to choose whether you will follow them or not. If you do its your choice, if you don't, its your choice. If you do you go to heaven, if you don't you go to hell. How is that no a choice??? That seems like a real, clear, concise choice.
There is you education for the day. I explained why before and now, thats why I said they (and you) were wrong in their (and your) interpretation.
Jesus may have known the future, but the people he was teaching certainly didn't and they would not have understood some of the economic concepts (or just teh economic vocabulary) we are talking about - things are much different now.
I'm talking about concepts like the Gini coefficient and quantified statistics about what percentage of the nations wealth is held by what percentage of the population.
I stumbled across this old article recently.
But really, if you are so unfamiliar with economics that you don't recognize the term Distribution of Income, I'm not sure I can bring you up to speed in this forum.
Then why are you posting here? That is what this entire thread is about. SOCIAL JUSTICE. Which is a mechanism for wealth/resource distribution.
Fact: You said, "We DO want to stop the rich from hoarding all the resources at the top." How does this not refer to "the manner or mechanisms by which wealth is distributed." The Gini coefficient can't stop the rich from getting richer. You can't stop "the rich" without implementing a mechanism to do it. Social Justice, the equitable distribution of social and economic resources. The Mechanism.
Perhaps you'll excuse my confusion.
Still, it begs the question, why are you posting here?
Krugman's article is interesting, and I really enjoy his work, but I'm failing to make the connection between Beck's comments on Social Justice being taught as a priciple of the christianity and your dismay at the wealth gap.
You'll have to explain.
Let me put it this way - if ALL people, including the very rich, acted from a sense of personal responsibility to promote a just society, we wouldn't need government. But as long as we live in a culture where greed reigns supreme, we need a government to protect 80% of the population from the 20% who control more than 90% of the wealth in the nation.
Did I show some lack of comprehension? You posted a link to an article with no reasoning for posting it. It was only losely realted to the topic, so I had to question why you posted it. After questioning your reasoning, you claimed it was my lack of understanding that kept you from explaining it. Do you see the problem here? Your lack of clairty does not result in my in ability to understand.
I'm asking for your clarification.
"...as long as we live in a culture where greed reigns supreme, we need a government to protect 80% of the population from the 20% who control more than 90% of the wealth in the nation."
So you are suggesting that greed is our dominant cultural motivator. The acquisition of wealth is not the primary motivation in my life, and even if it was, wouldn't you say that the problem is with our culture then, and not with economic structure. Whether under the guise of capitalism or socialism if a culture of greed prevails economic equitability is impossible. Greedy people can corrupt a socialist government as easily as a captalist government.
Here is what I suggest:
This country is not primarily motivated by greed. Most people consider money a means to an end, and not the end itself. (Which would be greed.) I would contend that most people think they have the best perspective on their lives. That they are able to make the best decisions for themselves. I would contend that self determination is much more motivating than greed in the american culture.
I think that given the opportunity most people make good decisions, and make the best decisions for themselves and their families. Obviously there are exceptions. Social Justice, in the economic sense, which I, and Glen Beck have both been referring to, removes that self=determination, it gives the state teh right to distribute resources and services as it sees fit. I suppose if you trust your government to be just, and fair, and without bias it could work. Do you trust our government in such a way, what if Bush, or Obama, Jesse Jackson, or Reagan were in charge? What if our current senate were in charge of determining what was just and fair, would you trust them? I wouldn't. I couldn't.
I think government is here to protect us from those exceptions, those people who don't make the best decisions. I think that if you allow people to dertermine their own lives they will be happier, and they make the best decisions for themselves.
But, like I said, I don't share the same view of people as you do. Perhaps if I saw our society as a greed motivated society, I would want a government that would force equality on everyone. But like I said, wouldn't you think there is a problem with our culture rather than our government in such a case.
You only object to those who rightly call for a more fair disribution of wealth created by the labor of the majority while ignoring the gross accumulation of wealth at the top. Such a lopsided situation is not good for any society, and I would even argue robs those who continue towork hard and play by the rules only to watch their actions continue to mire them in debt and poverty. Redistribution is taking place but it's to an increasingly few.
How many yachts do you need? How many limos or private jets do you need? If you haven't noticed it is the poor that are suffereing and powerless. No one is calling for everyone to have the same,that is ridiculous and a distortion of what people are saying,but when wealth disparity is so great that only a tiny fraction can enjoy the life at the expense of the many things have got to change.
I appreciate your comments but no apology is necessary and will concede that anyone who can say they were wrong has a bigger heart than I thought. I'll remember that! Peace!
You contend that the problem with my definition is that it relies on the idea that social justice would be taking from the rich to give to the poor. Which is exactly right. Because if you were to give to the poor a greater share of the wealth, you would have to take from the greater share, which is held by the rich. So you would be taking from the rich, and giving to the poor. My definition stands. Resources are finite, so in order to equalize the distribution of resources, one party will lose resources while the other gains.
Healthcare is a great example. Tax those making more than $250,000 a year to pay the cost of a finite service, so those otherwise unable to use the resource can use it. Taking from the rich, and giving to the poor. My...our...definition of social justice.
"You only object to those who rightly call for a more fair disribution of wealth created by the labor of the majority while ignoring the gross accumulation of wealth at the top."
