Hello:

On another thread, RickJ brought up a recent Christian conference he attended. He said "..the theme was how to view the teachings of the Church on "Social Justice" (the Catechism, the Encyclicals and the writings of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops) with what the US and the World "teaches" regarding that "Social Justice"."

I wonder if he knows that he went to a COMMUNIST church. I'll bet not.

He might change his mind after he hears what Glenn Beck said about "social justice". On his show last week, the conservative broadcaster, radio host, best-selling author and all around phenomenon criticized any church promoting "social justice" or "economic justice," claiming that these words were merely code for Naziism and communism.

"I beg you look for the words social justice or economic justice on your church Web site," he said. "If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. ... Am I advising people to leave their church? Yes! If they're going to Jeremiah Wright's church, yes!"

I must admit that I, too, didn't know that good Christians who believed in social justice were commies and Nazi's. Did you?

excon

I can't make heads or tails about what libertarians think.

BTW ,the difference between the church and Communism or any other statism is that social justice is not compelled redistribution.
Charity compelled is no virtue.

Glan Beck is insane. We should stop giving him any free publicity.

Glan Beck is insane. We should stop giving him any free publicity.

Yup

That's not fair, excon. My Church as preached and taught against communism/socialism for a long time.

I'm not sure who you were speaking about when you said "he" two different times in one sentence.

Glenn Beck does not speak for me or my Church or my faith

He says some good things and some stupid things.

Regardless, "Social Justice", for Christians of my sort means first requiring that ALL humans (from conception to natural death) be afforded equal dignity and respect.

Does that mean that "we are all equal"? In some ways, yes, and in other ways no.

Volumes have been written on this subject, so I cannot do justice in one post, but I'll say (what has been said before) this about "Social Justice":

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

Give the man a fish and he will be hungry and reliant on you tomorrow. Teach him to fish and you have done your part toward "social justice" - and then it is up to him to use that knowledge to not be hungry in the future.

No, I do NOT change my mind based on what Glenn Beck has to say. Why should I? I don't refer to Glenn Beck on any issue.

Communism and Socialism only reduce everyone to the least common denominator.

Frankly, I think that everyone should beware the term "social justice". It means different things to different people.

To me it means (and by the way, this is what is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and what is explained by many Encyclicals and writings by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops):

1. Every human (from conception to natural death) is equal in dignity and "rights".

2. A person or a government should NOT do for someone what he can or should do for himself.

There is much much more, but if anyone wonders what the Catholic Church teaches about "social justice" then he should read

1. Pope Leo XII's Encyclical from 1891 "On Capital and Labor" (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum_en.html)

2. What the US Conference of Catholic Bishops have written recently (http://www.usccb.org/) about "social justice"

Glan Beck is insane. We should stop giving him any free publicity.

Frankly, I do not like Glenn Beck... but he does not have "free" publicity. He is on the air because the media gives him the space.

Do you advocate limitations on what speakers the media should be "allowed" to permit on their radio and TV stations?

He is on the air because the media gives him the space.

Actually you are correct here. He is air because millions of americans tune in to watch him. Take that as you will. :-)


Do you advocate limitations on what speakers the media should be "allowed" to permit on their radio and tv stations?No, that's why I used the term "free publicity".

So you believe conservative Christians are hypocrites for not following Obama's gospel of redistribution. Where exactly in the scriptures do we find that?

That's not fair, excon. My Church as preached and teached against communism/socialism for a long time.

I'm not sure who you were speaking about when you said "he" two different times in one sentence.Hello again, Rick:

You misunderstood me. I wasn't accusing you or your church of anything. I'm a social justice kind of guy. I was accusing the Beckster.

I guess I could have written it better...

excon

So you believe conservative Christians are hypocrites for not following Obama's gospel of redistribution. Where exactly in the scriptures do we find that?Hello Steve:

Well, I'm not a Christian, so I don't know WHERE to find it... But if the conservative Christians you're talking about, DO the "Christian thing", then they DO redistribute the wealth...

