Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Social Justice



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.

Kelly Burke, master attorney, former district attorney and magistrate judge, is engaged in private practice. He writes about the law, rock’n’roll and politics.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Culture and Religion

Video: What is a Classical Liberal?




A short video making the point that the Left is no longer Liberal, having traded individualism for collectivism.

In one of their first animated video shorts, the Rubin Report discusses the vitally important topic of just who is a Classical Liberal.

OUR FIRST ANIMATED VIDEO! What is a Classical Liberal?

Liberalism has been confused with Leftism or progressivism, which is actually has nothing to do with classical Liberalism. Sadly the Left is no longer Liberal at all for it has traded individualism for collectivism.

The Rubin Report
Published on Jul 10, 2018

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

$.02: When is it OK to quit church?



Chris Sonsken of South Hills Church and founder Church BOOM penned a piece on Fox News that caught my attention on Twitter. It was a good column. Read the article here. The article addressed a Pew Research finding as to why people change churches. There finding as shown by Sonsken are:

  • Sermon quality
  • Welcoming environment/people
  • Style of worship
  • Location

Sonsken does a great job in arguing that there are biblically sound reasons for leaving a church and finding a new one.

1. It’s OK to leave if God calls us to leave.

2. It’s OK to leave for family and marriage.

3. It’s OK to leave a church if you have moved too far away to conveniently drive to your church.

4.  It’s OK to leave if you cannot follow the church’s leadership.

5.  It’s OK to leave if heresy is being preached.

Sonsken even mentions that unethical practices like abuse are reasons to leave, though not the norm for the majority of church swapping.

The reasons Sonsken gave are no cause for disagreement, and I’m sure his book Quit Church probably better articulates them.

Where I want to add my two sense on the matter is that I disagree with his assessment sermon quality is not a biblical reason for changing churches. The supposition that sermon quality is inherently a result of the person treating church like an object of consumption, as Sonsken suggests is not true. I believe sermon quality is an umbrella term for several reasons for not liking a Sunday message.

Too often people leave a church because of disagreement, not getting their way, or because the sermons are no longer deep enough. Often when we dig into the reason the sermons are not deep enough, it ultimately goes back to the person being offended or not having their faulty theologies endorsed from the pulpit. The same pastor who was previously deep enough becomes shallow once there is an offense. It’s incredibly difficult to hear from God in a sermon when we are offended by the person delivering the sermon.

This is true in many cases. A sin that is personal gets preached on and the offended party leaves. I don’t deny this to be the case. But I believe we should look deeper into the current trends of worship and focus on the mission of the church.

18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Matthew 28:18-21 ESV

The church is to preach the gospel, but people accepting Jesus as their Lord and Savior is only part of the mission. The Church is tasked with making disciples. The church is meant to teach. Not every follower is at the same level in their spiritual maturity or theological depth. Some churches, larger churches in particular dumb down the bible. In public education, this would be seen as lowering the bar. In church this practice could hold back believers in their growth. Small groups are a way to supplement this, and every church should employ bible study as a means to grow discipleship.

Many churches now are focused on metrics. This can lead to theologically watered down sermons and worship. Why risk offending that person who may leave with a sermon? But if a church is more focused on using a Sunday message to give a motivational speech using an out of context passage, what does it matter if they are doctrinally sound (in their written beliefs)?

There are a lot of heretical churches in America. We have issues like gay marriage to separate the sheep from the goats. But what about the sheep that suck? If a church has the right doctrine but is more focused on metrics than the power of the Holy Spirit, their head is in the wrong place. So it is biblically sound to change churches so that your head to remains in the right place.

That is not treating church like a consumer product. That is treating church like one’s means to grow spiritually, better recognizing the mission of the Great Commission.

That is my $.02 on the matter. I hope I added some meaningful word to this topic.

This post was originally publishd on Startup Christ. Startup Christ is a website for business and theology articles and columns.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: So, You Think You’re Tolerant?




Leftists like to fancy themselves as being tolerant and Liberal, but they fall way short in both qualities.

Leftists will tell you that they are the most tolerant people who have ever lived, they will also scream at you for being a racist, xenophobic troglodyte if you happen to mention that you’re a conservative. They are supposedly ‘Liberal’, being in favour of Liberty while demanding it’s polar opposite – socialism.

Yes, if there is one constant in the universe, its that Leftists cannot be honest about who they truly are. This is what we love about our wonderful opponents on the nation’s socialist Left, for they are nothing like another group that went by the same nomenclature who also screamed at people in the streets with the motto: Common Good Before Individual Good. [Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz]

But let’s not talk about the epithets they project on their enemies, let’s talk about how they get along with everyone who just happens to agree with everything they say. A new PragerU video featuring Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report looked at who is really tolerant. He is a true Liberal that discovered that it is actually the Pro-Liberty Right that is more tolerant, go figure.

Dave Rubin
Jul 9, 2018
Are you tolerant? You probably think so. But who is tolerant in America today? Is it those on the left, or those on the right? In this video, Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report analyzes this question and shares his experience.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.