The Liberalism of the Religious Right

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,276
47,637
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#41
How can someone see social justice as important in a way that from an honest secular standpoint, it defines the man, yet not be seen as a social justice warrior?

I'm guessing we have differences in how that label is applied but Jesus was the embodiment of the SJW movement. Hated the hypocrisy of religious leaders, fought for the little man, loved minorities, went batshit crazy when shown an example of money being more important than faith. David Hogg may as well change his name to Simon Peter considering Christs views on social issues in his time.
Do you see me as an SJW? Likely not. But I take the following very seriously.

I've been studying clinical ethics the past few years, working on a masters in ethics. Studying the Hippocratic Oath,* "Distributive Justice" is one of the principles of medical principlism codified in the oath. From the oath:

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief, and in particular of sexual relations with both male and female persons, be they free or slaves.​
It means that as much as possible we treat people equally without regard to factors that are irrelevant to their treatment, such as race, gender, wealth, etc.** This is similarly encoded in Christian ethics, Jesus said:

Treat others as you would want to be treated. Luke 6:31, Matt 7:12​
I don't want the fact that I'm a cis, white, straight male to affect the way my doctor, pharmacist, nurse etc. treats me. So, I don't treat others that way, regardless of their irrelevant factors. I try to treat every single patient I have contact with as if they are a beloved family member. Even the ones that piss me off, and it happens. This is social justice.

So we can strive for social justice without buying into the "intersectionality" and identity politics and being an SJW. As a Christian, we are called to social justice. Jesus said, "that which you do for the least of my children you do for me." When we take care of widows, orphans, the poor, ex-cons, etc. we take care of Jesus.

*The Hippocratic tradition isn't as strong for pharmacists. There is a pharmacist's oath which tips it's hat to the Hippocratic oath, but most pharmacists couldn't tell you what the principles are: beneficence, non-maleficence, distributive justice, and patient autonomy.

**Race, gender, and other demographic factors *can* be important for treatment. For instance, the current hypertension guidelines are different for treatment African American males than for treatment males from other races.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,429
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#42
First it's "enough with the Bible stuff" then you bring up Jesus again. If you don't want to discuss Bible stuff then don't bring up Jesus. Social justice was important to Jesus (Matt 5:1-12). But Jesus was not an SJW.
I did not bring up Jesus - somebody else did.

Jesus was AGAINST social INjustice.... not "for social justice" (as defined today). They are complete opposites.

Back then there was political and social hierarchy who's sole intent was oppression and subjugation, and Jesus was against that. (and so are we)

In the US today, under our constitutional rule, we eliminated the social injustice with the inalienable rights (from our Creator), as was intended by those teachings, but people now want to REIMPOSE oppression and subjugation and they have created intentionally confusing terminology to obfuscate the issue and they call it "social justice" which is actually the complete opposite of our constitutionally defined position of "justice".

It is not mere semantics. The concepts are easily confused with their choice of word gaming, and that is their whole point - but they are not the same things.

Was Jesus not against oppression and subjugation, which is what today's "social justice" is?

Jesus was a "social justice warrior" in the context of that era, but IS NOT a social justice warrior under the current redefinition of that term in our US Constitutional society.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,429
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#43
Really,, CaliforniaCowboy, after reading all of that, you surely must once again be one of those who pretty strongly believes that taxation must be viewed as all out theft.` This is because taxation, especially for the purpose of helping those out less fortunate than you, such as the poor and disabled, is very wrong and immoral with no basis for it found in the U. S. Constitution.
why do you always try to change the subject and redirect it into some other topic or direction?

I said nothing about taxes.... but there you are telling me what I believe about taxes.

The constitution actually allows for taxes, so your statement is idiotic.

I never said anything about not helping the less fortunate, I am all for that... but.. it is not the role of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT under our Constitutional Republic.

I never ever said it was wrong or immoral for "A" government to provide social assistance to the needy - I said it is not the role of the FEDERAL government.

You still have not even tried to comprehend the governance of our Republic, even though I've tried time and time again to explain it to you. We have other forms of government in the United States (State and local) where the citizens of those states should decide how to assist their citizens. It's called self-government.

