Beware of who is Defining what Constitutes "Social Justice."

A word or a phrase can have two or more very distinct meanings, depending on who uses the word. Take for example, “social justice.”

For the Catholic Church, “Social justice is linked to the common good,” BUT “can only be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of man.

“Society ensures social justice when it provides the conditions that allow associations or individuals to obtain what is their due, according to their nature and their vocation.

For the church, “The person represents the ultimate end of society, which is ordered to him.”

The church argues that “Respect for the human person proceeds by way of respect for the principle that “everyone should look upon his neighbor (without any exception) as ‘another self,’ above all bearing in mind his life and the means necessary for living it with dignity.”

The church explains its social justice teachings, saying, “Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin.” But the church notes, “On coming into the world, man is not equipped with everything he needs for developing his bodily and spiritual life. He needs others. Differences appear tied to age, physical abilities, intellectual or moral aptitudes, the benefits derived from social commerce, and the distribution of wealth. The ‘talents’ are not distributed equally. These differences belong to God’s plan.”

The church also teaches that it is part of God’s plan that “These differences encourage and often oblige persons to practice generosity, kindness, and sharing of goods. Indeed, Christ taught in the Sermon on the Mount that each in need should ‘receive what he needs from others’. And that those endowed with particular ‘talents’ share the benefits with those who need them.“

The Church sums up each social justice teaching, saying, “The equal dignity of human persons requires the effort to reduce excessive social and economic inequalities. It gives urgency to the elimination of sinful inequalities.”

The disciples of Saul Alinsky also speak in terms of social justice. His dream expressed in the following paragraph, would no doubt receive the approbation of the Christian churches:

“To realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which man can have the chance to live by values that give meaning to life.”

But for Alinsky and his followers, social justice is not an extension of Christian charity.

It is rather something to be seized during the course of revolution by whatever means are feasible.

The Church, in its catechism,  would encourage those with more to share. Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals,” (his “bible”) by way of contrast, instructs the Have-Nots on “how to take it away.” His method has little to do with Christian charity.”

“In this book we are concerned with how to create mass organizations to seize power and give it to the people. ... This means revolution.”

The Church’s teachings on social justice must be read in conjunction with, and tempered with, its teachings on “ends” and “means.” The Church teaches “The morality of human acts depends on the object chosen;  the end in view or the intention; and the circumstances of the action. “For example, assume your object is to help your neighbor who is in need. That is a good object. But the church would say that that alone, is not sufficient to define the morality of your act.

“A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).”

Alinsky concerns himself only with means and ends.

He does not recognize the concept of “objective good.” For him, truth is “relative and changing.” Nor would he acknowledge an “objective good.”

“We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it. ... The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get.”

Therefore, for Alinsky, “Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The ‘end’ is what you want, and the ‘means’ is how you get it. ... The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.”

So, for the Christian, the ultimate objective good is God. But not for Alinsky.

“We live in a world where ‘good’ is a value dependent on whether we want it. ... The Haves want to keep; the Have-Nots want to get.”

So, where do you feel safe? In a world living according to the Church’s teachings? Or in a world of Alinskys? Both speak of social justice. But the Church’s world is incompatible with that of Hitler and Stalin. The Church affirms the dignity of every human person. It is otherwise in Alinsky’s.

“One does not always enjoy the luxury of a decision that is consistent both with one’s individual conscience and the good of mankind. The choice must always be for the latter. Action is for mass salvation and not for the individual’s personal salvation. He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience ... doesn’t care enough for people to be ‘corrupted’ for them.”

What Hitler and Stalin did, they did to promote the general welfare of their respective states. The Islamic State purports to do likewise.

My point is: When you pick your social justice companions, be careful with whom you choose to travel. Many who traveled with Hitler and Stalin, were marched to their death camps and gulags.

Posted: Friday, May 22, 2015 11:00 pm - QuadCities Online.com

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

Don't Make Geller Villain in Texas Attack

“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and -- as it did here -- inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course -- to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” 
                                                            -- Chief Justice John Roberts, Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

In the wake of the intended slaughter at the Draw Muhammad Event in Garland, Texas, two very different pictures are being drawn of Pamela Geller who heads the promoting organization called  "American Freedom Defense Initiative."

It was Geller and others involved that Simpson and Soofi intended to attack with assault rifle, before they were shot dead.