This is not what I object to. This is not social justice. I never objected to fair distribution of wealth created by labor, or ignored the accumulation of wealth at the top. This is the first time the issue has been raised. I think everyone should be justly compensated for their labor, and I don't think anyone should accumulate wealth at the expense of others. I've never argued otherwise.
Social Justice does no distribute resources based on compensation for labor. Social justice provides the means to distribute resources based on fairness. That means government dispersal of resources based on a hierachy of need. (perceived need) Social Justice requires you to trust that the government will distribute resources in an equitable manner. I disagree that that is the best way.
I do think that people should be justly compensated for their labor. That will obviously lead to a disparity in wealth, because some labor is more valuable than other. But I don't contend that wealth disparity is necessarily bad either. Doing so would presupose that being wealthy was also bad. Which I don't think it is, else why not everyone be poor? I do believe it is possible to reduce the disparity between the rich and the poor, without social justice. Unions would be one example, not organized labor unions like you see today, but localized, non=permanent, unions. (Completely other subject.)
"No one is calling for everyone to have the same,that is ridiculous and a distortion of what people are saying,but when wealth disparity is so great that only a tiny fraction can enjoy the life at the expense of the many things have got to change. "
Social justice has always called for everyone to have the same. it is not a distortion, or ridiculous. I'll refer to women and minority rights. Social justice in those cases was calling for everyone to have the same. Social justice in an economic sense, is also calling for everyone to have the same. Healthcare for example, everyone will have it, everyone will be covered, everyone will be the same. It is the primary idea behind social justice, equality.
I do agree, there are things that need to change. I do not think economic equality through social justice is the way though. Back on point, neither would Jesus, who never consider wealth a sin.
At any rate:
Social Justice:
1. the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society
2. social justice is concerned with equal justice, not just in the courts, but in all aspects of society. This concept demands that people have equal rights and opportunities; everyone, from the poorest person on the margins of society to the wealthiest deserves an even playing field.
"It's easier for a poor child to make it into the upper-middle class in just about every other advanced country â including famously class-conscious Britain â than it is in the United States."
People like you, in my experience, like to say things like, "Everyone can make it if they just work hard." but that isn't actually true.
Yes.
I agree. Any system is easily corrupted by greed. That why government is so important. Government should exist to help protect the less powerful from the powerful and to promote an equitable economy. We have been lacking in that for a few decades now and we are reaping what we have sown.
That is a strawman argument. You speak as if taxing people who make billions of dollars at a high rate and using the money to help create jobs for others, provide health care for everyone, and just help create a stable nation in general is suddenly going to mean that Bill Gates won't be allowed to play bridge anymore. People would still be free to make their own life decisions, the only difference would be that there would be enough jobs for everyone who wants or needs one to have one - unlike the current situation where there is one job for every six applicants.
It does nothing of the sort. Again, we are not talking about simply taking all the money and doling it out EQUALLY. Economically, we are talking about promoting a society where everyone can earn a livable wage.
Again, learn the difference between equal and equitable.
And yes, I do think the problem is cultural. That does not mean there is nothing the government can do to alleviate some of the negative effects of that culture.
The only people I know who knowingly took advantage of the poor are either in jail, in washington, or recieved federal bailout money. :) Funny how the gevernment works.
Why do you people attempt to distort what i say so often, its obscene. If you can't make a valid arguement, you should probably not post.
"So Jesus said if you want to be damned, don't help the poor,..."
Please show me one place I said or implied this. If not, I'll ask you respectfully to please apologize for being rude and distorting my comments. That goes for anyone who gave this post a thumbs up. Support of a fool is as bad as being one.
"If you are wealthy enough, you can change laws, that's what power is and those laws allow the rich to keep their wealth."
If you have a problem with how the legislative process works in the country you should address that. That however is not the point of this thread, and I certainly never suggested it was. Ramble on.
However, a consumption tax is based on that premise. I like it. Good idea.
And might I just point out:
My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.
Matthew 21:12-13
That calling people THIEVES seems to imply that he thinks they are not all that good.
"That calling people THIEVES seems to imply that he thinks they are not all that good."
You are so far behind. Matt 21:12-13 doesn't not mean what you think it means. I explained above.
One liners. No explanation, or reason.
Just meaningless nonsense.
TROLL ALERT
TROLL.
Call it BS, but you can't refute it.
That means you are a TROLL.
â âGlenn Beckâs desire to detach social justice from the Gospel is a move to detach care for the poor from the Gospel. But a church without the poor, and a church without a desire for a just social world for all, is not the church. At least not the church of Jesus Christ. Who was, by the way, poor.â â Rev. James Martin, an editor at the Jesuit magazine America
This from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNION
ARTICLE 3
SOCIAL JUSTICE
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.
I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON
1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:
What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35
1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims.
1934 Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity.
