LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

I wish I would have caught this before I responded but, better late than never.

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Wrong. Restorative justice seeks to restore balance or harmony in a broken relationship and finger-pointing is expressly not part of the process. Retributive justice does not assume guilt, it operates after a finding of guilt.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

---

You have made an emphatic statement but not an argument. Would you care to offer an argument?

---

Maybe later. My problem is that you start with what I consider a false definition of 'social justice' which is inherently political but you deny that.

That creates a chasm too wide to be covered for useful discussion.

---

I would not say that societal is inherently political, although it does potentially have political ramifications.

The Law and the Prophets (and Jesus, by extension, since his teaching got to the heart of the Law and the Prophets) were unambiguous that it was the responsibility of society to live into God's justice as a community.

That's the responsibility part.

The political part may involve HOW the society goes about living into its responsibility.

Acknowledging responsibility, from a biblical point of view, does not imply loyalty to one political party. And from this point of view, working for pro-life policies is just as much a societal justice effort -- that is, bringing society into what its proponents believe is right relationship with God -- as a liberal "social justice warrior" advocating for policies to help the poor.

---

The Bible focuses on Justice, no appended details.

And I never said diddly about political parties. Consider, for example, that not one elected official, Democrat or Republican or whatever, gave up even one paycheck or cut their staff by even one person to show they understood the suffering of regular people who lost pay, business, even their career to the shutdowns.

The notion that politicians care about regular people beyond using them to build their own campaign is a child's fairy tale.

It's very dishonest, IMIO, to try to claim kinship between Judaic law and tradition with the pretense of blatantly political movements. 'Social Justice' has always been deeply rooted in political goals, and I reject the efforts to try to play a rhetorical shell game and pretend Jesus was a moral founder of such groups.

'God's Justice' is simple and direct - obey the Commandments, including the ones about putting God first, honoring father and mother, respecting the Sabbath, respecting God and Caesar according to their own domains, and such. True Justice includes fighting in wars when they are right, standing up for every one, including widows and orphans, in the courts and in civil decisions. It means learning the Law and contemplating it according to Scripture, not the fashion of the day or the expediency of a Herod or a Caiaphas.

Remember that Judas was the one who complained when Mary poured oil on Christ, using 'the poor' as his excuse, The modern political whiners have a lot more in common with Judas Iscariot than Jesus who is Christ.

---

Great post. You put words to the unorganized thoughts in my brain. Thank you!

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

Perhaps you missed the very first word in my post, "why".

Yes we do attach a modifier to justice often as you demonstrated but, you didn't answer the question, why. In this topic, what does the word "social" do other than separate? And again the question, why?

---

To distinguish various approaches. Same as the way we modify any noun. This is not hard...

---

Is Justice not simply justice?

I had a follow up to your examples also. I hope you saw that above.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

---

You have made an emphatic statement but not an argument. Would you care to offer an argument?

---

Maybe later. My problem is that you start with what I consider a false definition of 'social justice' which is inherently political but you deny that.

That creates a chasm too wide to be covered for useful discussion.

---

How would you define social justice? We probably need a clear idea of each other's definitions to have a useful discussion.

bubbadog said:

---

I haven't yet read the whole article, but I've read enough to know that the author addresses the question you raise - that is, the inadequacy of mere statistics. I would urge you to read the article if you have not done so.

---

So I took the time to read all of it and it doesn't change the point of my reply. It follows the same oversimplified tropes and statistical framing that always get expressed. For example, the critique of the war on drugs has always been that it disproportionately impacted blacks therefore was racist in nature. Yet ignored is the fact that the narcotics industry disproportionately impacted the black community especially related to violent crime and drug abuse even before law enforcement ramped its efforts up. It was a result of the negative impact on the black community that led to harsher enforcement. I won't argue that it was done correctly, as I believe it wasn't and if anything militarized our police force and expanded police authority which still has ramifications today. However, had we ignored the issue and simply "let it work itself out on the streets", that would have REALLY smacked of racism.