Brian Levin, J.D. writes on the Huffington Post, "Pamela Geller, 56, a self-described free-speech advocate and outspoken Islamophobe who spins wild, hateful conspiracy theories about Muslims ..."

To Sean Hannity, she is a defender of free speech, and an implacable opponent of Muslim Jihad. 

Until the attempted jihad in Texas, I had never heard of Pamela Geller or "AFDI." Here is what "AFDI" says about itself in its mission statement:

              "Our objective is to go on the offensive when legal, academic, legislative,
               cultural, sociological, and political actions are taken to dismantle our basic
               freedoms and values.

              "AFDI acts against the treason being committed by national, state, and local
              government officials, the mainstream media, and others in their capitulation
              to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, the ever-encroaching and
              unconstitutional power of the federal government, and the rapidly moving
              attempts to impose socialism and Marxism upon the American people.”

The  partial transcripts below, clearly indicates Ms. Geller unabashedly speaks her mind, and minces no words." So the question is, is she a "a Muslim-hater," a self-aggrandizer and a bigot, or an American who has made up her mind to defend freedom of speech by saying whatever the radical Muslims say she can't say without subjecting herself to capital punishment under Sharia law?  Should she capitulate; and engage in political correctness? Many say, yes.

On May 3, Geller was interviewed by CNN anchor, Alisyn Camerota:

Camerota: Did you get any intel from the police just how dangerous an event like this could be?

Geller: It's dangerous because increasingly we're abridging our freedoms so as not to offend savages. The very idea that if something offends me, or if I'm insulted by something, I'll kill you, and that way, I can get my way, and somehow this is OK with members of the elite media and academia,  is outrageous.

Camerota: Of course everyone's concerned about the violences, but let's face it, your event was not just about the violence ...

Geller: My event was about freedom of speech, period. Freedom of Speech is  the First Amendment. ... Political speech is the most protected, because who will decide what is good and what is forbidden? These arbitrary voices? ... The Muslim Brotherhood? We need to have this conversation. The fact that we have to spend upwards of $50,000 in security speaks to how dangerous and how in trouble freedom of speech is in this country. And then we have to get on these news shows, and somehow those that are targeted, those who were going to be slaughtered, are attacked, speaks to how morally inverted this conversation is. I'm not concerned with Muslims, especially peaceful Muslims, but I am concerned with the 25 percent who support Sharia.

Later, on May 5, Geller again appeared -- this time opposite a radical Muslim cleric from London, Anjem Choudry.

Sean Hannity: You want world-wide Sharia?....

Choundry: Of course. We believe the whole world to be governed by Sharia law.

Hannity: And you believe Muslims who leave their religion  -- apostates-- should be killed.

Choudry: Well, of course. The prophet said whoever changes, kill him.

Hannity: And gays and lesbians should be killed.

Choudry: If they do the acts publicly, it carries capital punishment. ...

Hannity: All these incidents over a cartoon .... Do you support this death threat against Pam Geller because she ran a free speech contest drawing cartoons of your prophet?...

Choudry: You're talking about people who deliberately had a competition to insult the message of Muhammad. ... Now this woman was to draw cartoons or have people draw cartoons to insult the prophet knowing full well this carries the death penalty in Islam. ...

Hannity: So you support the death penalty for Pam Geller, who is not Muslim, because she had a cartoon contest? ...

Choudry: ... It's about divine law. Whoever insults the Messenger ... that would carry capital punishment.

Hannity:So you want her to die?

Choudry: She should be put before a Sharia court, and tried and, if she's found guilty, of course it would carry capital punishment.

There is no question that Geller was provocative. She meant to be provocative. A main argument made against her is that she may well have had the right of free speech, but that she was a self-aggrandizer and bigot for exercising it.

But if there is to be free speech in America, people have to be free to say what they think. Geller may be right or wrong. You can form your own rough opinions.

Our First Amendment  says, Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, or the press. Our 14th Amendment, extends both rights against abridgment by any state. So if Congress and the states cannot abridge free speech and press, are we going to say Muslim clerics with their 7th century mentalities can? Is there a better way to fight "fuquas" barring free speech than to say exactly what the Muslim bigots and fanatics say you can't say?  Say nothing, and they win.

But what I find utterly insane is at the same time radical Muslims would criminalize Geller's right to free speech, they themselves are exercising their right to free speech in calling for her assassination. And in the view of some Americans, Geller has suddenly becomes the "villain."