1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:
Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.40
1936 On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth.41 The "talents" are not distributed equally.42
1937 These differences belong to God's plan, who wills that each receive what he needs from others, and that those endowed with particular "talents" share the benefits with those who need them. These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods; they foster the mutual enrichment of cultures:
I distribute the virtues quite diversely; I do not give all of them to each person, but some to one, some to others. . . . I shall give principally charity to one; justice to another; humility to this one, a living faith to that one. . . . And so I have given many gifts and graces, both spiritual and temporal, with such diversity that I have not given everything to one single person, so that you may be constrained to practice charity towards one another. . . . I have willed that one should need another and that all should be my ministers in distributing the graces and gifts they have received from me.43
1938 There exist also sinful inequalities that affect millions of men and women. These are in open contradiction of the Gospel:
Their equal dignity as persons demands that we strive for fairer and more humane conditions. Excessive economic and social disparity between individuals and peoples of the one human race is a source of scandal and militates against social justice, equity, human dignity, as well as social and international peace.44
Is English your first language?
thief
⢠noun (pl. thieves) a person who steals another personâs property.
Instead of constantly creatign new arguements, why not try to discuss the topics I've raised.
Are you suggesting that he called them thieves because they were wealthy? Are you suggesting that he was calling them thieves for selling sacrificial offerings at the temple? Are you saying that his calling them thieves in anyway dismisses Glen Beck's contention that Jesus did not teach economic social justice?
Did Jesus call them thieves because he didn't give the sacrificial animals away for free, so all Jews could have an equitable opportunity to sacrifice at the temple? If he did please tell me about it.
You can grope all week, there is nowhere in the scriptures that Jesus advocates social justice as it was discussed by Glen Beck.
This from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
"...PART THREE
LIFE IN CHRIST
SECTION ONE
MAN'S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
CHAPTER TWO
THE HUMAN COMMUNION
ARTICLE 3
SOCIAL JUSTICE
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.
I. RESPECT FOR THE HUMAN PERSON
1929 Social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him:
What is at stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt.35
1930 Respect for the human person entails respect for the rights that flow from his dignity as a creature. These rights are prior to society and must be recognized by it. They are the basis of the moral legitimacy of every authority: by flouting them, or refusing to recognize them in its positive legislation, a society undermines its own moral legitimacy.36 If it does not respect them, authority can rely only on force or violence to obtain obedience from its subjects. It is the Church's role to remind men of good will of these rights and to distinguish them from unwarranted or false claims... "
I'm saying that calling them thieves calls into question their character and not just their choice of venue. It strongly implies that they were cheating people.
Of course then there's the Jesus of Matthew 19:16-30...
"19:16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
19:18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
19:22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.
19:23 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
19:25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
19:30 But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first."
BTW: I got this from online-literature.com which has the entire King James version of the Bible available. Just in case you want to check my source.
Another typical cry-ass mischaracterization of my comments.
"According to people like you Jesus was a redneck who would grab a case of bud light, a camouflage baseball cap, a NASCAR t-shirt, and a M-16 then run blasting people screaming "Let Dad sort out them commie faggots."
Please explain to me which post of mine suggest that this is what i believe. Please. Or please apologize for lying about what i posted. Or don't, lies are unbecoming.
19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
This is what it was all about. It cetainly wasn't about SOCIAL JUSTICE. He asked people to forsake their sins and follow him. Just what i've been saying all along. I'm tired of writing, you can look at my other posts where I explain it all.
Quoating scripture without an explanation doesn't prove anything. Thanks though.
Lucky us.
Never with an explanation.
I'd suggest reading all my posts, more than likely I already answered you. You are certainly not one for original thought, and I'm betting someone has already attempted your presumably cookie-cutter attempt to defend your stance.
Troll.
By your own characterization.
"I don't need to waste my time with your drivel."
And yet you comment on it all the time. Meaningless, negative, hateful, comments.
THAT MEANS YOU ARE A TROLL.
"I see no need to be courteous with people who advocate policies and distort teachings to bend them to their own selfish ends." --That is certainly not what Jesus taught. Turn the other cheek. That seems to be typical of your posts though. I didn't expect anything less.
You still haven't explained how I perverted, distorted, or bent what Jesus taught.
Thats all I ever asked you to do.
Maybe we could start over. I apologize for calling you a troll. I was obviously to quick to judge.
Thankfully, our government responsibility to its people isn't based on how psycho talk show hosts and their goofy listeners interpret the teachings of mythology.
He was against robbery.
Teadouche stupidity reigns supreme again.
; )
Did conservapedia ever finish their rewritten version of the bible, taking out any sense of "liberal bias" yet?
Jesus never taught it was bad to be rich.
He just taught that the rich were less likely to make it to heaven than a camel would make it though the eye of a needle. He just taught that to join him the rich man needed to give up his worldly possesions...
but no, he never taught it was bad to be rich.
ROFL
Where did Jesus teach that? I assume you are refering to the story of the rich young ruler. Correct me if I'm wrong. That story was not about being rich, that story was about faith, and humility, whether the young man really believed Jesus was the Christ. His lack of faith was his sin, his unwillingness to give up his worldly possesions and follow Jesus. NOT HIS UNWILLINGNESS TO GIVE UP HIS WORLDLY POSSESIONS AND HELP THE POOR.
Jesus did not hate the rich and he did not condemn them for being rich--The reason it is so hard for the rich to enter into eternal kife is because he can ignor the leadership of the Spirit that teaches him the ways of the Father as in "Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." He also addressed the Drunkard for the same reason--The rich can reach for his pocket book in a crisis--The drunkard cannot discern the whispers of the Spirt from the glare of the pink Elephants--The man seeking God in a crisis has no other comfort, as in--Jas 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations;-- LOL-- Trials really do get you closer to to the voice of God--Just ask those who had a near Death experiance.
