Social Justice Isn't Justice | 5 Minute Video
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 тра 2020
- You’ll see a lot of references to justice in the Bible, but you’ll never see the word “social” precede it. Why? Is it simply because social justice is a new cause that post dates the Bible? Or is it because social justice, by its very nature, is directly at odds with justice as the Bible defines it? Allie Beth Stuckey, host of Relatable on BlazeTV, takes a fresh look at this important issue.
FOLLOW us!
Facebook: 👉 / prageru
Twitter: 👉 / prageru
Instagram: 👉 / prageru
SUBSCRIBE so you never miss a new video! 👉www.prageru.com/join/
To view the script, sources, quiz, visit www.prageru.com/video/social-...
Join PragerU's text list to have these videos, free merchandise giveaways and breaking announcements sent directly to your phone! optin.mobiniti.com/prageru
Do you shop on Amazon? Click smile.amazon.com and a percentage of every Amazon purchase will be donated to PragerU. Same great products. Same low price. Shopping made meaningful.
SHOP!
Love PragerU? Now you can wear PragerU merchandise! Visit our store today! shop.prageru.com/
JOIN PragerFORCE!
For Students: l.prageru.com/2aozfkP
JOIN our Educators Network! l.prageru.com/2aoz2y9
Script:
The Lord is a God of social justice.
That’s the message in many-maybe most-churches and synagogues in America and the West today.
But here’s the problem: The Bible doesn’t actually say that. It says (in Isaiah), “The Lord is a God of justice.” You’ll find a lot of references to justice in the Bible. But you’ll never find it preceded by the word “social.”
But you’re probably thinking, “What’s the difference? Isn’t God the God of justice and social justice?” Well, not if He’s consistent. You see, God cannot be the God of justice and social justice because social justice is not just.
Justice is getting what you deserve without favor. Social justice is getting what you don’t deserve because you are favored.
Justice is blind. Social justice is not.
Let's say a man robs a store. Justice demands but one thing: that he be tried in a court of justice, and, if he is found guilty, punished.
That is not how social justice works. Social justice doesn’t only ask if the person is guilty. It asks about his economic condition: Is he poor or wealthy? About his upbringing: What kind of childhood did he have? About his race or ethnicity: Is he a member of a group that has been historically oppressed?
Justice demands that everyone be equal under the law. Social justice demands that everyone be equal. Period. Economically, socially, and in every other possible way.
Justice asks, “Who did it?” Social justice asks, “Why did he do it?”
Lost in all these social justice considerations is the individual’s own responsibility for what he did. That’s why social justice advocates have abandoned the term “justice.” They deem justice alone as unfair. And sometimes it is. A man who was beaten by his father and abandoned by his mother is more likely to commit a violent crime than a man raised in a loving home. But those facts cannot and should not determine his innocence or guilt.
Why? Because justice is, first and foremost, about truth: Is the person guilty or innocent of the crime? None of us is omniscient. We don’t know why people do what they do. After all, the vast majority of people raised in abusive homes do not commit violent crimes. Nor do the vast majority of people who are members of an historically oppressed group.
Being a victim, however that is defined, is no excuse for hurting other people. And what about those who are hurt-the victims of those crimes? Shouldn’t they, and other law-abiding citizens, be society’s first consideration?
Social justice advocates say no. They say we need social justice to even things out. And that means favoring the have-nots over the haves-the poor over the rich, the female over the male, and the brown or black over the white.
The Bible does not see the world this way. In fact, it speaks against it in very explicit terms.
Here’s a law in the Book of Exodus: “Do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor person in a lawsuit.”
Here’s one in Leviticus: “Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great but judge your neighbor justly.”
Moses, the greatest lawgiver in history, declares in Deuteronomy: “Follow justice and justice alone.”
And the New Testament declares in the Book of Romans: “God shows no partiality.”
None of this means that there is no place for compassion in a system of justice. Of course, there is. The Bible is preoccupied with the protection of the widow, the orphan, and unfortunate. But compassion follows justice. It doesn’t precede it.
For the complete script, visit www.prageru.com/video/social-...
Hey kids, here's a tip: finding out why something happened is a very crucial step in making sure it doesn't happen again. If you don't know the cause, your solution is throwing darts blindfolded without being pointed at the board.
They say that justice is getting what you deserve, but can we say that the poor man stealing out of hunger gets what he deserves when he gets thrown into a prison cell? I dont think so. He doesnt get what he deserves, he gets injustice. I think it would be just for him to be forgiven and fed. But obviously same cannot be said for a person who steals out of the desire to hurt others, in that case rehabilitation, not punitive incarceration should be the answer. Current justice systems fails in both of those examples, and even in an example where it supposed to thrive (in isolating truly dangerous individuals) it doesn't do its full job and releases those who are clearly dangerous back into society.
Solomon put it best: "No one despises the poor man when he steals, to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet, if he is caught, he must pay back sevenfold, even though it costs him his whole house."
We might sympathize will the criminal, but we cannot ignore the crime. Justice cannot concern itself with one's circumstances, only the choices one makes within those circumstances - because those choices may hurt other people. The hurt you may have endured does not justify hurting others. Justice holds the individual to account, as it should. #WakeUpFromWoke
Quarantine Challenge: Take a shot every time she says "justice"
Heyyyyyy. I took the charlang dude and uh er I do did and know I are yea. Now I'm Joe biden
@@henrycomputer1403 lol :)
@@henrycomputer1403 SPOT ON IMPERSONATION!!! ARE U SURE YOU ARENT HIM???
@@choosefreedomisback8898 don't make me slice my own wrist. Where's my electric razor?
@@henrycomputer1403 Dont hurt yourself.
Shouldn't both be asked? Asking "what did the person do" to determine the just, unbiased punishment AND asking "why did the person do" to try and prevent it from happening again?
yeah but that takes common sense, which prager u doesn't have
@@tomithebunny and also compassion.
Luke Enno So it cant be something like, say, starvation? Stealing a loaf of bread to save one’s life is inherently hating god? What if a child is starving and steals bread? They’ve technically broken the law, even the child, but is it wrong to want to live but have no other choice? Further: How can a society be just when, say, bankers get away with lies that cost people millions but they get less than 10 years, sometimes less than 5, in a cushy prison? Whereas a man with 3 nonviolent offenses is serving life without parole for stealing $9 because of a “just” habitual offender law.
Luke Enno in a religious context, it is true that humans are inherently sinful. But please do not ignore the many other causes for crime that we can plainly see. People live in poverty because of racist acts of the past, and since it’s so incredibly hard to get out of poverty in a society like ours, they have sometimes have no option but to resort to crime. That doesn’t make crime okay, but it clearly shows that we could actually put in some effort to reduce the causes of crime and therefore reduce crime. Yes humans are and always will be sinful, but it would be sinful not to try to be better, and it would be sinful not to show compassion. If the justice system only asks “who did it”, it will never prevent further crime. If we ask “why” we can see that our lack of compassion for others may be the exact reason for the crime rates being as high as they are.
The Absolute Madman as far as I know, social justice isn’t really about defining punishments. This video was very misleading because all it did was compare “social justice” to the “justice system”. But social justice isn’t necessarily some alternative judgement system that’s meant to replace the justice system. They are different things altogether and they should be able to work together.
Also, this video seemed to assume that our justice system perfectly represents the biblical concept of justice, which really isn’t true... and the justice system shows partiality to the rich if anything. So it’s a little ironic that people like you are pushing so hard against a movement that is trying to make the justice system better represent justice. Maybe we see justice differently I guess, but I think it would be foolish to say our system is perfect the way it is.
"You've corrupted justice long enough, you've let the wicked get away with murder. You're here to defend the defenseless, to make sure that the underdogs get a fair break; your job is to stand up for the powerless, and prosecute all those who exploit them."
"Because he rescues the poor at the first sign of need, the destitute who have run out of luck. He opens a place in his heart for the down-and-out, he restores the wretched of the earth. He frees them from tyranny and torture- when they bleed, he bleeds; when they die, he dies."
"He puts victims back on their feet... God is sheer mercy and grace."
"God is gracious- it is he who makes things right, our most compassionate God. God takes the side of the helpless; when I was at the end of my rope, he saved me."