Your position is contrary to our very core, where people are taxes differently and unequally, to provide for others that aren't even part of their community or their sphere of governmental influence. You advocate for inequality and injustice for some, at the benefit of others that you get to decide upon, using your criteria for need and needy. There is nothing fair or just in any of your proposals.

The people of California should not have to pay for the care of the poor in Oklahoma, it is up to Oklahoma to use it's resources and the resources of their citizens to determine what care is provided and who is eligible for that care.

You apparently have no interest in a Constitutional Republic, and that is where our differences of approach and solution lie.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,276
47,637
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#45
I did not bring up Jesus - somebody else did.

Jesus was AGAINST social INjustice.... not "for social justice" (as defined today). They are complete opposites.

Back then there was political and social hierarchy who's sole intent was oppression and subjugation, and Jesus was against that. (and so are we)

In the US today, under our constitutional rule, we eliminated the social injustice with the inalienable rights (from our Creator), as was intended by those teachings, but people now want to REIMPOSE oppression and subjugation and they have created intentionally confusing terminology to obfuscate the issue and they call it "social justice" which is actually the complete opposite of our constitutionally defined position of "justice".

It is not mere semantics. The concepts are easily confused with their choice of word gaming, and that is their whole point - but they are not the same things.

Was Jesus not against oppression and subjugation, which is what today's "social justice" is?

Jesus was a "social justice warrior" in the context of that era, but IS NOT a social justice warrior under the current redefinition of that term in our US Constitutional society.
You don't think we have injustice? Who is Brian Banks?
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,766
2,093
743
Where else but Stillwater
#46
why do you always try to change the subject and redirect it into some other topic or direction?

I said nothing about taxes.... but there you are telling me what I believe about taxes.

The constitution actually allows for taxes, so your statement is idiotic.

I never said anything about not helping the less fortunate, I am all for that... but.. it is not the role of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT under our Constitutional Republic.

I never ever said it was wrong or immoral for "A" government to provide social assistance to the needy - I said it is not the role of the FEDERAL government.

You still have not even tried to comprehend the governance of our Republic, even though I've tried time and time again to explain it to you. We have other forms of government in the United States (State and local) where the citizens of those states should decide how to assist their citizens. It's called self-government.

Your position is contrary to our very core, where people are taxes differently and unequally, to provide for others that aren't even part of their community or their sphere of governmental influence. You advocate for inequality and injustice for some, at the benefit of others that you get to decide upon, using your criteria for need and needy. There is nothing fair or just in any of your proposals.

The people of California should not have to pay for the care of the poor in Oklahoma, it is up to Oklahoma to use it's resources and the resources of their citizens to determine what care is provided and who is eligible for that care.

You apparently have no interest in a Constitutional Republic, and that is where our differences of approach and solution lie.
Republican legislators would disagree with you, because I never hear of them wanting to abolish the FEDERAL welfare state, maybe cut it at best.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,429
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#47
You don't think we have injustice? Who is Brian Banks?
I think I said that the US Constitution creates a system of justice... for all.

There may be injustice, I don't know who Brian Banks is, and don't much care.... I think we're talking about systemic injustice.. i.e., the crusade for "social justice" to erase all the injustice of the American System (which is absolutely silly in it's premise)

We all have the same "opportunity" to make what we choose of our individual circumstances. The laws are supposed to be blind (and typically are). etc.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,429
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#48
Republican legislators would disagree with you, because I never hear of them wanting to abolish the FEDERAL welfare state, maybe cut it at best.
please, no generalizations, it is intellectually dishonest. There is a core group of "conservative" legislators that are trying to reduce the impact and oppressive influences of the Federal government, including cutting many of the "welfare" entitlements. (food stamps, welfare, injustice housing, etc.).

