But as strides are being made on key issues of sanctity of life and social justice, as well as peaceful solutions to world conflicts, more and more evangelicals are taking a closer look at options the Democratic Party are beginning to deliver.
When he speaks of the social justice that Democratic Party is beginning to deliver, I can't really come up with anything significant. What does he mean by social justice anyway? By the strict definition I assume it would encompass things such as proportionate and sensible law enforcement measures, ensuring equal access to quality education/employment or protecting property rights. These are areas of justice/fairness; areas where the Dems have not been particularly productive in my opinion.
I suspect that he was referring to what is known as the "social gospel" but used what he considered a more inclusive word. This is a set of ideals in which care for the poor, disadvantaged and infirm is of the highest priority and government programs are a preferred method. Since I largely agree with these tenants but differ on the means (government programs are HORRIBLE stewardship, Biblically speaking), I must disagree with Miller on this point.
The Democratic party (to a greater degree than the GOP) has long advocated the use of tax dollars to fund social programs. While it's debatable whether or not this is a good idea, it is clearly not "justice." It is seizing - upon threat of prison - money from more productive members of society (the ones who pay taxes) and giving it directly or indirectly to less productive members.
If we are going to have legitimate discussion and productive communication words have to mean something. You cannot take a word that is admirable and throw it into a phrase to elicit support.
What do you guys think? Am I nitpicking semantics? Am I just imagining the whole thing?
Posts
First, I'm bummed I missed him speaking at the convention. That would have been interesting. I do agree with you, in the way that I think the Dems aren't necessarily leaders in social justice, peace, and sanctity of life. I don't really think the Republicans are either. I believe much of this good work is done outside of a political party, and that the only good thing a political party can do in this case is smooth the way for committed members of society to make change happen.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that made sense, but it just spurted out of my brain.
I think Amanda is right that "much of this good work is done outside of a political party." Both parties like to shout from the rooftops that they (and not the other guys, by the way) are in the business of social justice (whatever that means) yet they don't do it in their personal lives.
ReplyDeleteWhile it wasn't my main point, I will also concur that the best work is done outside political parties and thus the government at large (since it is a partisan political apparatus). It is because of that, that I give the edge in this to the GOP. They are more likely to leave those dollars in the hands of the public to support those extra-governmental efforts.
ReplyDeleteEither way, discussion of the pros and cons of the major parties is tangential to the intended focus of my question which was, am I crazy to think using the term "social justice" clouds the issue? It was a minor disagreement with an otherwise great talk.