Pr. 31:9 "Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.â
De. 15:7-8 "If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hard-hearted or tight-fisted towards your poor brother. Rather be open-handed and freely lend him whatever he needs."
http://mission.squarespace.com/social-justice-in-scripture/
Luke 10:30-37 ESV
Jesus replied, âA man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him and departed, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road, and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was, and when he saw him, he had compassion. He went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he set him on his own animal and brought him to an inn and took care of him. ...
Jeremiah 22:3 ESV
Thus says the Lord: Do justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the resident alien, the fatherless, and the widow, nor shed innocent blood in this place.
Matthew 25:31-46 ESV
âWhen the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. Then the King will say to those on his right, âCome, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, ...
http://www.openbible.info/topics/social_justice
3. Matt 20:1-16: an economy of care for the common good ⊠âsocial sustainability, healing, and transformationâ (247).
http://compassioninpolitics.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/jesus-creed-on-mclarens-everything-must-change/
Ok, Glenn, prove God wrong.
And he lectures us on "history". GMAFB
By the way, "many Christians" are NOT selective about what we like in the bible. If the message hurts than maybe there is a issue in our life that needs addressing and correcting.
If one follows the laws of the Old Testament, then one must also stone their disobedient children, not touch a menstruating woman . . . etc. I don't know many folks who do that, do you?
I'm a Christian and I know that Christ preached love and acceptance of EVERYONE.
Yes, Old Testament was very strict. There was only one perfect being that walked the face of this earth, Jesus. The rest of us are sinful creatures that, try as we might, we fall short. That's why the act of forgiveness that Jesus completed is so important.
I'm glad that we agree that "Christ preached love and acceptance of EVERYONE".
The focus of this from The Chaser's War On Everything...
LINK
So, yes, if one looks to the Old Testament to justify one's Christianity, ignoring Christ's teachings, then one is being selective.
IMHO "fundamentalist" Christians, conservative Christians, do this constantly and whenever it serves their purpose. They love the mean, grumpy Hashem when they seek to swing the sword of their God, and to Jesus when looking for understanding and forgiveness. That is about as selective as you can get.
In the Beck audio link he said that Jesus never said for you to "give your coat to the government to give to give to the poor" but we as individuals are tasked by God to act int the best interest of our brothers, sisters, and neighbors.
God and Jesus only referenced the government in regards to "render unto Cesar what is Cesar's", talking about paying taxes due to the government.
God is about giving/helping the poor because we believe we need to and we desire to help others less fortunate. God does not say to force our neighbors to give also (via taxes/national debt.) We have a responsibility to teach our neighbor to give to the poor, mainly by setting a good example for them, then the neighbor must choose for himself if he will follow that example.
Really? Taxes and Communism are the same thing? So, the Constitution allows for Congress to impose Communism because it allows congress to apportion taxes? RIght there in Article 1. Wow, you heard it here first from "dlk"
Yes, he asked everyone to give. He even asked one rich guy to give all his belongings to the poor. In that giving, the poor giving a little from their meager possessions is greater than the rich giving a lot from their substantial possessions. Jesus did preach social justice.
Jesus did not teach that poor people give more than rich people when they give. Try again, he said the widow gave more because she gave everything she had. Mark 12:44
He didn't ask the rich man to give up all he owned to enrich the poor, but to enrich himself. He asked him to give up all he had and follow him. It was a question of pride not poverty.
I'll say it again, Jesus di not preach social justice. He didn't care if you were rich or poor, as long as you didn't place your economic status above your faith in him.
I would make one correction, rather than equal*, I would use the word equitable. :) Thanks
You do realize that these are two VERY different things, don't you?
By the way, if you give money to a large charity, say something like Red Cross, then they too act as the controlling central entity to distribute resources to the needy in an equitable fashion.
I interpret the teachings of Jesus relevant to this topic to mean that we should give to the poor and help those in need. It doesn't matter whether the government distributes your contributions, a large charity such as Salvation Army or Red cross distributes your contributions, or you give them directly to those in need. So long as the help gets to them, Jesus would APPROVE. That is where Glenn Beck is wrong. With programs established to help out people in need, you think Jesus would care about your whining that you're getting taxed on your income to support those programs? I highly doubt it. He'd probably hit you with some awesome parable and be on his way.
Jesus also said pay to Ceaser what is Ceaser's as far as government is concerned. So if the government says it needs to tax you at %25, %30, or %35 to function and support its programs, then according to Jesus, you should pay your %25, %30, or %35 and stop whining about it. The fact that some of that %25, %30, or %35 goes to the poor and to those in need, would probably have Jesus telling you to DEFINITELY not whine about that part. If Jesus says go ahead and pay tax money going to Ceaser, then how do you think he would've felt about some of that tax money going to the poor? Ceaser vs. Poor & Needy? You know the answer, but probably won't admit it for the same reasons the rich guy who thought he was so righteous refused to sell his belongings and give them to the poor even with Jesus himself right there in his face telling him to do so.
Ummm, Jesus said specifically to give it to the poor. He did not say just give it up and do whatever with it. He mentioned the poor by name.