George Bush himself tried to reform social security and move to a market based solution.

eliminating socialized medicine, etc... it is clear, obvious and prevalent.

so... once again, you are very sadly mistaken.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,766
2,093
743
Where else but Stillwater
#49
please, no generalizations, it is intellectually dishonest. There is a core group of "conservative" legislators that are trying to reduce the impact and oppressive influences of the Federal government, including cutting many of the "welfare" entitlements. (food stamps, welfare, injustice housing, etc.).

George Bush himself tried to reform social security and move to a market based solution.

eliminating socialized medicine, etc... it is clear, obvious and prevalent.

so... once again, you are very sadly mistaken.
You're so very WRONG. No way was I mistaken. Pay attention. I said at best maybe Republicans are trying to reduce the welfare state and you quite well confirmed what I wrote by writing, "There is a core group of "conservative" legislators that are trying to reduce the impact and oppressive influences of the Federal government, including cutting many of the "welfare" entitlements. (food stamps, welfare, injustice housing, etc.)." Also note you didn't say any core group wanted to abolish government welfare, only cut it.

No doubt, after cutting taxes for rich people, cutting welfare goodies to reduce government deficits is the attitude many conservatives have. It's really rich people who have it pretty bad with high taxes and job killing regulations. Poor people have it made with their welfare state. That's really how many conservatives think.

On the other hand, if you're a Trump lover, then you might as well believe Democrats want to do away with some stuff when he said, "We’re saving Social Security. The Democrats will destroy Social Security. We’re saving Medicare. The Democrats want to destroy Medicare. If you look at what they’re doing, they’re going to destroy Medicare. And we will save it. We will keep it going. We’re making it stronger. We’re making Social Security stronger.” Probably Trump would love to say Democrats want to destroy government welfare, but is likely bright enough to realize that is a lie too far fetched to fall for.
 
Last edited:

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,276
47,637
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#50
I think I said that the US Constitution creates a system of justice... for all.

There may be injustice, I don't know who Brian Banks is, and don't much care.... I think we're talking about systemic injustice.. i.e., the crusade for "social justice" to erase all the injustice of the American System (which is absolutely silly in it's premise)

We all have the same "opportunity" to make what we choose of our individual circumstances. The laws are supposed to be blind (and typically are). etc.
The Constitution is the greatest government document ever written. But injustice still exists, and as long as it exists then we should still care about social justice. That doesn't mean, however, being an SJW. I care about social justice and am not an SJW.

You should care who Brian Banks is. You should look him up.
 

StillwaterTownie

Federal Marshal
Jun 18, 2010
15,766
2,093
743
Where else but Stillwater
#51
The Constitution is the greatest government document ever written. But injustice still exists, and as long as it exists then we should still care about social justice. That doesn't mean, however, being an SJW. I care about social justice and am not an SJW.

You should care who Brian Banks is. You should look him up.
I did. He helps makes the case why capital punishment should be abolished. There's is always the risk the state will execute an innocent person. But conservatives would only say that is the risk society must accept, in order to insure that those truly guilty of horrendous crimes, such as murder, get what is coming to them, which is death. And along with the innocent, it insures society that the guilty will never ever be able to commit any kind of crime. But then what about law abiding innocent people executed, who will never be able to positively contribute to society again?
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,429
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#52
The Constitution is the greatest government document ever written. But injustice still exists, and as long as it exists then we should still care about social justice. That doesn't mean, however, being an SJW. I care about social justice and am not an SJW.

You should care who Brian Banks is. You should look him up.
okay, I have heard of him... but that is not systemic injustice; which is what the whole "social justice" movement is about.

Maybe you've heard of OJ Simpson.... see what I mean?
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,429
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#53
You're so very WRONG. No way was I mistaken. Pay attention. I said at best maybe Republicans are trying to reduce the welfare state and you quite well confirmed what I wrote by writing, "There is a core group of "conservative" legislators that are trying to reduce the impact and oppressive influences of the Federal government, including cutting many of the "welfare" entitlements. (food stamps, welfare, injustice housing, etc.)." Also note you didn't say any core group wanted to abolish government welfare, only cut it.

No doubt, after cutting taxes for rich people, cutting welfare goodies to reduce government deficits is the attitude many conservatives have. It's really rich people who have it pretty bad with high taxes and job killing regulations. Poor people have it made with their welfare state. That's really how many conservatives think.