"I know that you, God, are on the side of the victims, that you care for the rights of the poor."
"He always does what he says- he defends the wronged, he feeds the hungry. God frees the prisoners- he gives sight to the blind, he lifts up the fallen. God loves good people, protects strangers, takes the side of the orphan and widows, but makes short work of the wicked."
"I dare to believe that the luckless will get lucky someday in you. You won't let them down: orphans won't be orphans forever."
"God takes the side of victims. Do you think you can mess with the dreams of the poor? You can't, for God makes their dreams come true."
"Down-and-outers sit at God's table and eat their fill."
"Isn't it obvious that God deliberately chose men and women that the culture overlooks and exploits and abuses, chose the "nobodies" to expose the hollow pretensions of the "somebodies"?
"Real religion, the kind that passes muster before God the Father, is this: Reach out to the homeless and loveless in their plight, and guard against corruption from the godless world."
"The Lord is a stronghold for the oppressed, a stronghold in times of trouble."
"The Lord works righteousness and justice for all who are oppressed."
“He saves the needy from the sword in their mouth; he saves them from the clutches of the powerful. So the poor have hope, and injustice shuts its mouth.”
"He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to set the oppressed free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor."
“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
“He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God.”
Lol they got owned
That's because christians Churches teach about Social Justice!
Thank you!
It helps to cite the chapters and verses, so that people can make sure you're not just making things up. Just sayin. It also helps to A) Know what those verses mean, and B) Not take verses out of context, because taking verses out of context corrupts their meaning.
"A society that aims for equality before liberty will gain neither equality nor liberty." Milton Friedman.
@@blackeye500 There is equality in chance. Not outcome.
@@blackeye500 Equity is the equality of outcome. HORRIBLE ideology. Equality of opportunity for the win!!
@@blackeye500 That is the problem, equity is group ideology that gets corrupted by mob mentality and hierarchical greed, your value is no better then a special interest group but instead of bribes the corruption is social terrorism. Justice, fairness, rights and opportunity should be based on the individual, above all else. Your group is irrelevant.
Liberty is already there, next is equality
@@blackeye500 who is we? And this is the first I'm hearing about this. I've heard equality and people fighting for equality on an almost daily basis. I've never heard equity lol this is new. So now from this new perspective I ask also who is we?.
“Justice is blind...... Social Justice is not.”
That speaks volumes louder than any social justice protest.
Carver Woods - Justice is blind. This expression means that justice is impartial and objective. There is an allusion here to the Greek statue for justice, wearing a blindfold so as not to treat friends differently from strangers, or rich people better than the poor ones. This quote then actually means that justice has both eyes that are impartial. Social justice closes one or both eyes.
"Justice is Blind", yes this is true. However, Lady Justice is not an icon, she's a Pagan Deity known as "Dike", the Goddess of Justice. One of those Pagan Deities that the Judeo-Christian God and his people give no homage to as they appropriate her image and what she represents to us Classical Pagans.
Justice is bought.
In a democracy, justice means whatever the citizens of that country decide it means. It’s whatever a judge or jury decides. In other words, justice is other people, and people are far from blind.
@@mkultra21 But the USA isn't a democracy, it's a constitutional republic.
I just finished my senior year of HS. For my last theology class, it was called social justice class, but it's not as bad as you might think. We learned about the principle of subsidiarity, which is kind of a principle that the Republicans and libertarians follow. We also learned that life issues like abortion, the death penalty, and euthanasia, are all part of a seamless garment philosophy where to be actually pro-life, you kind of also have to be against stuff like the death penalty and euthanasia. We also talked about getting to the root of a problem instead of just treating it. I guess an example of this would be instead of just doing soup kitchens, get to the root of poverty to fix the problem so soup kitchens won't be needed. I now have a greater respect for MLK, especially when you look at how the revolutions in 1989 in Eastern Europe achieved their goals mostly with non-violence, which is what MLK advocated for, though for racial justice. Most of all, I respected the teacher that I had. I might've not agreed with him on everything, but he is the kindest man ever and he looks like he really wants to help the world anyway he can. Just my 2¢ on the issue. Didn't agree with everything in the class, but thought it was interesting.
Yeah the image that’s often painted of college campuses is nowhere near how universities actually operate. The point isn’t labeling things as problematic for the hell of it, it’s about education. Because you’re at an educational facility 😂
Your reply is appreciated, but it shows your lack of wisdom and flawed logic. Just as one example, under your premise, those who are pro-abortion by your logic should also be strong supporters of the death penalty, which is normally not the case. Your reply circumvents the theory of justice. Social justice is not justice. One can argue that social justice is compassionate, and in many respects it is. But what you learned in your classroom is definitely not the Biblical view of justice, which is the justice over which our Constitutional Republic was founded. That's the point of this video. You seem to be a very intelligent person and a very good writer. You just need some more wisdom, which will only come with age.
@@nationalistdiplomat8751 his premise wasn't that pro choice people are pro death penalty.
It's that to be truly pro life, you support all life no matter what.
Onto the constitution.
Our law system, justice system is based off fair trials, rights to public defenders, appeals, etc.
As is our constitution, for freedoms and rights.
Our constitution also proposes free religious beliefs.
It does not hold the Bible or abrahamic religions as superior or law.
It was never founded on these religions,
It was founded on the independence from a tyrannical British government.
Our country also isn't just a republic, but a democracy in which people pick leaders to pass laws.
There is no “root cause” of things.
@@dan2178>to be truly pro life, you must be against the death penalty
False
If you break justice it becomes just ice and that's cold.
No such thing as social justice. There is justice, period.
You're obviously a moron, or an SJW.
@@RetroMillennialStudios What is social justice?
Well there is justice but in America it is absolute shit
On a higher plain of thinking, there is no such thing as justice. The universe cares not. In a cultural context, we humans made up "justice" and different types of it to help us be more secure in society with laws that prevent other humans from acting in a way that is detrimental to other humans. Religions preach justice only because they are culmination of 1000's of years of human experience and if they figure something out in that time we should not be surprised! It is not divine, we humans simply learn... VERY slowly. Once we figured out how to write, we more quickly pass on useful information. The internet is that x1000 except morons are able to "educate" others through their personal bias.
@@ShawnHodgins Your train of thought is based on a fallacy: We evolved, therefore there is no God and there is no natural law. The evidence all points to intelligent design, not evolution. The evidence in nature points to a creator, not to a blind, random process.
"No two things on Earth are equal or have an equal chance. Not a leaf, not a tree.There's many a man worse than me, and some better... But I don't think race or country matters a damn. "
Sergeant 'Buster' Kilrain (Gettysburg Killer Angels)
Read that book..plus his son's books..you got me thinking I'll read it again.
@@alexgramm5170
All *3 are (IMO) very good at showing the who what & why of that war.
* Gods & Generals, The Killer Angels, The Last Full Measure.
I'd be careful about that thinking. You start thinking next thing you know you're asking Questions. Dangerous business. that.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 As regards thinking and questions ,yes, sir ,indeed.... Have you ever read Bruce Catton?
@@alexgramm5170
Short answer Yes. very good. And Shelby Footes Civil War a narrative. For a *REALLY deep dive, nay I recommend Allan Nevin's Ordeal Of The Union 1847-1865.
*when I say Deep Dive I mean 8 volumes all 400+ heavily footnoted but very readable pages.
@@stevenwiederholt7000 I did read Shelby Foote. 1st started Catton when I was 18, I'm 53 now. I have heard of Mr. Nevins , sounds like quite a mouthful. Of course I'll have to look it up. Kind of funny ,I thought we settled the matter of secession back then looks like the rogue mayors and governors didn't get the lesson. A total disregard for the Const. as well...such times..
Bold choice for her to base her entire argument on not understanding what the actual words Justice or social justice mean.
“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.”
― Benjamin Franklin
Are you sure Mr. Ben Franklin said that???
@@rlunnerstall No. Quote has never been proven as whether BK said it. But, common usage is that he did. The substance is what it says not who said it.
@@us-unclesam6566 Discrimination is unacceptable period. The system Ben Franklin and our Founders gave us proved to work because it was Just. Justice as you know is blind, social justice is not.
