The social justice movement and critical race theory advocates use terminology to disguise the complete negativity of their ideology. They promote a worldview based in a spirit of offense. According to them, people are divided into groups based upon the way in which they are oppressed, and choosing to be offended about how one is oppressed is a requirement of membership in this movement!
But on the other hand, if you are someone who chooses to cultivate a spirit of JOY (instead of a spirit of offense) in your own life and in your sphere of influence, then the social justice movement is most certainly NOT for you!
We choose the attitude we take toward our situation in life! Cultivating an attitude of anger - and defining yourself by the way in which you have been offended - is not a healthy attitude! Having keen eyesight to see the good in your life - and then cultivating an attitude of gratitude for those things - is the better attitude to choose. Spending your life bemoaning how you have been offended gets you nowhere.
To understand the cult of social justice, one must understand the concept of INTERSECTIONALITY. Intersectionality is "a form of identity politics in which the value of your opinion depends on how many victim groups you belong to." With intersectionality, not only must people define themselves upon the basis of how they have been offended, but their value of their opinion and contribution is determined by it. This is UNbiblical because - according to God - all people are equal in value and worth! Intersectionality violates the principles of equality that it falsely claims to support!
Lessons from Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals The Social Justice cult has derived many strategies from Alinskyism.
The Social Justice cult limits its followers to a very limited perspective on how to define problems and solutions. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
The story of Nicholas Sandman highlights the insidious role of cancel culture in manipulating public opinion.
Noah Rothman Author of Unjust: Social Justice and the Unmaking of America
Political philosopher John Rawls developed his Theory of Justice, which provides an academic foundation for social justice.
Skepticism about Distributive Social Justice
Limited government advocate Friedrich Hayek understood social justice as a misnomer, and he exposed the contradictions behind the ideals of the movement.
Friedrich Hayek knew the truth. Social Justice actually demands inequality! Click the button below to read an article explaining that "Hayek’s logic is correct: social justice demands treating people unequally."
Redefinition of Rights FDR's Second Bill of Rights
The redefinition of rights is at the core of the social justice movement.
Self proclaimed social justice warriors first convince people that something is a right.
Then they protest for the government to provide that thing to everyone using tax payer's money.
It's just a redistribution scheme using favorable terminology.
Near the end of World War II, FDR proposed a "Second Bill of Rights" that would fundamentally transform the nature of rights. He believed that people should have rights to have certain things provided to them by the State! (A right to get something from the government is a "positive right." It means that others have a duty to provide something to you.) This signaled a 180 turn from the Constitutional view of rights as articulated in the Bill of Rights. According the founding principles, people have natural, inherent rights to life, liberty, and property, and the Bill of Rights was designed to protect people from the government encroaching upon these pre-existing, inherent rights. (A right to be protected from encroachment is a "negative right." It means that others have a duty to refrain from infringing on your life, liberty, or property.) FDR was proposing a new definition of rights that placed a duty on some to provide something to others. Thus, FDR's approach involved a perspective toward rights that would deny some people their natural rights while providing nice things to others in exchange for votes.
FDR also attempted to redefine the concept of freedom!
Social justice cult members shut down free speech on campuses.
Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church 1982 Schaeffer wonders, "Where have all the Bible believing Christians been the past 40 years?" He claims that this country was founded on a Christian moral base, but the Christian worldview is being lost. "The bottom line...is the realization that if there is no place for disobeying the government, that government has been put in the place of the living God. In such a case, the government has been made a false god. If there is no place for disobeying a human government, that government has been made god. Caesar ... has been put upon the final throne. The Bible's answer is 'no.' Caesar is not to be put in the place of God... Christ must be the final Lord and not Caesar and not society."
Francis Schaeffer always understood - and tried to teach us - how important a Christian worldview is and how it impacts all aspects of life. The churches abdicated their responsibility to teach about how Biblical principles are connected to the civic realm. Undoubtedly because of Lyndon B. Johnson's 501(c)(3) status making churches tax exempt if they remained apolitical, churches stopped teaching fundamental principles of liberty and identity. Christians have not been taught about their identity as natural rights holders. Even church-going people now believe that a person's rights are granted by The State where the government decides which rights a person is allowed to have. Yet Thomas Jefferson declared that Man has God-given inherent rights of life and liberty along with the liberty to pursue personal happiness. John Locke declared that man has natural, God- given inherent rights of life, liberty, and property. Natural rights are not granted from without. Natural rights are an inherent part of each individual's identity from within. That simple reality is a revolutionary truth and is fundamental to a Christian worldview. Those withOUT the Christian understanding of natural rights believe they need to petition and protest to get The State to give them things they believe they have a right to, and this attitude is the foundation of the social justice movement and Marxism. Thus, for a Leftist to get his or her rights, The State (the taxpayer) has to provide them with something. On the other hand, for a person with a Christian worldview, they understand that they already possess their rights just by virtue of being a person created by God. No one needs to give them anything. Instead, they work toward protecting the rights they possess inherently by limiting the power of government to encroach upon anyone's natural rights!
"I hope we have once again reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There's a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: As government expands, liberty contracts."