Also, nobody is saying it is inherently wrong to be rich. We are saying it is wrong to be rich AND whine about the government using some of your tax money to help those in need. Be honest with your self. If you were standing face to face with Jesus and you started complaining, whining, speaking negatively about, however you want to put it, about the government using a percentage of tax money to help the poor and needy, how would Jesus respond to you? What would he say right there in your face if you got upset about the government using some of your tax money to help the needy? Now lets say you are a multi-millionaire and you are making that complaint eye to eye with Jesus, what is Jesus going to look you in your eye and say? Whose side would he favor? Be honest with yourself. You know the King of Kings would promptly take you to school on that greed.
None, of these scriptures suggest that resources should be distributed by a central entity in an effort to alleviate poverty. Social Justice refers to the equalization of groups, whether its race, gender, age,m or welath. In history that is the meaning of social justice, but nobody, Beck or his caller were arguing about race, gender, or age. They were speaking about economic social justice, or the idea that everyone should be fiancially equal. An idea which is not a part of the bible.
So you are trying to distort the idea of social justice and Beck's take on it. You are trying to argue here that Beck is in opposition to the bible based on a different definition of social justice than he was talking about. I realize its easy to twist here at MMFA, but you are only fooling yourself.
The BIBLE argues that we should take care of the poor and needy. The Bible does not argue, that wealth should be distributed by a central entity, social justice. You have attempted to take a broad definition of social justice and apply it to a specific meaning, and it doesn't work, it is a distortion to fit your needs, IT IS NOT THE TRUTH.
Matthew 20:16-So the last shall be first, and the first last
Matthew 16:26-For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?
Matthew 25:40-And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
King James Bible
"Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me." (Luke 18: 22)
Italics mine
That conservapedia "Bible," (1984, anyone?) is going to be one wafer thin paperback if they take out anything "liberal."
22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, "You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
And then Jesus cast the first stone.
And then he said, "Okay, now the rest of you go."
THWACK!!
"Mom, cut it out!"
/snark
He is an anti-Christian and so is anyone who makes excuses for this latest rant of his.
I guess according to you it makes me "anti-Christian". I'm glad God knows that I'm not. My soul is secure!
You see, MagCynic, I have a Bible as well. Unlike Glenn Beck, I actually read and study in mine. You admit that helping the poor is a Biblical teaching, one that Jesus supported and advanced. You go on to say that, in the opinion of both you and Beck, this 'social justice' is something our government is trying to do. And you both oppose it.
So, to recap, firstly you oppose the government, even though it is appointed and put in authority by God, whom also commanded you to obey it. Further, though the government is trying to advance a Christian ideal by caring for the less fortunate among us, you oppose this as well.
Do you see that neither you nor Glenn can claim to be following the Bible if you will not obey God's instructions? That you are in fact arguing, not with your fellow Americans, but, by defending Beck in this, if you claim to be Christian, you are arguing against God Himself?
1. "this 'social justice' is something our government is trying to do. And you both oppose it."
- Yes. We can not let our government pick and choose whom they want to help. It treads into dangerous territory when our government can set arbitrary standards at which people should live, work, and make. It invites corruption into even the best of intentions.
2. "firstly you oppose the government"
- A fallacy spread by people that oppose the Tea Party movement. We aren't anarchists. We are for a limited federal government that does not move beyond the scope of its powers.
3. "even though it is appointed and put in authority by God"
- Wrong. Our government is "instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
4. "Further, though the government is trying to advance a Christian ideal by caring for the less fortunate among us, you oppose this as well."
- Like I said in #1, we're treading on dangerous ground when the government can pick and choose whom to provide for. It must be either for everybody or nobody.
Like I said, Mag, unless you are Beck's best friend, a family member or him, your devotion to and unquestioning defense of this man's uneducated lunacy is creepy.
To get back to the point, why would Beck tell his listeners that social justice is a "perversion of the Gospel" and ask his listeners to leave those churches who mention social and economic justice because those are "codewords?" Is he suggesting those churches are directed by the government?
Social justice - as instituted by the government - IS a perversion of the Gospel. Would Jesus ask you to give your worldly possessions to the government or to the poor directly?
I don't know of a single Christian church that does not have social justice as part of its mantra, do you?
Hopefully, this will be the final straw.
When the tea party people hold up signs proclaiming the government is the enemy and think that the governemnt is the problem, then they do oppose the government.
Social Justice is the foundation of Christianity and not something started by our government. Also, the government doesn't pick and choose who to help, the help is available for everyone to use if needed.
- There's a difference between opposing the government and opposing government.
2. "the government doesn't pick and choose who to help, the help is available for everyone to use if needed."
- They do pick and choose by determining what is and isn't needed. They set the standard on when you can qualify for food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, etc. I don't qualify for any of those yet I'm still forced to pay a portion of my income to those programs.
Now, that is just beautiful. Thank you, Confuscius. You and Beck should write fortune cookies. Deep sayings with shallow meanings. I love it.
So, now we're getting to it. You are against Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Good. This is much more specific than Beck ever gets. I think this should be your platform. The teabaggers should run on everyman for himself. No help for anyone. I love it. I am sure you will get tons of electoral support for that.
By the way, that has been tried. Ask people who lived through the Great Depression how great it was when the government did not help people. Charity alone came nowhere close to keeping up. This is not ancient history, Mag. Stop getting your American history from Beck.