@@rlunnerstall Social justice = wealth redistribution, plain and simple. Moral justice = you keep what you earn.
US - Uncle Sam You have no idea what Social Justice is. Capitalism is the Wealthy Stealing Capital from Workers, Socialism is People Keeping what they own.
How do you not know what a „motive“ is and how it can affect a jurys verdict ???
Certain polish politician has always been saying "the difference between justice and social justice is like the difference between chair and electric chair.
Damn, pols are getting smarter. So much for a lot of jokes.
Niech zgadnę: JKM?😉
@@Admiral45-10 No raczej 😁. I jeszcze właśnie gram w KSP 🤣.
@@marianrepinski4470 w sumie, to jak słyszysz, że jakiś polski polityk w XXI wieku wygłosił cytat, który potem będzie głoszony całemu światu, to można śmiało obstawiać JKM 😁
A tak przy okazji: jeśli grasz teraz w KSP, to nie zapomnij inżyniera z Repair Kit i paroma rzeczami, których zawsze brakuje. A tak swoją drogą: jak będziesz mógł to spróbuj, ale naprawdę super jest zapakować jedynie części łazika i złożyć na miejscu.😉
Yeah makes sense that the country invaded by commies are accustomed to logical reasoning as they have experience with tyranny.😊
"Many Christian and Jews no longer regard biblical principles as binding."
Many Americans no longer view the constitution as binding either...
Bingo! The writers of the Constitution were biblical scholars.
I can say the same for Leftist politicians and their FBI cronies.
then the people who no longer wish to follow those principles should go live their lives elsewhere, where those concepts don't exist instead of trying to change a land on which those principles have already been established.
@@wassgood42 Thats the problem, a lot of people fancy themselves college grad 'revolutionaries' and think changing America from the inside out is a righteous cause.
Its rather wrong to compare a faiths principles and the man-made constitution of a nation that is younger than both of my small hometowns (Blackburn from the 9th century, and Clitheroe, sometime after the Norman invasion in 1066).
There's nothing wrong with knowing why someone committed a crime and I am well aware that some crimes are worse than others, but even then, you can't give free passes. Even if the justice system is broken, we ought to have it fixed to justice can stand. Plus, even people of the same minority group will agree that there are better ways to better your life than through crime or harm.
Justice is the trial, compassion is the sentencing...
Sadly, this term has crept into my church. It's sad when a parishoner with no official training or credentials (me) has to warn the pastor about the use of that term.
Someone needs to. Watching this video, I fantasized about standing up in church and correcting all of this BS. Even if it gets me expelled.
The term social justice comes from the Catholic inspired 'social gospel'. Look it up.
@@johnshilling2221I think that is the only way to let them know that you are not falling for communism.
@@johnshilling2221 cringe
Gotta love straw man arguments no one is arguing
project much?
It seems to me like it's not really about justice for you, but about punishment
This is the conservative way. The law is not about shaping society but about who gets punished. I recommend the video “alt right playbook: I hate Mondays” if you haven’t seen it already
Exactly what someone would say who doesn’t believe that each person must take responsibility for their own actions.
jherboss conservative, liberal, libertarian, or whatever other party you feel the need to classify each idea with as a precursor to a statement.
Plain and simple, ALL actions have results or consequences.
Sorry it doesn’t fit “your truth” - foolish oxymoron you probably subscribe to
@@mrspiwi literally no one disagrees with "all actions has consequences". Like the video you oversimplfy things
Why would hell exist if punishment wasn't part of God's justice?
Social justice is why UA-cam bans PU videos.
There Is only one time when everybody will be equal, it will come when everybody will lay underground and dead
Kind of morbid, but true.
And then when everybody is raised to be judged by God for all they did in life, both good and bad.
“Justice is getting what you deserve without favor, social justice is getting what you don’t deserve because you are favored.” Perfectly sums it up
Amazing how many people here don't get this. They just want any excuse they can grab on to NOT TO BE RESPONSIBLE!
I didn't know what to believe about justice thanks Prager University I love having prager University as my news source but sad to see some of my friends and acquaintances buy the fake woke news and wish they would see right through it
This claim is completely wrong. See my post above about it. The problem is not that blacks get preferential treatment, but rather they are more harshly treated than whites in the system. The system is not blind and blatantly racist. Links to studies about this in my post above.
@@johnathanballard1304 pragerU has been blasted by mediabiasfactcheck and many other reputable fact check organisations for heavy right wing bias, doctoring of factual information and for spreading of misinformation. pick a different right wing news network.
Then it is like being entitled. We all are only entitled to what we have earned.
I'm confused, does social justice want equality or to put some over others? You say both at different times based on what makes it look worse
Probably over others.
They properly mean you eat shit while they drink piss
Social Justice preaches for equity, where people get what they need equally, since there are all kinds of ppl. The goal of social justice is to hopefully reach equality where we are all just human, and finally realize color of our skin doesn’t mean jack shit
PE 663 the people preaching social justice are the only ones who think race matters. They sound like nazis, claiming white people are privileged and better than everyone else
@@jebalitabb8228 people preaching social justice are the ones who don't wanna preach race. But they eventually know there are people who live in a bubble of an ideal world and assume that there's nothing wrong in this world. May be you want equality, but there are people who don't and social justice targets them. But you won't let them because you are insecure.
I've been calling them 'Anti-Justice Warriors'.
Nice
InternetDisciple That’s one of the best descriptions I’ve ever heard.
I have called them, "social INjustice warriors."
I been calling them anti social warriors. Because they don't care about real justice, and there's nothing remotely social about it.
InternetDisciple
I guess when you realize your insult is stupid and shows you in a bad light, make up a new one right?
Just like modern art isn't art and alternative medicine isn't medicine 👌
And how social science isn't science.
Are you talking sarcastically or something, because all of that which you stated is true
@@maxpitchkites hehe, there are likelly a couple more xD anyone?
@@256dj I know, I am not being sarcastic
I'm not for social justice, but I will chime in on "alternative medicine". There only reason it's called alternative medicine is because Western medicine exists and big pharma doesn't want people using natural remedies for things that are treatable without pharmaceuticals... they want people spending big money on their products. They being big pharma.
If natural remedies didn't work for anything, we wouldn't be here today.
“Leftism: The weak are good and the powerful are bad”
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.” -some obviously not Judeo-Christian guy
The meek stands for the strong & powerful btw
@@unboxviews No, it does not.
You don’t understand leftism. Read or watch material from real leftists, not propaganda
@@danilthorstensson8902 Ah, yes, the classic "you're making a good point so let me just deny the accuracy of your proven facts" argument. Nice!
@@danilthorstensson8902Dig you mean Mao's little red book or the Marx's Communist Manifesto? I'll save you some time: "The goal of socialism is communism."
0:18 Maybe you should try and read the rest of the book of Isaiah. Times and times again in the book God makes it clear through Isaiah that the only type of Justice he cares about is the Justice that takes care of the poor, clothes the homeless and provided comfort to the widowers. U know the kind of justice you guys would call Social Justice. As for justice as punishment, God makes it clear that since he has forgiven us of our sins, it is our duty to forgive others in kind. Just read the parable of the unforgiving servant.
Forgiveness is one thing, justice is something else. I can forgive the man who raped my ex-girlfriend, but he never got the justice he deserved.
JK Merriwether But just because the person does not go to jail doesn’t mean he did not or will not receive justice for his acts. We as Christians believe that the punishment of ur sins is Gods justice, not ours.
Sexondly, the concept we have of justice being that if I suffered because of your actions, you should suffer because of my pain is not biblical. Biblical justice always improves and restores things. When we throw people in jail, it’s not just because they did something bad therefore they should suffer torment, the spirit of putting people in jail is to restore them and REHABILITATE them. Therefore, shouldn’t we care abt why they are committing these crimes at the rate that they are committing them.
@@jkmerriwether9919 This may seem like a non-sequitur; but, why is she your "ex"-girlfriend?
Someone with brains in the commment section
@@nostalkingzone does it matter?
'The idea of social justice is that the state should treat different people unequally in order to make them equal'' Friederich Von Hayek
Anarchism is a left-wing ideology
@@firetarrasque4667 Actually there is an "Anarcho-Capitalism" ideology. Not that I aggree with it, I'm just mentioning it.