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

Perhaps you missed the very first word in my post, "why".

Yes we do attach a modifier to justice often as you demonstrated but, you didn't answer the question, why. In this topic, what does the word "social" do other than separate? And again the question, why?

---

I'll take a stab at this. For me, the answer to your question comes from the Bible.

In our society that emphasizes individualism, we tend to think of justice as a term that applies to individuals -- bringing lawbreakers to justice, getting "justice" for crime victims, etc. And so to our ears the term "social justice" may sound more political than societal.

But the OT prophets thought of this in precisely the opposite way. Every thing they talked about involved the effects of behavior on the entire society, not just individuals. When Amos rails against those who would sell the poor for a pair of sandals (a complaint that sounds an awful lot like payday lending, which clearly goes against Torah). When Isaiah talks about the treatment of widows and orphans, or inveighs against "those who join house to house, until there is no more room left in the land," he is talking about much more than individual conduct. The prophets connect widespread bad behavior by individuals to a sickness that infects the entire society, causing the society to fall away from a state of shalom; that is, a state of peace that comes over an entire society when the norm is that people uphold the dignity of their neighbors as children of God, as God wishes (justice) so that they then can be in right relationship with God (righteousness). When the prophets speak of justice, which to them is inseparable from righteousness (the words tend to occur together in their writings), they are talking about the entire society. We might call that social justice. Perhaps a better term would be societal justice. Either way, it's about much more than individuals.

The argument often gets made that ancient Israel, unlike America, was a theocracy; therefore, the words of the prophets don't equally apply. But that's flawed. Israel stopped being a theocracy after the time of the Judges (and even then, theocracy was more a theoretical concept than a real one). The prophets wrote during the time of the monarchy, and the Bible tells us that the kings mostly did what was evil in God's sight. The prophets had no more power to dictate behavior by kings than a respected religious figure in our own day might be able to dictate what the president does. Their authority was moral, not political, and they used their moral authority to remind rulers and people in the society of what God wanted and expected. That is not much different than the work of modern-day prophets who call our society to account for behavior that goes against what God wants and expects.

It is sometimes puzzling to me that so many Christians treat the term "social justice" as anathema to our religion, when that is pretty much what the prophets in our Bible (whom Jesus liberally quoted) were really talking about.

---

So...God's prophets railed against people for the collective societal effect of their individual bad behavior.

What then, would the prophets say about the murder, violent crime, abortion, and fatherless home problem in black communities?

According to your biblical concept of "social justice", this would and should apply. But the concept of social justice today in our society is only really applied to what happens between groups (oppressors vs victims), not within them. If you are a victim group, you are virtually absolved of all blame for your bad behavior. In fact, the blame for your own behavior is placed on the "oppressors".

Another question: today, an example of "social justice" would be the issue of same-sex marriage. Do you really think that God would view not allowing it as an "injustice"?? There is a huge disconnect between the godly, biblical idea of "justice" and the world's idea. That's another problem with trying to tie the idea of "social justice" to the bible.

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I haven't yet read the whole article, but I've read enough to know that the author addresses the question you raise - that is, the inadequacy of mere statistics. I would urge you to read the article if you have not done so.

---

Yet ignored is the fact that the narcotics industry disproportionately impacted the black community especially related to violent crime and drug abuse even before law enforcement ramped its efforts up. It was a result of the negative impact on the black community that led to harsher enforcement.

---

Source?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

Perhaps you missed the very first word in my post, "why".

Yes we do attach a modifier to justice often as you demonstrated but, you didn't answer the question, why. In this topic, what does the word "social" do other than separate? And again the question, why?

---

I'll take a stab at this. For me, the answer to your question comes from the Bible.

In our society that emphasizes individualism, we tend to think of justice as a term that applies to individuals -- bringing lawbreakers to justice, getting "justice" for crime victims, etc. And so to our ears the term "social justice" may sound more political than societal.

