Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Social Justice

Published

on

Ah, the struggle is real. The struggle to survive. To thrive. To make something out of one’s life. But what if that struggle didn’t have to be so hard? What if we had “social justice”?

Some base their belief on “social justice” in the wonderful words of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” What incredible words those were, at the time, and remain to this day! While the Forefathers didn’t use the term “social justice”, could they have meant that?

No. Not in a million years. There is nothing about the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution or the 240 years of legal precedent since then that supports the notion that social justice is something America strives for. And the reason, folks, is that social justice doesn’t mean what some contend it means. I’ll get a lot of pushback on this one, and I’m ready to take on all comers, but I’ll start with some routine, albeit illogical, arguments.

“Social justice is about fairness.” Well, who is against fair? Is it fair that it started raining hard during Tech’s game at Miami? Nope. Tech’s ground game came to a halt in the sloppy track of Miami’s field. Miami enjoyed a distinct advantage on the sloppy field. How about the common good? Isn’t that social justice? An even playing field for all? Forget the rain, Tech simply doesn’t have the hosses on their line of scrimmage that Miami has. Instead of recruiting which is loaded with allegations of fraud, why not take all the football players in the nation, rank them, and assign them to schools? Wouldn’t that be fair? Not to the players of course, but to the schools? When you talk of common good, someone has to be the enforcer. Social justice proponents necessarily line up in favor of the government making those decisions.

Some use the term “social justice” to accuse others of being a racist, rape apologist, capitalist or other term now deemed derogatory. I mean, who can be in favor of a rape apologist? After all, if a person says they were raped, isn’t that enough? Why even have a trial? If the alleged perp or her/his defenders even dare to question the accusation, they are rape apologists. To defend anyone accused is to favor rape they argue. Harvey Weinstein has already been stripped of his Academy membership based on the allegations alone. While the Academy is a private organization and can do what they want, social justice demands that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments dealing with “due process” are meaningless. Merely defending or supporting a derided group is worthy of expulsion from our society some argue. After all, that Declaration of Independence and those Constitutional Amendments were written by a bunch of old, landed gentry, white guys. Can’t rely on that, can we?

Since I mentioned racism, isn’t it enough that I am a white guy, thus not entitled to an opinion on race? So said an attacker recently on Facebook. Later, that same person, a veteran, said that since I didn’t serve in the military, I had no right to take a stand on any issue involving the flag. Huh? When I pointed out that I graduated a year after the Vietnam War was over, and at 6’7”, 165 pounds, I was physically disqualified from serving since they were already downsizing, the attacker said that nevertheless I wasn’t entitled to an opinion because I was racist, solely based on my race. I’ve got a thicker skin than most, so I don’t care about these idiotic attacks, but many people are scared to even enter into political discourse for fear of repercussions. A Cato poll released this week says 71% of Americans are afraid to share their political beliefs. I can understand why. Then the media (which perpetuates some of this nonsense, remember CNN threatening to “out” a Reddit user who made the infamous Trump GIF?) wonders why their political prediction polling is so wrong.

I hope for an America where we strive for freedom. We should never cower to political correctness, or suffer “social justice”, just to survive. Thomas Jefferson wrote about the “pursuit of happiness.” It was an individual pursuit, not a societal pursuit. Rugged individualism is, indeed, what built this country, and still does. It’s entrepreneurs investing their time and ideas. It’s venture capitalists putting money at play. It’s a construction worker working hard days for well earned pay to make things better, while maybe working a second job to make his kid’s life a little better. It’s a single mom, working three jobs, to make ends meet.

It is the challenge of life that causes us to push for the best we can be. I don’t want anyone to suffer. No one. So I’m fine with a “social justice” component that means no one should suffer in this great country from lack of food, shelter or clothing after giving it their best effort. But by the same token, I’m not a “Great Society” guy either, one who wants everyone to be equal by government fiat. There will be winners, and losers, in the game of life. The struggle is real. But it is that struggle that gives us life.

Originally published in the Houston Home Journal.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

A guide to classical liberalism

Published

on

A guide to classical liberalism

The modern interpretation of the ideology known as “liberalism” is usually associated with the progressive left. Despite the roots of true liberalism – individualism, Natural Rights, and liberty itself – the modern understanding of liberalism has been skewed to make people think more of illiberal politicians like Bernie Sanders instead of Constitutional originalists like Antonin Scalia as liberals.

