Limbaugh says social justice "just means redistribution of wealth"
March 12, 2010 3:41 pm ET
From the March 12 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazzeto
Well forget him, I'm sticking with God over the precepts of the Republican Party.
"...with God over the precepts of the Republican Party" And there are some who say the "social justice" folks aren't politicizing religion?
Odd that Republicans give more to charity than do Democrats.
We ought to be sticking with God and the Church over the precepts of any party, any state, any country, to the extent there is a conflict.
If one reads the Social Encyclicals, one sees certain things as prominent and common among them. First, of course, a condemnation of both socialism and unfettered capitalism. Second, discouragement of dependency on government or big business, either one. Third, a social structure, based on principles of subsidiarity, ensuring that those who CANNOT HELP THEMSELVES have a decent and dignified material life. Fourth, encouragement of the individual and family acquisition of productive assets. A lot follows from all that, and the list is not exhaustive.
But we don't see those things emphasized in social justice circles. Know who is worst off in America? The disabled needy who don't have 40 quarters of withholding. Those people truly can't help themselves. They receive a maximum of $600/month from SSI, often less. Nobody; not the Democrats, not the Republicans, no "social justice" promoter I have ever seen, has proposed any kind of improvement for them.
One would have to be blind not to see the politicization of many church organizations or organizations purporting to be church-related organizations. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, for example, is a Soros-funded organization on the far left; totally dominated by Democrats and with SEIU members on its board. Not strong on abortion, but very strong on supporting Barack Obama. It describes itself as a "social justice" organization. Indeed, its supporters were in this very forum prior to the election pushing Obama's candidacy. That's just pure politics.
we have seen the USCCB donate to political causes; some of which also support abortion. It has donated to ACORN in the past and nearly gave ACORN a million dollars two years ago, and only backed out when the brother of the head of it was found to have stolen a million or more from the organization. Supposedly, ACORN's purpose is "social justice". We have all seen the pictures of the ACORN workers encouraging prostitution and tax evasion. This kind of thing is "social justice"?
Most "social justice" promoters I, at least, have seen, always seem to promote state power to do things they believe are socially just. Well, oftentimes care for those in need is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to means. Why is there always the resort to the strong arm of the state? Why are there so many pleas to confiscate somebody's assets to give them to others or to organizations that support political agendas? The state is all about violence. If the state taxes us and we don't pay, it will jail us. If we resist being jailed with sufficient vehemence, the state will shoot us. Why this alliance? Why do we see this so much?
Why, indeed, has the topic changed over the years from "charity" to "justice". "Charity" is that which we do voluntarily, out of a sense of moral obligation. "Justice" is that which another may demand of us by right. And if that other does not obtain his "just due", the arm of the state is there to enforce his right. The very shift in terminology concerns me.
Let's talk about "the poor" some more. Yesterday I talked to a lady with MS whose husband is in the final stages of Alzheimer's. She is trying to take care of him herself. His nursing care would cost about $4,000/month. She would be required to "spend up" most of their assets to provide him with nursing care her income is insufficient to pay for. Where is the hue and cry over that? We're all "social justiced" up about subsidizing the health insurance of people making up to $78,000/year, and taking money from those who make more than that to pay for it. Why is that "social justice"? Where is it written that the person making $60,000 and can afford health insurance has a right to have the person making $90,000 pay for it? Why is there a right to that? Yet the "social justice" people sure seem to favor it. Meanwhile, the lady with MS and the husband with Alzheimers are out of luck. Nothing in any of these "social justice" health insurance plans for them.
I'll believe in the "social justice" promoters as soon as they abandon middle class welfare (which none of the popes ever promoted) and focus on people like those on SSI and the ones who are breaking their backs caring for disabled spouses. In short, as soon as I see real charity, I'll give some consideration to their thoughts about justice.
I have only seen Beck a few times, so I can't say what is in Glenn Beck's heart, and neither can this guy calling for a boycott of Beck. The latter doesn't know what Beck contributes to, or how much. It's the terminology that's at stake, really. Beck, I have read, is fully favorable toward "charity", but not "social justice". But there is meaning in the terminology, and it's troubling to me. In other words, Beck supports giving from one's heart rather than being forced to do it at the state's gunpoint. I'm not so sure that's a terrible position to take.
Worship god; Increase SSI payments; Soros, SEIU and the far left only want Obama elected and nothing else; ACORN bad; Don't take people like Rush's wealth; The government will jail or possibly kill you for tax evasion; Charity good; Justice bad; Anecdotal evidence of a husband and wife with MS and Alzheimer, respectively, who need "social justice" but won't get it; "Social justice" promoters should abandon class warfare; Unsure of Beck's heart; Beck gives to charity but not "social justice"; "Social Justice" means a gun is being pointed at Beck's head.