But the OT prophets thought of this in precisely the opposite way. Every thing they talked about involved the effects of behavior on the entire society, not just individuals. When Amos rails against those who would sell the poor for a pair of sandals (a complaint that sounds an awful lot like payday lending, which clearly goes against Torah). When Isaiah talks about the treatment of widows and orphans, or inveighs against "those who join house to house, until there is no more room left in the land," he is talking about much more than individual conduct. The prophets connect widespread bad behavior by individuals to a sickness that infects the entire society, causing the society to fall away from a state of shalom; that is, a state of peace that comes over an entire society when the norm is that people uphold the dignity of their neighbors as children of God, as God wishes (justice) so that they then can be in right relationship with God (righteousness). When the prophets speak of justice, which to them is inseparable from righteousness (the words tend to occur together in their writings), they are talking about the entire society. We might call that social justice. Perhaps a better term would be societal justice. Either way, it's about much more than individuals.

The argument often gets made that ancient Israel, unlike America, was a theocracy; therefore, the words of the prophets don't equally apply. But that's flawed. Israel stopped being a theocracy after the time of the Judges (and even then, theocracy was more a theoretical concept than a real one). The prophets wrote during the time of the monarchy, and the Bible tells us that the kings mostly did what was evil in God's sight. The prophets had no more power to dictate behavior by kings than a respected religious figure in our own day might be able to dictate what the president does. Their authority was moral, not political, and they used their moral authority to remind rulers and people in the society of what God wanted and expected. That is not much different than the work of modern-day prophets who call our society to account for behavior that goes against what God wants and expects.

It is sometimes puzzling to me that so many Christians treat the term "social justice" as anathema to our religion, when that is pretty much what the prophets in our Bible (whom Jesus liberally quoted) were really talking about.

---

So...God's prophets railed against people for the collective societal effect of their individual bad behavior.

What then, would the prophets say about the murder, violent crime, abortion, and fatherless home problem in black communities?

According to your biblical concept of "social justice", this would and should apply. But the concept of social justice today in our society is only really applied to what happens between groups (oppressors vs victims), not within them. If you are a victim group, you are virtually absolved of all blame for your bad behavior. In fact, the blame for your own behavior is placed on the "oppressors".

Another question: today, an example of "social justice" would be the issue of same-sex marriage. Do you really think that God would view not allowing it as an "injustice"?? There is a huge disconnect between the godly, biblical idea of "justice" and the world's idea. That's another problem with trying to tie the idea of "social justice" to the bible.

---

What we call family values and social justice are both aspects of biblical justice. Most everyone loves some aspects and hates some others. Neither has anything to do with critical race theory, if that matters.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

Perhaps you missed the very first word in my post, "why".

Yes we do attach a modifier to justice often as you demonstrated but, you didn't answer the question, why. In this topic, what does the word "social" do other than separate? And again the question, why?

---

I'll take a stab at this. For me, the answer to your question comes from the Bible.

In our society that emphasizes individualism, we tend to think of justice as a term that applies to individuals -- bringing lawbreakers to justice, getting "justice" for crime victims, etc. And so to our ears the term "social justice" may sound more political than societal.

But the OT prophets thought of this in precisely the opposite way. Every thing they talked about involved the effects of behavior on the entire society, not just individuals. When Amos rails against those who would sell the poor for a pair of sandals (a complaint that sounds an awful lot like payday lending, which clearly goes against Torah). When Isaiah talks about the treatment of widows and orphans, or inveighs against "those who join house to house, until there is no more room left in the land," he is talking about much more than individual conduct. The prophets connect widespread bad behavior by individuals to a sickness that infects the entire society, causing the society to fall away from a state of shalom; that is, a state of peace that comes over an entire society when the norm is that people uphold the dignity of their neighbors as children of God, as God wishes (justice) so that they then can be in right relationship with God (righteousness). When the prophets speak of justice, which to them is inseparable from righteousness (the words tend to occur together in their writings), they are talking about the entire society. We might call that social justice. Perhaps a better term would be societal justice. Either way, it's about much more than individuals.