This 27-minute video does a fine job of breaking down the historical ideas that brought about classical liberalism and the men who brought them to light. It also accurately points out that equality of opportunity for individuals is necessary for a modern society, thus it was this mentality that brought about the end of slavery and the promotion of women’s rights.

From John Locke to James Madison, from the thinkers of Great Britain to the founding fathers of the United States, this video from The Academic Agent brings us through the history of classical liberalism.

For a brief introduction we posted a shorter video earlier:

What classical liberalism is, briefly

http://noqreport.com/2018/12/12/classical-liberalism-briefly/The progressive left and the Democratic Party have undergone many transformations over the last century. They’ve masterfully spun American understanding of language and labels to the point that history has been in a constant state of being rewritten to conform to their machinations. One of the most perverse examples of this is how they now claim the mantle of “liberalism.”

Sadly, those who embrace Natural Rights, limited government, and individualism have been forced to amend our label as liberals to become “classical liberals” for the sake of escaping confusion. Most Americans today would assume if we call ourselves “liberals” that we must be big fans of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Published

on

Fine-tuning and incredible calibration points to creation over random chance

Homicide investigator J. Warner Wallace is familiar with looking for tampering. His job makes him look for things that don’t fit. At his core, he is forced to ask questions about the various situations he investigates in order to see where the evidence points.

When he’s not catching bad guys, he’s a Christian apologist. In this role, he utilizes the same skills he’s honed over the decades as an investigator to demonstrate why it makes much more sense to believe in creation than a randomly generated universe.

The author of Cold-Case Christianity started off as a skeptical atheist, but as he investigated deeper, he soon realized it was impossible for the secular worldview to be correct as it pertained to the origins of the universe and life on the planet.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Leftists keep crying wolf: How ‘racist’ has lost all meaning

Published

on

By

Leftists keep crying wolf

The Left needs to start coming up with real arguments instead of relying on the crutch of name-calling.

Nick Kangadis , @TruthOfChicago of MRCTV makes the point that Leftist name calling has destroyed the emotional impact of certain words, leaving them without any practical debating points. Not to mention that a fair amount of time they are merely projecting their maladies on their opposition.

Does the action of being called a “racist” mean anything anymore? You’d think for being people that constantly talk about how tolerant and inclusive they are, the Left sure are hellbent on removing any weight actual racism carries, among other labels they like to arbitrarily place on people. The funny part of the whole thing is that the people who always cry racism seem to be the biggest racists.

Rules for the rational: Never substitute name-calling for a real argument

It’s one thing to frame the debate with a label or proper term, it’s quite another to simply use pejoratives without basis in fact.

We use the terms Leftist or Socialist-Left because those are the proper terms for those people. Conversely, we eschew the terms Liberal or Progressive because they are false descriptors of the Left. Some have tried to argue that the two ‘L’ words of the same length are interchangeable when that is not the case. Leftist are of collectivist bent, while Liberals are individualists.

Similarly, the vaguely defined term ‘Progressive’ runs counter to the post-modernism of the Left. The term national merely relates to or is characteristic of a nation. By the same token, the moniker ‘Liberty grabbers’ for Leftists describes their true nature in that they are no longer advocates of Liberty – despite their ongoing exploitation of the term‘Liberal’.

This is not the case with the Left, they have the unfortunate tendency to use pejoratives such as ‘Racist’, ‘Sexist’, ‘Fascist’, to excess instead of utilising real arguments. Presumably, one is supposed to be figuratively set back on their heels defending against these types of baseless allegations. The danger for the Left is these words have become a poor substitute for rational debating points, not that they ever had much of those in the first place. After all, their best argument in favour of collectivism is that it’s either never been tried before or it’s being tried everywhere.

The takeaway

A rational argument is far better than those worn out pejoratives that are usually based on information they don’t have. In most cases, one cannot know if they fit into those pejorative categories. But that never stopped the Left from using them anyway. The Left’s tactic of projecting the words ‘racist’, ’sexist’ ,’fascist’ has become both sad and amusing. Their desperation in using the follow-up tactic of circular logic in applying those words is also becoming obvious to everyone.

As those words lose their emotional impact from excessive overuse, it will become clearer to all that the Left has no real arguments in favour of it’s socialist national agenda. But most likely it’s racist, sexist or fascist to notice that.

Liked it? Take a second to support NOQ Report on Patreon!
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report