I hear Somalia is a libertarian paradise. Very little government intervention. No government intervention onto the free market. Everyone has a gun. It's perfect. Let me know when you are old enough to get past meaningless platitudes and political and economic theory and ready for the real world. In the real world, no pure theory of governing people ever works. Things are much more complicated when you get outside the realm of one noisy talk show host.
- I personally don't see a need for any of those programs. I certainly won't ever need them. That's not to say though that I would be opposed to having those programs if they were done within the scope of the Constitution. To "provide for the General Welfare" means it must apply to all localities and people. Alexander Hamilton himself said this. You can't pick and choose whom to provide for. At least the government can't. It's dangerous for the government to say, "OK you people making this much money qualify for Medicaid. You other people that make a dollar more are screwed." That's the danger in having the government set the standard of living, earning, and working. It invites corruption in even the best of people.
Uh-huh. But, you oppose health coverage reform, so you think that the corruption in the private sector is just fine, right? And shouldn't be regulated at all? Because, the ability to take somebody's insurance premiums for 20 or 30 years, then, just when they get sick and really need that coverage, be able to say, "Ooops, sorry. Too expensive. We're going to drop your policy, and keep your money. Thanks for playing!" That's totally okay by you, right?
If you don't see a need for social programs, then you have never seen real want or actual hard times. I was homeless while holding down a 40 hour per week office job. Toted my own water from a spring, heated it when I wanted to bathe, and never missed a days work despite sleeping in a tent. And I STILL didn't qualify for food stamps. So, the people who actually GET food stamps? They really do actually need them.
- Can you quote me where I said or implied that? That's a poor debate tactic you used there implying that I am for something based on being against something else. Tell me this, what power in the Constitution gives the federal government the right to tell an insurance company how to run their business?
"If you don't see a need for social programs, then you have never seen real want or actual hard times."
- I don't see a need for it because it's something the state government should be much better qualified to handle on a local level. Your case - if it's true - proves my point exactly about the federal government picking and choosing who to help. It's neither Constitutional nor right nor fair. It's dangerous when a government sets artificial standards of living.
You say that state governments are better qualified, but then go right back to saying no government should set standards. You seem to contradict yourself, here.
Federal government pays 100% of food stamp costs, and the fed and state governments share administrative costs. The state governments actually administer the program, which is why it is different, and with different standards from state to state.
By making sure that no citizen goes to bed hungry, the government improves the general welfare of all citizens. The Constitution certainly provides for the government to see that the general welfare is indeed advanced. Hungry people rob, hungry people kill, hungry people are a threat to a peaceable society. If you've never been hungry or homeless, be glad. It is quite common in the land of plenty.
If you want fair, go to Des Moines. That's where the State Fair is.
Prove it is not Constitutional, please.
So, you would deny poor people assistance with purchasing food because millionaires do not need any help with that. Interesting. Not rational, or logical, but interesting.
You claim a Founders intent of limited government, but I do not accept that assertion. The government, at the federal level, does indeed have limits set on how it may infringe on the rights of individuals, but providing them with food is not infringing on their rights.
There is no such thing as 'nice' people, by the way. Never has been. Human nature is rotten to the core, which is why the people who designed our government balanced the three branches carefully against each other. Bush tried to wipe his backside with that idea when he and Cheney pushed for a unitary executive branch, fools that they were.
The limits are not arbitrary, but they are binding, and the limits at least for food stamp programs are set by each individual state. The fed just cuts the check.
It doesn't have to be available to each and every person to be constitutional. It does, however, have to be available nationwide, and food stamps are.
The government also sets arbitrary limits on how much rat dung you find in your Cheerios. Would you also like to eliminate even those standards and let the big money boys decide how clean your food should be? Because that is essentially what you seem to be advocating by taking the federal government completely out of regulating business.
There has to be some regulation, MagCynic. Otherwise, countless unnecessary Americans will die each year from completely preventable causes, and the wealthy will not care because their money supply will be uninterrupted. The federal government is the only protection that 'we the people' have in the face of multinational corporations that do not and will not and cannot care a hoot in hell about you or me. I find it quite amazing that you do not realize this, or, realizing it, do not think it is something worth paying for.
But you can qualify for them if you lose your job or become old enough.
As for point number 3, I was arguing that, for a Christian who believes the Bible, all authority IS appointed by God. That's just straight Biblical teaching. If you are not a Christian, then you are free to argue the humanist viewpoint that our government is instituted among men, and derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed. So, which is it? Humanist or Christian? Beck self-identifies as a Christian, so he's held to the Biblical standard regardless of your stance, incidentally.
Point number 4, the very best for last. It has always been painfully amusing to watch Faux Cons insist that the government helping the poor and unfortunate among us is socialism, while the government bailing out businesses 'too big to fail' is just capitalism at work. If corporations can be considered people and be given welfare, then why do you complain that someone who went to bed hungry last night might be allowed a meal on the government's dime today? Helping the needy among us, who need food, shelter, water, is a Christian belief taught by Christ himself. That the government is equally capable of helping those in need as private charity, and in some cases moreso, seems to be a fact you would rather ignore. Were you also opposed to Bush IIs failed attempts to help New Orleans after Katrina?
Once again, in a blatant act of self-promotion:
12) giving tax money to People is "enslaving them", giving tax money to Corporations is "making jobs"
- You certainly did not show where I contradicted myself. I may have misread that you said I oppose all government, but that is not a contradiction in relation to social justice.