@@fisioxande And it's internally incoherent and not anarchism
@@firetarrasque4667
That's why it's called "anarcho-capitalism" and not anarchism. It's pretty internally coherent too.
@@fredgarvinMP
You cannot have a State-less society and also private property.
Those two things are mutually exclusive.
“Church of Cowards” By Matt Walsh.
Check it out, kids!
Matthew Klepadlo A book saying American Christians should be more fanatical.
Will Higgins
It’s a very self-confrontational book, but a great one.
I’d understand why people wouldn’t like it but, hey.
Cowardice is a sin after all, but there are exceptions. The religious people at the time of Jesus viewed him as fanatical or crazy. So it depends on context.
Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Care to describe how that's relevant?
@@garrisonturner3232 if we are making a justice system off the Bible a lot of people on wallstreet are going to jail
@@nicholaswoel-nogueira4074 I hear you, but a lot of people use that out of context to imply it's wrong or bad to be wealthy, which isn't biblically supported. I don't think anyone would argue there's plenty of corruption in wall Street, though. 👍
@@garrisonturner3232 Its pretty hypocritical to have god in your argument for not judging people based on their economic condition when that same god is judging people based on their economic condition.
Justice, "liberty and justice for all"
Social justice, "liberty for just us, not all"
I wonder how this entire video applies to juvenile justice because sure, it’s easy to throw a child in jail if they commit a crime but throwing children in jail often exacerbates their situation to the point where an incarcerated child will commit more crimes when released. Offering rehabilitative services to children is far more effective than placing them in jail where they are isolated from contact with the only psychological and social support systems they have: their family, school, and community overall.
treating people like animals often produces people behaving like animals
That's easy to say for a minor crime like robbery, but what about stuff like rape and murder? I had this case in my city, a while back. There was this teen the neighborhood who liked to mess around with motorbikes. Turns out that near him lived a couple that had recently had a baby. The teen would make quite a lot of noise with his bike, so the husband went to ask him to please stop with for a while so his baby could get some sleep. The teen didn't pay attention and kept going. One day, the husband goes again to make the same request except this time the teen stops and tells the man to follow him to his house. The man does so, and when he arrives, the teen was expecting him with a shotgun. He shot him and killed him, leaving a child without a father and widowing a wife.
My goal is not to say "Throw them to jail and treat them as animals" but to say that the same way that just throwing people in prison is not the solution, saying "well, just give them rehabilitation and they'll become good people" isn't either. And I question how much of a kid some minors are. Because killing someone on purpose, or raping someone... that's not "a kid". While again, torture and treating them as animals isn't the solution, I think is kinda delusional to forget that they have comitted premedited crimes. Again, I'm talking about serious crimes, not robbing a 7/11 because you're starving due to poverty
Not 100% to minors, the main reason being we typically do not consider minors to have competency in the legal world. Essentially, we assume they did not know better. Now, there are exceptions, but I'd say it's just to be a bit more flexible and proactive with offenses by minors.
God has revealed himself to his creation. He has determined what is right and wrong. He has determined what is law. He has determined what is justice.
JUSTICE also asks "Why did he do it?"
Motive is the difference between self defense and murder.
And AGRAVATING and EXTENUATING circumstances have always been principles of our legal system.
You're not applying the aggravating / extenuating concept correctly. "Why did he do it?" is only fair to ask when someone is simply killed (because it could be in self defense). But once its determined that someone was murdered , there is no further asking of "why did he do it?" at that point. Social justice warriors want to ask this question regardless of the crime being committed, even if its murder, and want to apply an extenuating or aggravating circumstance concept AFTER the fact of establishing the nature of the crime.
@@spetsnaz600 No, there is still room for motive as an agrsvating or mitigating circumstances. A wife murdering her abusive husband would be considered a mitigating circumstance, even if the circumstances do not meet the criteria of self defense.
@@occamtherazor3201 Not really. If she killed him in self defense it would be one thing. But if she quietly decided to murder him while he slept instead of going to the police then she would not get much leniency. That aside, this is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about social justice, which would imply that if she's a member of a protected group she would receive leniency even if its murder And that would be unjust.
@@spetsnaz600 You know what is ACTUALLY unjust? People having an advantage in the legal system because of their wealth and social status.
That is the situation that "SJW's" seek to correct.
@@occamtherazor3201 That is not true in a civilized society with an established legal system like the US. Rich and powerful go to jail all the time. It doesn't work 100% but it does work 99.99%. What SJWs are trying to do is to destroy that system and replace it with the one that serves justice based on THEIR biased understanding of how it should be served. And that's not acceptable. Historically, these types of radical movements only led to totalitarianism and mass repressions and executions.
Here’s a fun drinking game: Take a shot every time she says “Justice.”
I’m 16, jokes
Social justice really means: My will be done otherwise I will call you unjust.
Yeah, that's totally what the other guys are doing, not us.
@@IMatchoNation Justice: the administration of what is just by the impartial assignment of merited rewards or punishments. Simple. What is the parameter? The natural law written in our hearts and given to us through the prophets in case our hearts are hardened by sin. If you don't like it go live in North Korea. Maybe over there they have some kind that suits you.
@@bolapromatoqueejogodecampe9353 Natural law? That sounds like you're saying that you will call anyone unjust if they don't act in accordance with what you think is just? But that would be blatant hypocrisy, so surely you meant something different?
@@IMatchoNation This is the natural law: "This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.
" Jeremiah 31:33
@@bolapromatoqueejogodecampe9353 So I was right! You're a hypocrite! You don't mind judging people, you just don't like when it's done back to YOU xD. Holy shit that's so sad. Thank you for confirming.
Justice: Getting what you deserve without favor.
Social Justice: Getting what you don't deserve because you are favoured.
Spot on.
@domhnall777 No society that has valued the violation of the Tenth Commandment has ever improved the lives of the members of that society, so you should really stop violating the Tenth Commandment like you just did there.
@domhnall777 What do you consider equal justice?
@domhnall777 , it's not so much about racism per se. It's about favoritism on steroids.
Dennis Sphatt Nah, favoritism is what capitalism is doing right now. Social justice works for everyone, except in order to have the ability to work, it has to resort to the taxes of the rich. This way, people who have less will also be able to have success.
If esucation was free, more poor people would find success, Thats the proof that social justice can work in capitalist countries.
@@r1port301, not when you're sinister and everyone finds out what you're about.
I think you'll find "leftists" specifically believe race, income, religion, gender, etc, should NOT give you an advantage or disadvantage in the system. Take the bail system for example. Let's assume in the following cases that both defendants are arrested for the same crime.
Person A and person B are arrested for crimes they did not commit. While awaiting a fair and just trial they are in jail and must pay bail if they'd like to leave. Person A pays the bail and leaves, person B cannot afford bail and so they remain in jail. The trial occurs a month later and both people are found innocent.
In this example, person A got what they deserved, they were innocent and they were found as such. Person B, although found innocent, spent a month in jail.
Person B was punished for being poor. Advocating that Person B be treated the same as Person A isn't social justice, it's justice as you define it. People getting what they deserve.
Letting people out of jail because they’re part of a stupid movement isn’t justice, removing bail so criminals go right back out in the street without consequences isn’t justice either and these are things the left supports...shall I go on?
RC Adams that’s not what they’re saying at all. Re read the and have a deeper think about it.
@@rcadams743 He LITERALLY presented an INNOCENT person who spent a month in jail. Could you be any more transparent in your dishonesty/red herring ?
There are several flaws with your argument.
1)Person A and person B are arrested for crimes they did not commit. How is that known to be factual?
2)When arrested, your possessions are taken from you (Wallet, etc).
3) Bail is set by the court, not the jail.
4) At a trial, you're found guilty or not guilty. That's not the same as being innocent. It means the prosecution failed to persuade the jury to find you guilty.
That isn't injustice... I'm not sure what your argument is
0:18 it depends which version of Bible do you have. Due to translation to various languages, misunderstandings during writing speeches of authorities quoting certain parts of Bible, or not taking into consideration reality of living in Ancient Palestine (or what autors intended to say to other people), it's possible in one or more versions it's written that way. That's one of the reasons why blind quoting the Bible, without at least minimal effort to actually understand it, leads to many not necessarily pleasant things.