The argument often gets made that ancient Israel, unlike America, was a theocracy; therefore, the words of the prophets don't equally apply. But that's flawed. Israel stopped being a theocracy after the time of the Judges (and even then, theocracy was more a theoretical concept than a real one). The prophets wrote during the time of the monarchy, and the Bible tells us that the kings mostly did what was evil in God's sight. The prophets had no more power to dictate behavior by kings than a respected religious figure in our own day might be able to dictate what the president does. Their authority was moral, not political, and they used their moral authority to remind rulers and people in the society of what God wanted and expected. That is not much different than the work of modern-day prophets who call our society to account for behavior that goes against what God wants and expects.

It is sometimes puzzling to me that so many Christians treat the term "social justice" as anathema to our religion, when that is pretty much what the prophets in our Bible (whom Jesus liberally quoted) were really talking about.

---

So...God's prophets railed against people for the collective societal effect of their individual bad behavior.

What then, would the prophets say about the murder, violent crime, abortion, and fatherless home problem in black communities?

According to your biblical concept of "social justice", this would and should apply. But the concept of social justice today in our society is only really applied to what happens between groups (oppressors vs victims), not within them. If you are a victim group, you are virtually absolved of all blame for your bad behavior. In fact, the blame for your own behavior is placed on the "oppressors".

Another question: today, an example of "social justice" would be the issue of same-sex marriage. Do you really think that God would view not allowing it as an "injustice"?? There is a huge disconnect between the godly, biblical idea of "justice" and the world's idea. That's another problem with trying to tie the idea of "social justice" to the bible.

---

What we call family values and social justice are both aspects of biblical justice.

---

It depends on what you mean by social justice and what that encompasses. If social justice relates to the bible in the way bubbadog says, then we would point to it within the black community, but we don't. And the concept of LGBT rights is definitely not biblical.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I haven't yet read the whole article, but I've read enough to know that the author addresses the question you raise - that is, the inadequacy of mere statistics. I would urge you to read the article if you have not done so.

---

Yet ignored is the fact that the narcotics industry disproportionately impacted the black community especially related to violent crime and drug abuse even before law enforcement ramped its efforts up. It was a result of the negative impact on the black community that led to harsher enforcement.

---

Source?

---

For what? That violent drug related crimes impacted/impact the black community more than the white community? If so, do I really need to source that for you?

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No. The Bible does not promote 'social justice' as practiced in the modern United States.

Bad fiction, that.

---

You have made an emphatic statement but not an argument. Would you care to offer an argument?

---

Maybe later. My problem is that you start with what I consider a false definition of 'social justice' which is inherently political but you deny that.

That creates a chasm too wide to be covered for useful discussion.

---

How would you define social justice? We probably need a clear idea of each other's definitions to have a useful discussion.

---

There is only Justice. Appending 'social' in front of it is a pretty clear attempt to attach political goals to an unrelated ideal. A good example would be the lie that White people owe reparations to Black people, or that Men are as a whole guilty of sexual harassment. There are certainly individuals who have been guilty of unjust behavior, and individuals who are victims of injustice, but demanding broad political treatment of entire demographics as we see done at so many levels is simply perversion of Justice, as it punishes innocents and benefits people who suffered no harm.

Aside from the ethical character of such actions, these behaviors also create mistrust of government and can lead to callous disregard of real wrongs which need attention.