That would be, of course, except for those conservative Christian church's that believe their donations should enrichen the church instead of helping the poor. There are THOSE conservative Christian churches, aren't there?

Now, I agree. I made up the stuff about the "Christian thing" being to help the poor (the blind, the crippled, etc). But, if it's NOT about "redistributing the wealth", what IS it about?? The pastor needs a new Caddie??

excon

"Redistribution" is a very scary word. I know that some define it one way and others define it another, but as for me I am FULLY AGAINST any sort of Robin Hood philosophy of taking from the rich and giving to the poor... except in the cases where the rich got their riches in an "unjust" (aka dishonest) way.

Which reminds me of recent "penalties" given to organizations who made millions and maybe even billions by misleading others: They make millions of dollars by lying to those that they made the money from and then the government fines them a couple hundred thousand dollars.

Some call this justice, but I call it a SHAM!

If one can make a million dollars by deceiving people, knowing that the fine will be a small fraction of the money that they made, then what sort of justice is that?

If one can make a million dollars by deceiving people, knowing that the fine will be a small fraction of the money that they made, then what sort of justice is that??
Reminds me of television evangelists.

Tom answered it, the "social justice" Obama adheres to is "compelled" redistribution - the Robin Hood plan. I'm sorry, but the dollars I give are used much more effectively then the dollars the government takes.

Amen, NK! Yeah, THAT'S what I'm talking about! There is no difference whether it is James Baker or Emron or Countrywide Bank or BP!

Shams and scams should not be "rewarded" by piddly fines or rhetoric. They should be shut down and their profits taken and given back to the people that paid into them.

Reminds me of television evangelists.

Of which some are the scum of the earth and some are of an honorable character.

Of which some are the scum of the earth and some are of an honorable character.

Of course. "some" in any group are the scum of the earth... but "some others" do great things.

Reminds me of Bishop Fulton Sheen who won an Emmy long ago. Back in his day he got a bigger audience than anything else on Television... but today the masses are not so interested in hearing good stuff that is good for everyone.

Nowadays the masses are more interested in watching Sex in the City, Friends, etc.

My favorite scumbag was Robert Tilton (http://religiousfreaks.com/2006/02/26/robert-tilton-is-pastor-gas/). He used to sell "prayer cloths" to vulnerable people and mumble all kinds of gibberish as if he were speaking in tongues when he was probably just saying he “shoulda boughta Honda.” I used to stay in a motel across from his 'church' when I went to Dallas Cowboy Games, the 'church' looked like "Six Flags Over Jesus."

tom answered it, the "social justice" Obama adheres to is "compelled" redistribution - the Robin Hood plan. I'm sorry, but the dollars I give are used much more effectively then the dollars the government takes.Hello again:

We've been over this stuff before, but it's time again... I'm NOT a redistributor either. Or I am because I believe in providing a safety net. The safety net IS redistribution. I've used the fire department as a perfect example of how we SOCIALIZE some risk. Protection against death and destruction from fire, DOES take from the RICH homeowner, and give to the POOR homeowner. For whatever reason, we think that we SHOULD protect the poor from fire, and we're willing to PAY for it... It's a redistribution plan that everybody accepts. Protecting people from death and destruction due to lack of health care is the same kind of thing.

Doing that is good. If that makes me a socialist, then you are too - unless of course, you want to get rid of your fire department.

excon

The demonizing of all things referring to socialism is one of the success stories of the conservative plan to seed Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is the lesser educated populace.

The demonizing of all things referring to socialism is one of the success stories of the conservative plan to seed Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt is the lesser educated populace.

Ok, so that is what you say about the "demonizing" of socialism.

Ok.

So can you say anything good about socialism?

So can you say anything good about socialism?
Like ex said, you're using it now!

No.
That does not answer the question, NK. What is good about socialism? When has it ever worked?

We've been over this stuff before, but it's time again... I'm NOT a redistributor either. Or I am because I believe in providing a safety net. The safety net IS redistribution.