On the other hand, if you're a Trump lover, then you might as well believe Democrats want to do away with some stuff when he said, "We’re saving Social Security. The Democrats will destroy Social Security. We’re saving Medicare. The Democrats want to destroy Medicare. If you look at what they’re doing, they’re going to destroy Medicare. And we will save it. We will keep it going. We’re making it stronger. We’re making Social Security stronger.” Probably Trump would love to say Democrats want to destroy government welfare, but is likely bright enough to realize that is a lie too far fetched to fall for.
you said absolutely nothing to support anything.... more leftist rhetoric.

I am not a Trump lover, but thanks for playing the accusation game once again.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,429
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#55
More injustice, proves my point, not yours.
I really should not have to say it again.... SYSTEMIC injustice.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm simply pointing out that the left has hijacked the term "social justice" and use it to conceal their idea of oppression and subjugation.

I don't have anything to prove to you or to anybody else. I'm simply making factual points (as best as I can in short snippets on a message board). I've tried to clarify my statements that were too general, and being misconstrued from my intent.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
65,276
47,637
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#56
I really should not have to say it again.... SYSTEMIC injustice.

I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm simply pointing out that the left has hijacked the term "social justice" and use it to conceal their idea of oppression and subjugation.

I don't have anything to prove to you or to anybody else. I'm simply making factual points (as best as I can in short snippets on a message board). I've tried to clarify my statements that were too general, and being misconstrued from my intent.
You don't think the fact that OJ could hire a "dream team" of lawyers that got him off, when Brian Banks couldn't hire such a dream team and went to prison for 6 years for a crime that he didn't commit... that isn't systemic injustice? Had absolutely nothing to do with the system? Really? Just random occurrences then? Really?

Again, you're proving my point.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,429
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#57
You don't think the fact that OJ could hire a "dream team" of lawyers that got him off, when Brian Banks couldn't hire such a dream team and went to prison for 6 years for a crime that he didn't commit... that isn't systemic injustice? Had absolutely nothing to do with the system? Really? Just random occurrences then? Really?

Again, you're proving my point.
there is injustice... but it's not codified in our constitution. Nobody said life is fair.

Bernie Madoff had a dream team too. OJ got off because of "perceived injustice" (against blacks), not because of his "dream team".... the jurors admitted such.

People lie (e.g. against Brian Banks), that is not systemic injustice. The lacrosse team was falsely accused too... it happens, it is not a "systemic issue".
 

ScooberJake

Territorial Marshal
Jul 13, 2004
5,426
1,112
1,743
Denver, CO
#58
In the US today, under our constitutional rule, we eliminated the social injustice with the inalienable rights ...
HA!

CC, you are a smart dude, but I think you are often just contrary. Your statement above taken at face value would lead to the conclusion that you believe there has never been any widespread oppression of people as a group within our country.

Also, I agree with your line of thinking regarding individual vs systemic injustice. However, I think systemic injustice can and does persist far beyond the law. Our economic system, social systems, education system, law enforcement, etc. all did/do play a part in repressing groups in ways that run counter to the spirit of the inalienable rights that you reference.
 
Last edited:

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
14,429
2,204
1,743
So Cal
#60
HA!

Our economic system, social systems, education system, law enforcement, etc. all did/do play a part in repressing groups in ways that run counter to the spirit of the inalienable rights that you reference.
perhaps you can explain for us then, how the "social justice movement" will "fix" those perceived problems that you referenced.

(FWIW, I don't believe that they exist... not that they "never existed", but we have used our constitutional basis to correct the significant societal ills that existed at our founding.

We eventually defeated the Democrats and eliminated slavery. We eventually defeated the Democrats and eliminated the "Jim Crow laws". I'm not really aware of any other "oppression" that occurs that is not the directe result of our now unconstitutional government (like "tax the rich", and Marxist class war nonsense.)

Perhaps you can help me out... I'm scratching my head trying to think of these economic, education and law enforcement problems that you're pointing out.