2. "As for point number 3, I was arguing that, for a Christian who believes the Bible"
- And I was arguing on the reason our Founders set up our specific government as stated in the Declaration of Independence.
3. "That the government is equally capable of helping those in need as private charity, and in some cases moreso, seems to be a fact you would rather ignore"
- You aren't hearing what I'm saying. I'm saying it's dangerous for a government to pick and choose whom to help. It's dangerous to give them the power to set the standard of living, working, and earning in this country. I'm not saying they aren't capable of helping. I'm simply saying it's not something we should let our federal government do.
I added a bit of emphasis to point out that you do indeed oppose lawful actions based on Christian principals that the government is trying to accomplish. Can't say I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out for yourself.
I understand that on point number 3, you were arguing the humanist perspective, which is why I asked if you claimed to be a Christian or not. Based on your reply to my query, it seems that you are not a Christian. Fair enough.
You are claiming that it's dangerous for the government to pick and choose whom to help. You do not say why, you provide no rational argument, you cite no evidence. You merely make the claim. Ooooh! It's scary! Scary! Be afraid! I don't fall for blatant fear-mongering. I am not a disciple of Glenn Beck's.
You say it is dangerous for them to set a standard of living. So, you are a corportatist who opposes minimum wage, safe working conditions, basically any restraint at all on how companies run their business? You want to return to the 19th century, and child labor, and all the rest that average people fought and bled and died to put a stop to?
Which are...?? This is where you Beckers always leave off. There is nothing there in your argument. What are you arguing against? Or for? Less government? Only what is in the Constitution? We need to get rid of meat inspectors? What is your beef? I know, I know - you're just asking questions. Well, eventually even the slow kids in class move beyond asking questions and start seeking answers.
- Give me a break. I can only post so much in a website that's as dysfunctional as this. These MMFA articles fill up so fast that most of the time you can't even tell who's responding to who.
Let's try this another way, MagCynic: what would satisfy you? You post a comment arguing that "[y]ou all are misrepresenting what [Beck]'s saying" and then people disagree and explain why they disagree, but somehow you're the one who is frustrated when people ask you to defend and support your claims?
You're suddenly pleading for 'empathy'? Ironic on a thread that is dealing with Social Justice.
Reforming health coverage so that all can have their treatment and care payed for at the local hospital? Socialism! Food stamps? Communism!
This is where your argument fails, you see. You have no consistency whatsoever.
Try forwarding a rational, reasoned argument. Saying 'Big government is bad, because it's bad, because I say it's bad and scary!' may be emotionally gratifying, but it will not gain you any ground here. Especially after championing big government when your party happened to be in charge of it.
As for twisting, Beck, Limbaugh, and FOX Propaganda are the leaders of that particular movement. And, a big, brown, steaming movement it certainly is.
Your personal beliefs may be grounded in the reality that you have experienced but your technical skills at debating and arguing leave much to be desired.
Glenn Beck was clearly mistaken to claim that social justice, even if it comes from the federal government, is a perversion of the Gospel. He was clearly mistaken to claim that social justice went against the teachings of Christ. I have provided evidence to support both those points.
How can you reasonably support Glenn Beck's position on this?
""I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-urges-listeners-to-leave-churches-that-preach-social/
Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
"I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/08/glenn-beck-urges-listeners-to-leave-churches-that-preach-social/
Out with another weight bearing tile...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/3/11/845062/-If-Glenn-Beck-followed-his-own-instructions,-hed-be-an-ex-Mormon
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/j/a/jason_echols/2010/03/if-glenn-beck-followed-his-own.php
http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2010/3/11/55541/7370
About time.
By the way, while I am atheist (talk about a persecuted group!), I think that most of the teachings presented in the name of Jesus are good, transcend most religious or spiritual belief systems, and are something to aspire to each day. They are independent of a belief in god, however. I suspect the framers of the constitution realized that as well. So, when people like Beck or any of the multitude of religiopolitical leaders try to tell you that the US was created as a Christian nation, because look, they're talking about Judeo-Christian values, I say BS. These are values most thinking and caring human beings possess.
However, it means for YOU to help the poor and needy, not someone else taking from you and redistributing to others as they see fit.
needs to be send down to triple a- or his listeners do.
Followers of other religious texts who like that social justice hopey changey nonsense must be rejoicing.
Time for a tickle party!!!!
It sounds as if the caller has a problem with his churhc because while his church calls for one thing, he is allowing his politics to override his faith.
As for Beck's perversion, I am reminded of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah when the right claims something such as universal health care is a perversion of the bible...
------------------------------
The Midnight Review
He has ticked off Evangelicals, Catholics and even his own Mormon Church. He said what he said, and he's about to have to pay the piper. There are letter writing campaigns EVERYWHERE.
He has ticked off Evangelicals, Catholics and even his own Mormon Church. He said what he said, and he's about to have to pay the piper. There are letter writing campaigns EVERYWHERE.
"I'm begging you, your right to religion and freedom to exercise religion and read all of the passages of the Bible as you want to read them and as your church wants to preach them . . . are going to come under the ropes in the next year. If it lasts that long it will be the next year. I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!"
Where does Beck mention the government there?
You might remember this one from the "Bill of Rights".
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Rights belong to the people but are secured by government.