As I've said before, I think we do need a safety net. I have no problem with a safety net because if nothing else, the left is typically more generous with someone else's money. What I have a problem with is widening that safety net to include people that should be making their own way. They can get off the lazy a$$es and work for what they have just like I did so those who are truly in need don't have to compete for those resources and the rest of us aren't sucked dry.

Rickj,
You are very black and white. You can't seem to understand a mix of both. Both our countries use a mix, some services are socialized, some are left to the free market. In my opinion both pure unchecked capitalism and pure socialism are not the answer. In fact there is not a country on earth that use just one of those economic theories solely.

Like ex said, you're using it now!

A fire department is not socialism. It is not a means of production to be co-opted for redistribution.

It is not a means of production to be co-opted for redistribution.
If that's your definition then there is very little socialism in the world.

A fire department is not socialism. It is not a means of production to be co-opted for redistribution.Hello again, Steve:

So, social security isn't socialism? Medicare isn't either? Dude.

excon

Rickj,
You are very black and white. You can't seem to understand a mix of both. Both our countries use a mix, some services are socialized, some are left to the free market. In my opinion both pure unchecked capitalism and pure socialism are not the answer. In fact there is not a country on earth that use just one of those economic theories solely.

I DO understand a mix. We should all contribute to such things as
a) roads
b) a police force
c) a fire department
d) programs for those truly in need
e) etc.

But herein lies the difficulty with discussing such things.

You, NK are in Canada so cannot truly know what goes on here. You don't see the excesses and abuses that go on here on a personal level.

I will agree with you 100% in that "unchecked capitalism" is just as bad as what I know of as "socialism".

Here in America there is a horrible mix of both. I am all for a "fair middle ground" over what is going on now:

Here we "reward" the money mongers like BP and Countrywide by giving them our taxpayer dollars to fix what they've screwed up... and we "reward" the welfare recipients with more money for each year that they stay on welfare without any expectation or requirement that they go out and work.

On and on and on...

Socialism is NOT the answer. If anyone cares to read and comment on the links that I gave back near the beginning of this thread, I'd love to hear them.

When I pay for a fire dept I am paying for a service provided by a local government . They are essential services for the WHOLE community and are not funded through the redistribution of income taxes ,but are paid through property taxes. That means that everyone pays for the services ,either through being a property owner or by rent .

I agree with you that socialism is not the answer, no 'ism is. The people are the problem, not the government nor the economic system. People will screw their neighbours over to get "stuff". It's a very materialistic society where the appearance of wealth is the ultimate dream goal.

And yes I do know a fair bit about what goes on there, you'd have to live here to know how much of your problems get reported - I look at the Current Events board and all everyone sees are the problems of the U.S. exposed there every day.

When I pay for a fire dept I am paying for a service provided by a local government . They are essential services for the WHOLE community and are not funded through the redistribution of income taxes ,but are paid through property taxes. That means that everyone pays for the services ,either through being a property owner or by rent .Hello again, tom:

You're splitting hairs. I don't know why the socialism word cannot escape your lips except as an epithet. Besides, you're wrong. The fire department serves ALL comers. They don't ask for your address if you're wrecked on the freeway. They don't ask for your address if you have a heart attack while visiting a city. Nope, it's socialism personified - and it ain't bad.

excon

Hello again, tom:

You're splitting hairs. I dunno why the socialism word cannot escape your lips except as an epithet. Besides, you're wrong. The fire department serves ALL comers. They don't ask for your address if you're wrecked on the freeway. They don't ask for your address if you have a heart attack while visiting a city. Nope, it's socialism personified - and it ain't bad.

Good point.

Can someone here give what they believe is the definition of Socialism?

And can someone here name a country on the planet where their definition of Socialism works?

I don't think there are any pure socialist countries just as there aren't any pure capitalist countries.
Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Modern_political_system) generally ranks high in the rankings.

The fire department serves ALL comers. They don't ask for your address if you're wrecked on the freeway. They don't ask for your address if you have a heart attack while visiting a city. Nope, it's socialism personified - and it ain't bad.