The end.
The first sentence is the definition.
"Social justice is the application of the concept of justice on a social scale."
There was no conservative misinformation in Limbaugh's statement.
It doesn't say that all will be RENDERED equal in all areas. It says that these powerless people will NOT be deemed to be unequal and less.
If women are being paid less because they're women, then they should be paid better. If gays are disallowed to attend proms, then that will stop if we have social justice. If blacks have to cede seats in the front of the bus to whites, that will stop. It doesn't say that we'll save seats in the front for blacks and deny them to whites. It doesn't say that we'll only allow as many heterosexuals to go to the prom as gay couples want to attend.
It's not an guarantee that everything will be equal outcomes. It's evening out the playing field.
But you already knew that you were blowing smoke. So did Rush.
Social justice does NOT mean redistribution of wealth. Telling his listeners that misinformation furthers the conservative agenda.
Uh-oh...
BTW, Mag, regarding your comment earlier that there weren't many people protesting Beck's comments about running from churches which teach "social justice"??? Over 17,000 people have written Beck from Sojourners' alone. That doesn't count the individual Christians like me who have personally written to Beck and Fox about his offensive comments.
Isn't this something like the typical "some say" that FoxNews and others use to distort reality? It sure is.
This is just more liberal intolerance on word meanings on a thread about fairness. Too funny.
It wasn't Mag's definition I was questioning, it was his source.
Let me put it this way, if you accept the phrase social justice has various meanings and interpretations then you are being tolerant of others not using the one you choose. If you need more explanation than that, perhaps you are a little knee deep in intolerance yourself. I can't help you with that.
When did I insult a person on this forum over a definition?
You did actually reply to my comment with this comment. If your remark wasn't a response to me, perhaps you shouldn't have replied to my comment.
Social justice just means robbing from poor people to make rich people richer. Would you accept this definition?
You are free to use the term social justice any way you wish.
In the last several weeks it's become the focus of those on the right who have bastardized Christianity and claim that their brand is the true Christian faith and that Christ did not teach that we should care for each other.
This is the most obvious display of right wing, conservative misinformation imaginable.
Not sure where you're getting "liberal intolerance" from my questioning Mag's consistent use of Wikipedia to support his contentions.
Also, it's not intolerance to question one's use of a debatable definition. Mag chose the the alternate definition of the term while ignoring the most accepted. Questioning that ignorance does not denote intolerance.
Personally, I don't care, but as a Christian, I do care that Glenn Beck twisted the teachings of Christ to suit his dishonest, uneducated rant against churches which teach the social justice exhibited by Jesus Christ.
It's unfair to treat someone differently just because they're gay, or because they come from any other historically powerless demographic.
or maybe "Screw you, you're all welfare queens" is the most accurate.
Do you think that's because those who "achieved in life" were so unfairly taxed?
The same way you expected anyone to respond to your example-free assertion about social justice, income redistribution and entitlement.
Cute though.
And I love his phrase "specifically vague". That's a new oxymoron I'll have to remember.
Kinda like the Bush Tax Cuts, but in the opposite direction (rich to poor, instead of poor to rich).
Steal from the Poor, gives to the Rich
Gingrich, Gingrich, Gingrich.
That's why Beck's comments were so offensive to Christians.
I guess Right On missed the first three words of the Constitution - "We the People".
Further, Jesus told His followers that they were to follow the law of the land in all things which were not contradictory to God's law. When asked whether h=His followers were to pay taxes, Christ said, "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is His." He told his followers to pay their taxes, right on.
We've had this discussion before.
Isn't he suppose to do a special on the "myth" of the separation of Church and State?
If you COULD say "you are" instead of "you're", it has an apostrophe. If you can't replace "your" with "you are", then it doesn't have an apostrophe!
Also, what Rush doesn't realize is that the government is directly responsible for most of his income because they're enforcing copyright laws.
Social justice. Rush was right.
Your post wasn't an example of what YOU think social justice is. But RightON's post is clearly an example of the nonsense that Rush was trying to push!
He'd be making more thann 99 percent because he has a talent. The govt had nothing to do with it. His employer decided that he was worth his contract and paid him accordingly. Free market at work.
Do you honesty believe his employer would be paying him anywhere near what he gets if his show was plastered all over the Internet for anyone to download at anytime?
Do you believe Bill Gates would be as rich as he is if Windows was plastered all over the Internet for anyone to download?
Also talented.
If you want Marxism, specifically Trotskeyites, then look to the neocons. That is the well they spring from.
America is not a Christian nation, by the way. It was not founded by Christians, but rather Deists. The Constitution is not a covenant with God. All the covenants between God and man are already listed in the Bible. Put down the kool-aid. It is past your nap time.