Beck's rhetoric is increasingly nothing but doublethink and blackwhite pure and simple.
It's ironic that Orwell's 1984 dystopia was an allegory of extremist communism, while Beck represents the other extreme: fascism. Confirms my belief that the extreme ends of both sides of the political spectrum more or less come full circle making it difficult to tell them apart at some point. Orwell's 1984 represented a socialist hell, while Beck's world represents a capitalist hell. It doesn't matter though; hell is hell.
First, has he ever offered a definition for Social Justice?
I would imagine "freedom" would be central to the concept, right?
Like the "freedom" our government brought about in Iraq for instance.
So, maybe it's not so much the ends as the means that are important. IF Social Justice is delivered through bombs and destruction, then is Glenn OK with that?
Just guessing.
Wrong again. If your venture'd guesses were a batting average, you wouldn't even be playing in the minor leagues.
Show me one place where I suggested equitable distribution meant equal distribution. I didn't.
Equitable means just, or fair. Not necessarily equal, though it could also be used in that way. The green party advocates the just or fair distribution of goods and services. The problem I see is that social justice relies on a central entity to determine individual needs. Since resources are finite, a hieracrhy of need is created, and resources distributed according to the determination of the central entity. I'd prefer to determine my own needs. :)
Let me ask you this: Do you think our current system distributes wealth equitably?
This isn't a courtroom, and you are not a prosecuting attorney, you shouldn't ask leading questions in this forum. I'll answer, but with an explanation.
In some cases yes, I think our (assuming you are an American) current system distributes wealth equally. For instance, small business are a great means to equitable distribution of resources. Even healthcare distibutes equitably, however, I think an artificial scarcity or services has been created in the industry. So in that regard it is failing.
Now look, another troll tactic. Try to create an arguement I never made. PLEASE POINT OUT where I defended unemployemnt, the wealth gap, or the government's bailout of the banking industry as equitable distribution of wealth. Where I even insinuated it.
Conger, your attempts at baiting me into arguing points I never made only distinguishes you more as a troll and a fool.
Did you not write that?
You'll have to explain because i'm not making the connection.
Note the my words; "In some cases yes,...".
Is this more of that right-wing math where you cherry pick the data you want while eliminating any data that doesn't fit your worldview and say "look it's equal"?
Everybody espouses "fiscal responsibility" and "equal opportunity". The difference in idealogy is how you accomplish it, conservatives don't advocate fiscal irresponsibility or more opportunity for one group and less for another.
The green party advocates a central distribution of goods and services in an equitable manner. I contend that central distribution promotes large government, poor quality, and rationing.
The free market combats scarcity with innovation, poor quality with competition, and large government with private ownership. Your implication, that I as a conservative oppose fiscal resposibility and equal opportunity is nothing but a diversion. I never said the Green Party didn't espouse those ideals, I did however use the Green Party's own definition of Social Justice to prove that Beck WAS NOT TWISTING THE MEANING OF SOCIAL JUSTICE TO FIT HIS OWN NEEDS.
ps. Does having mmfa in your name mean you work for mmfa?
The green party does advocate socialism, never said it didn't, it is also a progressive party, as is the whole green(not meaning environmentalism specifically) movement. I would go so far as to say it epitomizes the progressive movement. Since this is a progressive website, defending progressive values, and since Beck was referring to progressive, and/or socialist social justice, it is an appropriate definition.
Thanks for the information on Alaska, you should make a connection next time though. Saying Alaska is a socialist state doesn't have any bearing on if the green party's idea of social justice is what Beck was talking about on his show. Try again.
For the record, guaranteeing "equal rights" is not even in the same class as "redistribution of wealth". Social Justice, in political terms, can be defined as :
Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental economists refer to as more equality of opportunity and equality of outcome than may currently exist in some societies or are available to some classes in a given society. (Wikipedia)
Is that what YOU mean by Social Justice? Given this definition, would YOU support the concept if it meant the Government could take 50-60% of YOUR income and 'redistribute' it to someone who CHOSE not to work, just so they could enjoy and 'equal outcome' of lifestyle?
1 Timothy 6: 17-18
17Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. 18Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share.
Romans 13: 1-3
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong.
Romans 13: 6
6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
" this concept may be defined substantively. Here, it is typically associated with left wing or socialist analyses, policies and prescriptions. For example, poverty is caused by unbridled capitalism; the solution is to heavily regulate markets, or ban them outright. Racism and sexism account for the relative plight of racial minorities and women; laws should be passed prohibiting their exercise. Greater reliance on government is required as the solution of all sorts of social problems. The planet is in great danger from environmental despoliation, due to an unjustified reliance on private property rights. Taxes are too low; they should be raised. Charity is an insult to the poor, who must obtain more revenues by right, not condescension. Diversity is the sine qua non of the fair society. Discrimination is one of the greatest evils to have ever beset mankind. Use of terminology such as 'mankind' is sexist, and constitutes hate speech."
Given THAT understanding, do you still support Social Justice as a political position? Dozens of posters here point to the Bible's calls for charity; An S.J. proponent will stand AGAINST that, in favor of Government confiscation and redistribution of wealth. Jesus taught the responsibility of INDIVIDUALS to see to the needs of the poor and needy. He NEVER taught that the Romans should have that reponsibility.
Offered IMHO; YMMV.
I thought not.