TLDR - there is no such thing as 'social justice'. The term is used to misrepresent political actions which may have far less noble intent, in the same way the PATRIOT act attacked civil rights and Affirmative Action programs deny fair consideration of qualifications for a job or benefit.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

quash said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Why does the word "justice" need a modifier like "social"? Isn't justice, justice? And, doesn't a modifier automatically create classes of those described by the modifier and those not described by the modifier? And, if it doesn't, then what is the purpose of the modifier to begin with? (full circle)

---

We modify it often: restorative justice, retributive justice, etc.

---

Perhaps you missed the very first word in my post, "why".

Yes we do attach a modifier to justice often as you demonstrated but, you didn't answer the question, why. In this topic, what does the word "social" do other than separate? And again the question, why?

---

To distinguish various approaches. Same as the way we modify any noun. This is not hard...

---

Is Justice not simply justice?

I had a follow up to your examples also. I hope you saw that above.

---

Is pie simply pie? Why so restrictive?

Hebrew justice was an attempt to restore things to the way they were before the harm. If you take/kill my goat then you must return/replace my goat.

We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

World Vision -- a relief organization that I've never thought of as political or with leanings toward either side of the spectrum -- has a discussion on their website of the Biblical view of justice.

https://www.worldvision.org/blog/social-justice-really-mean

bubbadog said:

---

World Vision -- a relief organization that I've never thought of as political or with leanings toward either side of the spectrum -- has a discussion on their website of the Biblical view of justice.

https://www.worldvision.org/blog/social-justice-really-mean

---

That's Adam Taylor's personal opinion. Fine as far as it goes, but it does not represent any moral authority nor theological basis. He's just plugging for donations.

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

Oldbear83 said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

World Vision -- a relief organization that I've never thought of as political or with leanings toward either side of the spectrum -- has a discussion on their website of the Biblical view of justice.

https://www.worldvision.org/blog/social-justice-really-mean

---

That's Adam Taylor's personal opinion. Fine as far as it goes, but it does not represent any moral authority nor theological basis. He's just plugging for donations.

---

Do you believe that advocating for pro-life positions and working for pro-life political policies carries moral authority that stems from the Bible?

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

Why don't you believe CRT or critical social justice won't corrupt the court system over time?

It already has in several areas of the country.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

Why don't you believe CRT or critical social justice won't corrupt the court system over time?

It already has in several areas of the country.

---

Can you elaborate on this, maybe with some examples? In what ways do you believe the court system has been corrupted?

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I haven't yet read the whole article, but I've read enough to know that the author addresses the question you raise - that is, the inadequacy of mere statistics. I would urge you to read the article if you have not done so.

---

Yet ignored is the fact that the narcotics industry disproportionately impacted the black community especially related to violent crime and drug abuse even before law enforcement ramped its efforts up. It was a result of the negative impact on the black community that led to harsher enforcement.

---

Source?

---

For what? That violent drug related crimes impacted/impact the black community more than the white community? If so, do I really need to source that for you?

---

For the claim that a disproportionate effect of the narcotics industry on the black community preceded harsh enforcement and was the reason for it.

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

CRT assumes privilege.

Let's say I draw a line where that line is what we would all agree is just and right. Now, let's say those below the line DON'T get jobs they are fully qualified for because of their ethnicity, does that mean that those that are fully qualified and DO get jobs fall on the line or, do they fall above the line and get privileges they are not deserving to have?

How is a less-than-just employer a slam on the employee? Shouldn't we all want to be on that line and wouldn't the Christian thing be to want all on that line. How is making a false claim against some that they are above the line, Christian?

---

I think it is worth bring up again.

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

I haven't yet read the whole article, but I've read enough to know that the author addresses the question you raise - that is, the inadequacy of mere statistics. I would urge you to read the article if you have not done so.

---

Yet ignored is the fact that the narcotics industry disproportionately impacted the black community especially related to violent crime and drug abuse even before law enforcement ramped its efforts up. It was a result of the negative impact on the black community that led to harsher enforcement.

---

Source?

---

For what? That violent drug related crimes impacted/impact the black community more than the white community? If so, do I really need to source that for you?