And P.S.: it's not spoken in Polish churches, and Poland is also part of Western Civilisation (for far longer than North America), so the sentence, that ,,it's spoken in most of churches on West" may be not exactly true.
If a rich person robs a store, it’s because they’re greedy
If a poor person robs a store, it’s because they’re trying to survive
I agree
Justice
The unfailing consequence of blessings for righteous thoughts and acts, and punishment for unrepented sin. Justice is an eternal law that requires a penalty each time a law of God is broken (Alma 42:13-24). The sinner must pay the penalty if he does not repent (Mosiah 2:38-39; D&C 19:17). If he does repent, the Savior pays the penalty through the Atonement, invoking mercy (Alma 34:16).
There is nobody who does not sin. Not one. Therefore, we can never not deserve punishment
“Learn to do what is good. Pursue justice. Aid the oppressed. Defend the rights of the fatherless. Plead the widow’s cause.” Isaiah 1:17
Has she, I don’t know, READ the Bible? 🤷🏻♂️
can i ask, since when standing up for others not having a voice or the oppressed being a taboo
Not a taboo, just not a good basis for the operation of our legal system. You will come to understand this if and when you are robbed or one of your loved ones is assaulted by a black person who has been arrested for robbery and assault and released multiple times because they are black and because the District Attorney who released this person is running for re-election. You may think this is social justice, but it is surely not the Bible's view of justice.
I get it that you are an activist for the rights of mute people??
@@VaggelisR yes , mute people and animals .
For just a minute I thought you were talking about "Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton" as Just Us.
The Reverends? Two of the greatest imposters in America.
@@pigjubby1 They are nothing more than race baiting poverty pimps.
Ahh Social Justice. Revenge in sheep's clothing.
I like that term.
In order to defeat "social justice," we have to separate it from the word "justice," because it's a hijacking of the concept. Those lynch mobsters want no such thing as justice; they only want an enshrinement of their bias and their boundless bigotry.
The Left creates nothing: it only steals, even words.
Weary Man EXACTLY ^.
@@DaMaster012 what do you mean by that? That social justice is means without an end? Because that is ridiculous. Social justice has the clear goal to eliminate social hierarchies. People on the right always pretend like it's just about people getting offended over nothing with no goal in mind which is simply not true.
Frieda Carell eliminating social hierarchies sounds an awful lot like Communism to me...
@@jambr054 do you have a better argument for that than "ahhhh communism!!!!" or is that really the only reason?
She depicts "the Left" and "Leftist values" without giving a specific example of who she is talking about. What is "Leftism?" It doesn't sound very complex because she describes it as an ideology where the world is split between two groups of people where one is "good" and the other is "bad." What social justice advocates have said we should ignore the law and allow crimes to be committed against law-abiding citizens to "even things out?" Prejudice in our judicial system has led to sentencing disparities based on race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, and gender throughout our nation's history. Systemic racism plagues our criminal justice system to this day, but I'm unaware of any organizations calling for different sentencing protocols based on a defendant's background. I bet there are some religious groups that say "Lord is a God of social justice," but this video should look more closely at what this means. This video's whole argument is that the Bible and its Judeo-Christian values give the best guidance on proper justice, so why doesn't PragerU explore in greater depth the arguments and ideologies behind those who would say God cares about social justice? Also, if social, environmental, and racial justice aren't "justice" since an adjective precedes the word "justice," then what is criminal justice?
This is always the issue with pragerU videos: they oversimplify issues, ignore all nuance, and use here-say and random quotations far more than actual evidence and statistics. No matter what "expert" is reading the script for each video, they never display any actual critical thinking or thorough research. PragerU never defines any of the terms they use, whether "leftism" or "social justice" or some other word. Despite the facts that "facts don't care about your feelings", PragerU's videos display a startling amount of appeal only to people's emotions, and their idealized notions of the status quo. I have yet to see a PragerU graph that actually has any sort of data on it. People, be very wary of these videos: when someone tries to impose their own opinion on you, without the use of evidence or data and using arbitrary logic and definitions, then what you're watching is not education. It's manipulation
her argument here isn’t really even a little valid, instead of looking at the information, looking at both sides and coming to a conclusion she uses information to support her Evangelicalist premonitions. the argument that most people who are part of oppressed groups or people that grew up in violent homes don’t commit violent acts doesn’t make sense, justice doesn’t just pertain to violence. her definition of justice is also within the law, but the point of social justice is to reject that law because of how it is used to keep others down. yes the law doesn’t see equality, but people do, and people use those laws to enact in harmful ways.
100% intentional. and it's working. it's terrifying
@@_conchobhar_ I want to understand how it is possible that someone can reason in the way she does.. It really doesn't make sense to me...
The left is the good one, right?
(just kidding. My snarky thought just can't resist)
This completely ignores the Christian concepts of mercy (not getting what we deserve) and grace (getting what we do not deserve). What theology are they even referencing with their Biblical interpretation, throwing out a few random Old Testament verses, but ignoring New Testament concepts that have Jesus teachings? God shows no partiality? Judaism believes God shows partiality to the Jews over all others, that they are the chosen people. Christianity believes that God favors Christians over all others, with eternity in heaven.
Thank you! Well said! This sounds like weird cult speak. Using Old Testament passages would tell us where they are coming from it seems - ignoring Christian, (Jesus' teachings).
Well I know Jesus did not have a problem with the Old Testament, and he quoted it often.
Are you the devil's lawyer ?
No one is ignoring Jesus’ teachings. Do you not know that Jesus existed before the foundation of the earth? Was He not aligned with God when he destroyed sodom and Gomorrah, or punished Israel severely many times? Jesus Himself stated that if you do not repent, you will die and admonishes people to work things out with their neighbor so that they don’t end up in court. Why? Because Justice is about RIGHT VS WRONG, not about socio-economic presumptions and speculations. The Cross IS the perfect example of this. Jesus suffered The Wrath of God for OUR SINS. We all deserve Justice. Justice does not show partiality. Jesus is The God of the Old and New Testament. Jesus never changes. God never changes. You want to be compassionate? Teach the youth and Preach The Gospel so that people can escape the Justice due to them. Teach our Culture JUSTICE, so that they don’t fall into the hands of God’s Justice in the courts.
also Jesus was a political activist for equality. Which is why he was murdered
For those of you looking for the verses, I have them listed here by verse in the NASB. I suggest researching context.
Exodus 23:2-3
"You shall not follow the masses in doing evil, nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice; nor shall you be partial to a poor man in his dispute."
Leviticus 19:15
You shall do no injustice in judgment; you shall not be partial to the poor nor defer to the great, but you are to judge your neighbor fairly.
Deuteronomy 16:20
Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
Romans 2:9-11
There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.
A teaching that should make the entire American "justice" hang its head in shame.
I meant justice system.
Hey PragerU/PragerU watcher! It’s your friend, Ellie, and it’s been a while since we talked. I decided to stop watching your videos and it’s been very refreshing coming back to the channel after a hiatus. When I saw this video, I was excited because I knew it would be something I’m interested in, and I was right! But fellow PragerU watcher, I have a confession to make, I have been working on my Physical Chemistry final all day and I’m kind of done with that formal writing stuff so I decided I would change it up tonight and do some reading! I really like when people cite their sources so I was really happy when PragerU did just that! So grab a warm beverage (green tea is my favourite) and settle down with me as we do some reading! Oh and a side note, it can be very difficult to tell what is sarcasm when on the internet and what is not so I’ll be very clear: this intro was all true and all very serious. If you enjoy PragerU, I really would like you to read this, not to change your mind or anything (I seriously don’t want to do a deep dive of my own to make a political argument against this video I’m actually very tired), but because I want everyone, left, right and center, to be aware where they get their information from. Enough babbling though, let’s begin!