As opposed to socialism that targets specific populations for taxation and others for benefits.

I don't think there are any pure socialist countries just as there aren't any pure capitalist countries.
Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden#Modern_political_system) generally ranks high in the rankings.
I agree. So where does that leave us as to this thread?

Hello again, Rick:

You wingers are right. It's a redistribution of the wealth. It's taking from the producers and giving it to the NON producers. It truly is, everything you HATE about it.

It's a nice idea. But it doesn't work when a country adopts it as it's economic system. That's because nobody gets ahead, so nobody works. But, when people can still get ahead, they don't mind contributing a portion of their income for the betterment of society. That's socialism, and it pretty much does work at that level.

At some point, if the producers can't stay ahead, socialism stops working.. I believe we're a LONG way from that point. Now, I don't disagree with you that the MIDDLE CLASS can no longer afford it. But, that's because the RICH aren't paying THEIR share. They are getting RICHER, and RICHER, and even RICHER than that.

excon

So where does that leave us as to this thread?Hello again, Rick:

That Glenn Beck is an a$$! There's no disagreement there.

excon

I agree. So where does that leave us as to this thread?
Nowhere at all. Obama isn't a socialist and isn't trying to impose socialism. The repeating of the erroneous buzzwords gets irritating at times.

He's a Fabian

But, when people can still get ahead, they don't mind contributing a portion of their income for the betterment of society.

This is the crux of the entire debate, as well as the basis for most of the economic "isms."

Who decides how big a portion of your income is contributed?

In totalitarian countries like Myanmar, China, or Barry's dream world, the head of the government does.

In Anarchic/Libertarian societies like Ron Paul's dream world, you do.

Somewhere in between the two is probably the most efficient. Sweden does a really good job, but their system overloads at about 100 million population, theoretically at least.

Scale is one of the main problems just about all systems run into.

Who decides how big a portion of your income is contributed?

In totalitarian countries like Myanmar, China, or Barry's dream world, the head of the government does. I'm not afraid to call bull$hit where I see ii and this is some. Please show how Obama wishes to make the US a totalitarian commuinist country.


Sweden does a really good job, but their system overloads at about 100 million population, theoretically at least.Link to that theory please?

I'm not afraid to call bull$hit where I see ii and this is some. Please show how Obama wishes to make the US a totalitarian commuinist country.

He's taken over the Healthcare, Automotive, and Financial industries; he's working on Energy production and the Internet.

He's taken over the Healthcare, Automotive, and Financial industries; he's working on Energy production and the Internet.
You best stay with Pest Control methinks.

You best stay with Pest Control methinks.Hello NK:

Poor fellow - doesn't wear a respirator. It's getting to him.

excon

Can someone here give what they believe is the definition of Socialism?

And can someone here name a country on the planet where their definition of Socialism works?

Socialism is a government looking after the basic needs of the people and providing services where private enterprise is unable or unwilling to do so. This is usually paid for through the taxation system

In Australia, basic health care is provided by the government in return for a levy on taxable income, the government pays the health practitioner for the service. Public transport is provided by government with some private involvement and fares are regulated. In most states the government owns electricity generation and distribution and prices to consumers are regulated, pricing to business is free of regulation. Water and sewerage is provided by local government or state governments and pricing is regulated. Unemployment benefits are provided by government as are pensions and other welfare payments.

So the features of this socialistic system are
Government control over pricing
Services provided where they would not otherwise be provided/affordable
Poverty alleviated.
Government involvement in enterprises which are of economic necessity which require high invesment in inferstructure in the initial phases

Australia has weathered the GFC well and has low unemployment and strong fiscal credentials so limited socialism can work

Somewhere in between the two is probably the most efficient. Sweden does a really good job, but their system overloads at about 100 million population, theoretically at least.

Scale is one of the main problems just about all systems run into.

With 100 million population internal markets should be promoting entrepreneurship and less dependence on government for services, economies of scale kick in, The purpose of government is protection and regulation. In their simple form government is also about services but with scale much of this can be devolved to private enterprise