---

For the claim that a disproportionate effect of the narcotics industry on the black community preceded harsh enforcement and was the reason for it.

---

You could start with the Harlem heroin wars of the 70's and work your way through the Cocaine drug wars in South Florida, LA and Chicago in the late 70's and early 80's. The most serious law changes and focus came in the late 80's and early 90's as the geopolitical interests turned to Colombia and Panama.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

Why don't you believe CRT or critical social justice won't corrupt the court system over time?

It already has in several areas of the country.

---

Can you elaborate on this, maybe with some examples? In what ways do you believe the court system has been corrupted?

---

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/marxist-critical-race-theory-seeps-us-courts

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

I said implied, not specified.

You need a dictionary.

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

LIB,MR BEARS said:

---

Both restorative justice and retributive justice, by definition, assumes guilt. Is that what social justice also does, assumes guilt?

---

Societal justice (social justice, if you prefer) does not assume guilt in the way that I understand it. As I said, my understanding stems from the Bible, where this concept originated. Others today may have a different understanding.

Rather than assuming guilt, the Biblical concept of societal justice -- as proclaimed by prophets like Isaiah, Amos, Micah and Jeremiah -- is about calling the whole society, collectively and individually, to account for upholding God's vision of a just society; that is, a society in which all people are treated with the human dignity and concern that reflects their status as children made in the image of God. This includes personal behavior but goes beyond that. The prophets say that everyone shares some responsibility for upholding God's vision of justice because the society as a whole suffers when injustice is common. People live in community, not in isolation; therefore, justice is a community responsibility as well as an individual one.

Some of the "justice issues" that the prophets were concerned about --- and called on the community to address:

making sure that widows and orphans (who almost always were poor) were cared for. (The apostles are living into this command when they organize an effort within their community, led by Stephen, to care for poor widows.)
using honest weights and measures so as not to defraud people (still an issue today)
predatory lending (as we would call it today); this is why the Torah specifically says that, if you take someone's coat as collateral for a loan, you have to give it back before nightfall so the borrower can keep warm. Amos denounces the society of the Northern Kingdom of Israel for allowing lenders "to sell the poor for a pair of sandals."
gleaning laws that required farmers to leave part of their fields unharvested so the poor could come and get some grain for themselves
special concern for the poor. Why? Because the poor so often are exploited and were not treated as members of the "beloved community" (a term that originated with a white 19th century preacher, not MLK).


People today believe they are channeling this same view of community responsibility for God's vision of justice when they advocate for a consistent pro-life ethic; when they seek to regulate payday lending practices; when they work for a safety net (both public and private) for the poor; and in many other ways. They see it as their responsibility to call the community into upholding the biblical vision of justice.

That's why I would say societal justice is about accepting responsibility, calling the community to live up to its values and ideals, not about assuming guilt.

---

I think I agree with everything you've written here. My problem comes when societal justice ( I like your term better ) is automatically tied to white privilege.

If justice is the line, privilege is above the line and injustice is below the line. Accusing a person that live a just life of privilege is insulting and an injustice in itself.

---

Thanks -- I'm glad we seem to be in basic agreement.

To apply this to the specific concept of white privilege:

1. In my mind societal justice is not AUTOMATICALLY about white privilege. Some people treat that differently, of course.
2. At the same time, white people in many ways HAVE enjoyed privileges. We don't think of them as privileges because they tend to involve basic fair treatment that we think should be extended to everyone -- and that most of us extend as a matter of course to everyone. Most of us don't think black people should be treated with suspicion in a store or when walking through a neighborhood simply because they're black, and we wouldn't do such a thing ourselves. Nevertheless, most black people experience being treated with suspicion even if they're not behaving suspiciously. In that sense, the "privilege" I enjoy as a white male is NOT to be treated suspiciously because of my skin color. Every time my sons go out in the car, I don't have to worry that they'll encounter a police officer who is frightened and suspicious and might shoot them.
3. I don't feel personal guilt for something that I didn't do and would never do.
4. But by Bible-based understanding of societal justice tells me that I am responsible for being aware of the unjust way that my fellow human beings are treated, for calling out that injustice and for doing what I can to stop it. That might mean using my voice to speak out. In this country -- unlike a repressive state like Russia or China -- it should mean using whatever power I have to influence political outcomes that increase justice. (Just because early Christians like Paul lacked political power to end slavery doesn't mean I'm excused from trying to influence the political system when I see injustice.)