(If you would like to follow along with tonight's reading, please open the description of this video and click the link labeled “To view the script, sources, quiz, visit”)
Source 1: This source is by the magazine National Review. This magazine is, by its own admission “a magazine of conservative opinion.” Usually, I disapprove of citing sources that blatantly admit their biases and for those of you who believe I am being hypocritical, I would’ve said the same thing if the magazine admitted a liberal bias. Although I believe there is a firm place for journalism with a political lean in a strong democracy (the modern op-ed for example is often a great way to get people’s attention about an issue or to get people to do more research on their own), but I personally believe that the place for such journalism is not in the cited sources of a self-proclaimed, academic video. I digress, let’s actually read together. Okay? Are we all done? I think we can all agree that this article isn’t amazing. It’s hook is, at least compared with my own interpretation of “Politics and The English Language,” is somewhat of a mischaracterization of what I believe Orwell’s point is. The cliches Orwell is referring to when he talks about cliches in politics are words or phrases everyone can agree are bad or good, outside of an extremely small minority. For example, Nazi, democratic and populist are words that can be used regardless of actual political belief and are essentially interchangeable for “bad” or “good.” I would argue this is not how the phrase “social justice” is used. Within left-leaning circles, yes, the word is almost identical to “good thing,” but when surveying the whole political spectrum, this rule does not hold true. Many right-leaning people use the acronym “SJW” as an insult; that acronym stands for Social Justice Warrior. So I would argue that “social justice” is not a cliche in the way Orwell uses the word, but I think I’m getting too in-depth here. I have used way too much space to argue against a single paragraph so I’ll try to speed it up. The article does a good job in its first half making a legitimate criticism of how the phrase “social justice” is used too widely in leftist circles and that many do not have an exact definition. I like this part, it’s good. It uses examples of different mission statements to prove how the ideas of “social justice” can be overly-wide and laughably conflicting. But then it doesn’t ever even attempt to give a straight definition for social justice! It gives the original definition, but then says that there’s not enough space to cover the history of the meaning of the word and just gives up and goes: social justice isn’t the same as what it was in the 1840’s. Which, okay, but I want detail! Most things are not the same as they were in the 1840’s and a change of definition isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Then, the article moves into a wider discussion of the use of cliches in leftist dialogue. This is where I think the article loses some of it’s steam, as it goes along, I found it harder to follow and I had to reread the end a couple of times. The reason I think it feels this way is because the article goes into a bunch of rapid-fire examples of the same cliche use highlighted in the “social justice” example, but these examples are given in less detail and some of the worst either intentionally or unintentionally create a strawman argument. For example, the section on No Labels does not give any evidence that all, or even most, liberals believe in the cause of No Labels. I personally think that labels, though not always and forever a necessity, are a good way to help beginners of politics understand the basics and can be very helpful in framing discussions of privilege and oppression and I call myself a liberal (for clarification, I’m a liberal not a Liberal). Although this is anecdotal evidence and can’t be used to make an extremely solid argument, I think it is just a way to deconstruct how this article frames some of its arguments. Also, for future reference, I also think Huffington Post is kinda dumb :)
Source 2: Primary source! I love those! No complaints, keep using primary sources PragerU and I will be one happy girl.
Source 3: I like the article itself. It presents a pretty good explanation of what Intersectional Feminism is, at least according to a number of experts. It also gives the origin of the term and does what I think is a pretty good job of comparing its origin with how the term is used today! Also, USA Today is pretty centrist as far as the media is concerned, though it does lean more left than right. Although I like the article, I would like the source even more if it were by scientists because I think the most impartial of sources are those that use large surveys and not traditional journalism. What I do have a problem with, though, is the conclusion PragerU drew from this source. Although the article itself just focuses on how many people like intersectional feminism because of how it takes into account the factors of race, class and sexual orientation on women’s experiences, PragerU somehow concludes that “The progressive social justice ideology views people as members of groups rather than as individuals and looks to give certain privileges or exceptions to certain victim groups.” Um, that has nothing to do with the article. The article never once mentions “social justice,” the idea of groups over individuals, privileges or special treatment of the idea of victimhood so I’m not really sure where PragerU got that one from?
Source 4: You can’t not laugh at the fact that PragerU cited themselves. They actually cited themselves. Moreover, there are no citations on the video PragerU cited meaning I can’t check if the claims they make in this other video are true without doing my own research. Say what you will about these other sources, but no good academic institution includes “my brain” in their Works Cited page.
Source 5: They cited themselves again! But this time the video includes sources and the original citation seems more about Jordan Peterson than PragerU so I’m less annoyed this time. Side note: if you think Jordan Peterson is a good philosopher you should watch this: ua-cam.com/video/4LqZdkkBDas/v-deo.html or this: ua-cam.com/video/SEMB1Ky2n1E/v-deo.html. Also “postmodern neo-Marxism” (Jordan Peterson’s word for everything that is wrong in the world) is a contradictory statement. Postmodernism and Marxism are often at odds with each other so it would be very difficult to be both at the same time. Side note over. I was pretty sure that Jordan Peterson didn’t write the script for the video he narrated so I looked in the description of that video for a source on the claim PragerU makes in this video (sorry if this is confusing I’m trying to keep it simple without using the word “video” 50 times in one sentence). So I looked for a source on the claim Peterson makes in the video and there is one. Oh wait, it’s just another Jordan Peterson lecture and honestly, I have no interest in listening to a man who built his whole career off of transphobia and contradictory ideas. So to conclude source 5, it’s either Peterson pointing at himself and going “my brain” or it’s PragerU pointing at Peterson going “his brain,” which is not exactly academic research.
Sources 6 and 7: They’re basically just bible quotes. I have no problem with bible quotes. I have a slight problem with people basing their political philosophy off of something that has the possibility of not being real (not saying He’s not real, just saying that it theoretically could be a possibility given that, at the moment, we don’t have any confirmed proof for the existence of God), but I really don’t feel like debating the existence of God.
Source 8: Mostly just bashes “the Left” without a source. It’s another article from the National Review, but this time its conservative stance is even more on display. I don’t think there was a single paragraph that didn’t make a statement about “the Left” as a group with absolutely no evidence. I’m all for critiquing the use of religion within politics, but this is not the way to go about it.
Sources 9 and 10: Bible quotes again. If you skipped sources 6 and 7 just go back and read that.
Part 2
Source 11: They cited themselves again. It’s happening so much that I’m concerned if PragerU understands the meaning of a “sources” tab. This one was so easy too! All you have to do is cite a picture of the ten commandments! How did you mess this up?
Source 12: I- I can’t make this up. Not only did they cite themselves again, they literally cite the video you’re on! They’re essentially saying “if you want to check my facts, just read my facts again.” I was so shocked I actually reloaded the page and clicked on the link again to make sure I hadn’t done something wrong, but no. They actually cited the same video as a source for the video I’m citing sources on.
Source 13: At least we’re citing articles again. This is by the Daily Beast which is a website which includes articles about different topics like politics and entertainment. Although the website’s former editor called the site “non-partisan,” an independent source said the website was definitely Left-leaning. So maybe choose a less biased source next time. Overall, I liked the article, it made a good point about how well meaning people can treat black people differently and act extremely racist under the guise of “social justice.” I think that this should be taken as advice to white people concerned about social justice rather than a scientific study, though. What I mean by that is we must make sure to remember that this is anecdotal evidence, the author is telling an anecdote so we cannot draw the conclusion, as many probably want to, that everyone acting under the label “social justice” is racist in this way or that people who are racist in this way must be working under the label “social justice.” There is probably some correlation between the paternal racism the author describes and people who work under the cause of “social justice,” but I don’t think that it is 1:1.
Source 14: This source is from The Atlantic. Although it is less left than source 13, it is still a mildly left magazine. Once again, it’s just not as credible as a scientific study, but I like this article. It cites a number of different studies while going about it’s findings and does a fairly good job at combining larger, more general research with interesting, more personal stories like that of the UCLA example. I didn’t know much about collegiate affirmative action policies before reading this and I now feel like I have a solid grasp of the basic facts so that is a good start. I think the conclusion PragerU makes is a little too general, almost like they read the headline and the last sentence, but not the whole article. The actual article provides a lot of nuance in the way it covers the topic, explaining how small amounts of affirmative action that help bring disadvantaged students to a level playing field is good, while the affirmative action seen at many extremely selective schools overly compensates and hurts minorities. It draws an interesting comparison between affirmative action that would, theoretically, work and affirmative action that doesn’t. PragerU apparently doesn’t see that comparison saying “Social justice initiatives, like affirmative action, hold groups to different standards-and studies have shown that it just serves to marginalize and stigmatize those groups.” I mean, that’s the thesis of the article sure, but an article is much more than a thesis, mate.