Two assassins traveled 1,000 miles to kill her, and deny her her constitutional rights to life, liberty and free speech, and she is portrayed as the villain! If Geller is against global jihad, given the beheadings of Christians, and the kidnappings, rapes and forced-marriages of young girls being perpetrated by people calling themselves "Muslims" in the name of Islam, maybe she has good reason. And don't forget: they already tried to exterminate her, and have issued a new "fuqua," calling her a "swine," and promising to kill her -- as well as anyone who gives her a platform.

Posted: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 11:00 pm-  QuadCitiesOnline

By John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea

If Everyone Lies, Why Negotiate Anything?

 “Never attempt to win by force what can be won by deception. ... The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.-- Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince


For the last six years, our president and his administration have operated on the principle of that the ends justify the means. The "end" is always said to be the welfare of the American people. The "means" have included making promises with no intent to keep them, or knowing they will be broken when convenient. For just one example, watch Professor Jonathan Gruber: youtube.com/watch?v=Adrdmmh7bMo

But what happens in the area of foreign negotiations when enemies such as Russia, Iran or the Islamic State employ the same tactic? What if during the course of negotiations, they make promises with no intent to keep them, or with intent to renege as soon as it suits their convenience? What if the Russians lie to us about what the are doing in Ukraine? What if the Iranians lie to us about their uranium enrichment sites?

Both Russia and Iran have "ends" in mind. If the ends justify the means in Washington, why not in Moscow or Teheran? And if your opponent signs an agreement with no intent to observe it, or with intent to disregard it when convenient, what is the value of the written and signed agreement?
You can say, "How can you be sure they will lie or make promises they don't intent to keep?" In truth, I can't be sure. But deceit for them is small change compared to the other more lethal acts they have undertaken to achieve their ends.

Putin, for example, shamelessly invaded and occupies portions of Georgia, seizes Crimea, and makes war on the Ukraine, using Russian arms, Russian special forces and Ukrainian proxies -- all in flagrant violation of International Law.

Iran, while claiming peaceful intentions, sends arms to Hezzbollah, Hamas and the Houthi in Yemen, after supplying IEDs that killed and maimed American troops for more than a decade, while moving on a daily basis to acquire ICBMs and a nuclear bomb.

If I am willing to kill you to achieve my end, will I scruple at intentionally deceiving you to achieve that same end at a lower cost?

In his book, "Rules for Radicals," Saul Alinsky devotes his second chapter to a discussion of means and ends.

“The second rule of the ethics of 'means and ends' is that the judgment of  the ethics of 'means' is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. If you actively opposed the Nazi occupation and joined the underground Resistance, then you adopted the means of assassination, terror, property destruction, the bombing of tunnels and trains, kidnapping, and the willingness to sacrifice innocent hostages to the end of defeating the Nazis. Those who opposed the Nazi conquerors regarded the Resistance as a secret army of selfless, patriotic idealists, courageous beyond expectation and willing to sacrifice their lives to their moral convictions.To the occupation authorities, however, these people were lawless terrorists, murderers, saboteurs, assassins, who believed that the end justified the means, and were utterly unethical according to the mystical rules of war. ... However, in such conflict, neither protagonist is concerned with any value except victory. It is life or death.

“Life and how you live it is the story of means and ends. The 'end' is what you want, and the 'means' is how you get it. Whenever we think about social change, the question of means and ends arises. The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmatic and strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of ends only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only    whether they will work."

Of course Alinsky was not the first to argue the ends justify the means. Around 1513, Machiavelli wrote "The Prince"  in which states:

"Everyone admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and not with craft. Nevertheless … those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and ... in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word.

"If men were entirely good, this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them. Nor will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to excuse this non-observance.

"It is necessary [for the prince] to be a great pretender and dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.

"Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them ...  -- to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright ...
"A prince ... cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed,  being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity,  friendship, humanity, and religion.”

So, is it possible to negotiate with the likes of Putin and Iran's Ali Khamenei? Yes. Neville Chamberlain was even able to get Adolf Hitler to put his signature to a  written agreement? Hitler then tore up the agreement when convenient.

Without foolproof verification only a blithering idiot would believe Khamenei and the Iranian regime after they've promised the annihilation of Israel and developed ICBMs -- while claiming their centrifuges are only for "peaceful purposes.

Posted Online:  May 8, 2015 at 11:10 pm - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2015

John Donald O'Shea