The attitude of the prophets is kind of nicely summed up in the last line of these verses by the poet W.H. Auden:
"There is no such thing as the state
And no one exists alone.
Hunger allows no choice
To the citizen or the police.
We must love one another or die."

Note that he says "we." The obligation is on us communally, and the consequences (or die) fall on us as a community.

Doc Holliday said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

That falsely implies Social Justice is as valid a term as, say, Criminal Justice.

---

Your inference, not my implication. At all.

---

Yes, it certainly is your implication.

Otherwise, you would not have brought up that choice of words.

---

Here is my choice of words: "We have civil justice systems and criminal justice systems. Why not distinguish them?" I note you responded to, but did not answer, my question.

I haven't even mentioned social justice in this thread.

---

Why don't you believe CRT or critical social justice won't corrupt the court system over time?

It already has in several areas of the country.

---

Can you elaborate on this, maybe with some examples? In what ways do you believe the court system has been corrupted?

---

https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/commentary/marxist-critical-race-theory-seeps-us-courts

---

Thanks, I'll read and get back to you

And we help our fellow black American's by busting up the nuclear family, paying reparations, race based laws and all the other nonsense pushed by CRT?

"White privilege" is a lie.

The term itself is offensive because it implies something most White people never experience or practice, and while racial minorities have experienced discrimination in the past, the current condition is so distinctly different that it's blatantly dishonest to pretend that similar conditions exist now.

Further, the imposition of "community" expectations allows political predators to attack innocent people by falsely claiming they share guilt with the extreme few who practice racist behavior now.

Doc Holliday said:

---

And we help our fellow black American's by busting up the nuclear family, paying reparations, race based laws and all the other nonsense pushed by CRT?

---

Like I said much earlier, I'm not here to hold a brief for CRT (or the academic types who felt it necessary to create it as a framework). There doesn't even seem to be a clear agreement on a definition, and to me it sounds kind of squishy. For some people, CRT seems to be another way of talking about systemic racism. For others, it seems to be about a lot of the other stuff you are noting.

bubbadog said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

And we help our fellow black American's by busting up the nuclear family, paying reparations, race based laws and all the other nonsense pushed by CRT?

---

Like I said much earlier, I'm not here to hold a brief for CRT (or the academic types who felt it necessary to create it as a framework). There doesn't even seem to be a clear agreement on a definition, and to me it sounds kind of squishy. For some people, CRT seems to be another way of talking about systemic racism. For others, it seems to be about a lot of the other stuff you are noting.

---

It sounds squishy? It's going to be the mandatory curriculum for ALL academia over the next 20 years.

Moderate dems like yourself will be outcasts and you won't be able to stop it if you object.

Doc Holliday said:

---

And we help our fellow black American's by busting up the nuclear family, paying reparations, race based laws and all the other nonsense pushed by CRT?

---

Liberalism is of course designed to destroy all peoples...but it has hit the black community in the USA the hardest in many ways since the 1960s.

Abortion, divorce culture, "poverty" programs that entrap people and create forced dependence, loss of male responsibility in family and work value, and on and on...

"The whole political vision of the left, including socialism and communism, has failed by virtually every empirical test, in countries all around the world. But this has only led leftist intellectuals to evade and denigrate empirical evidence. The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions (universities) where ideas do not have to work in order to survive." -Thomas Sowell