Source 15: This source is an article from the New York Daily News. Although it was a self-labelled republican newspaper, it has begun to lean left, as of late. Still not unbiased, though. If you’re reading this PragerU researchers, please start citing actual peer-reviewed studies. It’ll make you seem a lot more credible. This source is very similar to source 14, really similar. It makes the same point and, although they don’t cite their sources, the wording makes me think they used the same studies as The Atlantic. If you want my opinion on the use of this source, just go read about source 14.
Source 16: PragerU pulls a classic PragerU and cites themselves again, well, they cite Ben Shapiro, but it’s in a PragerU video. Luckily, the video in question has sources. Unluckily, the source for the fact I’m looking for is a broken link. It’s basically just Ben Shapiro complaining about “the Left” as he is wont to do.
Source 17: The Atlantic again. If you want my opinion on the magazine as a whole, see source 14. I liked this article too (good job The Atlantic!)I felt that it had a strong scientific basis and yet it was still able to maintain that anecdotal style that keeps people reading. It used college campuses as a good main example while branching out at the end to show other conditions where this same culture might arise; taking scenarios from people both right and left on the political spectrum. Similar to my issue with source 14, I feel like PragerU lost a lot of the nuance in their own interpretation. Possibly in an effort to serve up bite-sized facts, I think PragerU can sometimes oversimplify issues with a lot of nuance. All the conditions to create a “victimhood culture” listed in the article were not unique to college campuses and nowhere was it stated that the ideology in place had to be one of progressive origin. So I am unsure of how PragerU came to the conclusion that “Progressive-controlled college campuses are increasingly characterized by ‘victimhood culture.’” Using the scientists definitions of victimhood culture, one could easily create examples of right-wing spaces that engage in the same culture.
Conclusion: Thank you to PragerU for citing your sources. Maybe cite better sources though? I would like to see more primary sources, more scientific studies and less traditional journalism. Also, don’t cite yourself. Sorry if you read this looking for fact checking, but I just wasn’t feeling it tonight. Have a good night and wish me luck with my Physical Chemistry project :)
Joshua Santos That’s probably true. I quite like doing this so I mostly do it for my own enjoyment. If others like it, as 10 people seem to have, that is simply an extra reward for my work.
@@elizabethn2771 Thank you for all this work! I think it does shed light on the measure of factual groundedness of a UA-cam channel proclaiming to be a university. It doesn't matter if people care, it shows that you care enough to scrutinize PU's sources, and I am sure it will get some people to think more critically about the credibility of UA-cam videos.
Willem Van Wijk Thank you!
Writing super long comments is harrassment.😉
Justice doesn't need a descriptor. If you put whatever describing word before justice it automatically means injustice towards the opposite. It's either justice or it's some form of injustice.
Gentle reminder that Jesus chilled with criminals and committed crimes when flipping tables in the temple, as well as claiming himself to be the son of God. According to this video, Jesus' punishment was justified.
Also for the love of God dislike this video. That ratio makes me physically ill.
Every kid in school and every young adult in college should watch this video.
Please Fire Kathleen Kennedy Now! I think the video makes invalid arguments here. There are plenty of situations where the premises may be true but the conclusion false. According to the ACLU, black people are 3.64 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana possession than white people. This is one example where everyone is not treated equally under the law, and I think that is the purpose of social justice. The point is not to create equity, but to expose the injustices in our laws and society in order to fix these inequalities and provide everyone the equal opportunity they are granted under the law. No one is saying that a man abandoned by their mother and beaten by their father be given certain advantages for a crime they committed, but what people are championing for is a way to understand why he did it, and figure out ways for this not to happen again. Justice is dynamic that way.
Does that study take into account of how often blacks deal marijuana compared to whites? Someone is much more likely to be arrested for dealing marijuana than just possessing it.
Top Rank AUDIOBOOKS PLUS in most states, possession of more than one ounce of marijuana is considered distribution of marijuana. 89.3% of marijuana arrests are for possession only, not distribution. Black people and white people were found to use marijuana at similar rates (42.4% and 50.7%, respectively), and yet in every single state black people were found to be arrested at a higher rate than white people. The full report is found here:
www.aclu.org/report/tale-two-countries-racially-targeted-arrests-era-marijuana-reform
Carlos Verastegui I honestly believe its because of how black people are trying to portray themselves in the media. If you want examples look at our music. It tries its absolute hardest to make us look like dangerous drug dealers. That in-turn causes police officers to make assumptions based on how they have seen us act. I wouldn’t call it racism, just being severely uninformed.
Also, how many of those cases of black people being arrested for carrying marijuana were *false* ?
I just want to like your profile name.
This is a greatly representative thesis on misunderstanding social justice.
She nailed it.
@@johnwebb971... extremely badly
She is absolutely correct, IN PRINCIPLE. She confuses, as everyone does nowadays, "compassion" with "pity."
A person robs another person at gun point and goes to jail for 3 years... where is the pity that you think she is talking about? To pity means to feel sorry for ones misfortunes, however, crimes are crimes, not misfortunes. One should never pity justice, that would be immoral, however, we can express compassion... which is what she is talking about.
"Social justice is getting what you don't deserve because you ARE favored"
That's not social justice.
THAT IS GRACE!
AS IN, THE CORE TENET OF CHRISTIANITY!
Grace is earned in Christianity it’s faith not grace
@@fa1509 Grace can not be earned. That's the very nature of it.
Grace means that you do not get what you deserve (punishment) and that you get what you did not earn (salvation).
And Jesus' grace is what sets Christianity apart from other religions. Faith is another core tenet of christianity, but other religions have that too.
@@fa1509
Grace is a bit like, you have been bad but Jesus helps you to get to Heaven anyway.
@@michaelt.5672 "Government is not Jesus. Yes, Jesus came and we are forgiven and "righteous" because of the grace of Jesus, BUT.... the ways of the world always pervert the things that are meant for good.
Are you assuming grace is unconditional? Because I am fairly certain there is heaven and hell, and the latter is where the wicked go (e.g. Hitler). We choose to accept God by our actions, and we are separated by those actions. As for government and religion and social justice, let me quote Mark 12:17- "Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God."
Great book on the subject is "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" by Thomas Sowell.
That's nice good content
Reading one of his books for the first time it's amazing it's called intellectuals and society.
@@MichaelDillin I've been meaning to read that for a while now! Even more so as recent global events have prompted me to reflect on the reliability of experts and intellectuals even outside of the social sciences.
Thomas Sowell is an American treasure but is unknown to most Black Americans, it’s truly a shame!
Liberal Christians misinterpreting tbe Bible... Who would've thought? 🙄
Don't confuse Liberals with Leftists please...
@@matlev2948 As a Catholic, I see them both akin to each other
@@rowangraham7711 In what way? Most Liberals are center.
oh and Liberal Christians love to sugar coat the whole "homosexuality is bad" parts of the Bible.
@@hubertcumberdale2651 That's great though. I like that Christians can adapt to modern times and reform their religion to include homosexuals and make them feel apart of the community. Most crucial part of a religion (unlike some religions today that are old and not fitted to modern times).
@PragerU
Where can I find your work cited list. It is not enough for me to just share a video and convince people of these arguments, I need the statistics that you are presenting such as “the majority of people in abusive households do NOT commit crimes.”
Please let me know where you get your statistics so I can further defend my argument.
Thank you!
Whenever I post my beliefs, my little sword turns blue, & I hear the Orcs drum beats & screeching.
Hows mordor doing?
I'd like to hear about some real life examples of this "social justice". I think she is describing some theoretically problem that's really not very wide spread. She's going on my list of whiners.
You should consider blowing a shotgun
Justice: getting what you deserve
Social justice: getting what you desire which you think you deserve
Justice: not racist, absolute, the will of the creator, not fun
Social Justice: racist, murky, the will of people, fun
Your comment like in the video is too loose. To easy to destroy. Justice: getting what you deserve. “Deserve” means different for people. For example Some don’t think people “deserve” disgusting punishment for their crimes....... this whole video shot itself in the foot in the first 30 seconds then continued to chop the rest of the body from infection.
@@scruiser3472 What we deserve is NOT arbitrary or based only on opinions, but on truth. As flawed human beings, we can arrive at truth via dialogue. This is why politicians, judges, religious leaders, etc. take time to dialogue or talk about the issues regarding justice. Ideally, they should vote according to their conscience, not according to their personal interests. So, no, the word 'deserve' does not have a 'loose' definition.
Abrahmic deity's justice: no heaven for rich people.
@@amadexi Jesus never said rich people can't go to heaven. He said that rich people will have a harder time because of temptations. When He said it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than a rich man to go to heaven. He didn't mean literally. He is just emphasizing the difficulty.
My horror here leaves me almost paradoxically speechless and with so much to say that I would surpass any character limit in any comment field many times over. A UA-cam comment seems a horrible place to debate, but I must respond.
This is a terrifying distortion of a biblical view of justice. I would say biblical justice, but darn those pesky adjectives...
No, screw it, biblical justice.
Biblical justice pairs mishpat and tzadeqah. Mishpat, which this video seems to attempt to convey, “is giving people what they are due, whether punishment or protection or care (Generous Justice, 4).” Mishpat would care about context, because in the small view this video gives of the development of criminality, the criminal should have received mishpat for the way they were treated as a child in addition to the mishpat they are due for their actions against another person. Tzadeqah, often translated as “righteousness,” “...refers to a life of right relationships (ibid, 10).” This again addresses the context of the relationships; not only does mishpat tie into the above example, but the presence of tzadeqah - right, just relationship - would have precluded the need for mishpat in the future. The law was created in order to protect mishpat and tsadeqah, and to protect the most vulnerable in society - the poor, the widow, the orphan, and the immigrant. These ideas are echoed in the words of Christ - “truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me (Matt. 25:40, NIV).”
I don’t even know what else to cover - the thread is so broad it spans the entire Bible, from the law and the prophets to Christ and the epistles. And through all this coverage, nowhere is justice blind. “Blind” justice (hmm...an adjective) falsely presumes not only an equal starting place, but that there is equal treatment. Justice without concern for context, without care for marginalized groups, is not biblical, nor is it truly just.
Watch a lady tie herself in knots to redefine "justice" as order and "social justice" as special privileges.
I don't know what fantasy land you live in where everyone is treated equally under the law, but it's not the world that we live in.
Son, you must be watching a different video. Everything she said was clear and logical.
@@stevenfarrall3942 There's a difference between propaganda which is meant to sound logical, and an argument which needs to follow the rules of logic. What she's doing here is propaganda. Here I'll show you:
- Pretending that people who say "the Lord is a God of social justice", actually think the Bible says that, and then arguing against that point as if it was one someone was making: Strawman.
- Presenting social justice as "getting what you don't deserve because you are favored". Last I checked trans people aren't really represented in our legal system in any way other than "Hey, leave these people alone maybe. But if you do mess with them... eeeh we won't enforce it": Misrepresentation
- Comparing justice in one context (the ideal) to social justice in another (the practice), as though if the situations were reversed you couldn't still make this exact argument. The practice of justice isn't blind and the ideals of social justice are still broadly good: A false analogy.
- Pretending social justice would be applied in a court system rather than social justice being a school of thought for exposing systemic problems within the court system that do exist, and then using that fantasy to paint how ridiculous it would be to avoid a guilty verdict if the person had a bad upbringing as if that's what social justice advocates for: Misrepresentation.
I'm not going to pretend like these are easy to point out. Like they're designed to make them hard to point out because that's how propaganda works and maybe my glib dismissal of their points made you think I was calling you stupid for not being able to point them out, for which I apologize. But PragerU has never had a clear or logical explanation for anything.
@@Tiny_and_Reese Nope. Can't be bothered to argue all that. And you've missed the point. e.g. It's irrelevant to blind justice whether someone is trans or not.
@@stevenfarrall3942 Is it? If the system of justice we have installed mistreats trans people, then continuing the current justice system under the pretense of it being blind, especially when it's operated by people who aren't, is only going to result in minorities continuing to be mistreated.
@@Tiny_and_Reese What hard evidence do you have for those assertions?
How does this have dislikes after 1 minute and its 5 minutes long?
Analytics
Folks who hound the channel because they are hypocrites in their "inclusiveness".
Because youtube is evil.
Prejudice against Prager
“Compassion follows justice” this is the best I’ve heard in a while. Keep up the good work PragerU 👍
Sure, because we all know law is not made to serve people. /s
"biblical principals".....that's a good one! Nothing beats unintentional comedy.
The bible said to be a good person, that's a biblical principle.
Are you against being a good person?
Biblical principles aren't a joke
@@kriegscommissarmccraw4205 it also condones slavery, genocide and infanticide. Also the golden rule predates the bible by centuries.
@Emperor Ssraeshza I'm sure your authoritarian master appreciates your devotion.
The truth is normally hard and cold 🥶. But nonetheless it is the truth 💯
Anytime I hear or see 'Social' before anything, I automatically see socialism.
Social media
Social distancing
ccmyart I’m so sick of that word!
@@coldpepper3175 It is an oxymoron. To be social kind of means bringing people together. It would be better to describe it as Polite Distancing.
@@ccmyart It's distancing yourself from being social
No favorites, plain and simple
Isn't christianity about, you know, mercy? Forgiveness?
Yes; doesn't mean a crime should go unpunished.
@@johnwebb971 CRime should not be punished. It should be dealt with, but not punished. Prisons should not be places of punishment, they should be places of rehabilitation. If you think that won't work, I've got a video that you need to watch. It's short and sweet, at about 5 minutes. ua-cam.com/video/Fb-gOS3p44U/v-deo.html
These days it´ s about unregulated capitalism, being able to own as many AR-15´s as you like and beliving that a guy who didn´t dare do miltary service and cheats on his wifevwith a pornstar is all but the second coming of Christ.
@@mathiasthelander7834 Are you talking about Trump ? If so; who cares if he completed military service.
@@kilroy6429 Dylan Roof the neo-Nazi who went into a church and murdered 8 black people shouldn't be punished? Lol
GREAT JOB 👌🏾 Thanks for the video 👍🏾👍🏾
"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling the strong one." -Calvin Coolidge
@@chaosdweller that’s an oxymoron. Are they liberal (believing in capitalism, equality, and freedom) or socialist (wanting worker ownership of the means of production and abolition of the commodity form)?
“Justice” doesn’t require a modifier, in fact it diminishes its value.
Justice needs a hierarchy if values, otherwise the term os meaningless shell. Thus social justice, freedom oriented justice, nation based justice are all terms that can be indicative of a certain prioritization. Justice without a qualifier is essentially meaningless.
I couldn’t disagree more. Justice is Justice no matter how many sub-groups are implied.
Does that mean we are to have a “Social Justice Dept.” or “Racial Justice Dept.”?
I not trusting of the current “Justice Dept” , it’s more of a Just-Us Dept. because it’s just for them not for the American people.
The word salad above just sounds to me like something a liberal arts professor would say.
But you know what they say about opinions...
So I say again..Justice doesn’t need a modifier. Period.
@Stuart Cole apologies for the word salad - English is not my first language.
However, “justice is justice” is not a valid definition. In fact I don’t believe that anyone - left or right - can come up with a definition without a normative component. This is what makes justice arbitrary. Of course you can spare a qualifier like “social”. Nevertheless it remains necessary to come up with some (subjective) definition.
In that way (although I would not consider myself an ardent advocate) social justice with all its ambiguities at least highlights the randomness and might just be more intellectually honest than simply evoking “justice”.
Hugo Hoffmansthal
English isn’t your first language? You seem to have a pretty good handle on it.
To your point.. I can appreciate that Justice can be subjective, one mans justice is another mans infringement. But since I advocate for the smallest minority.. the individual, and I base my opinion on the rule of law and our founding documents. Different cultures view justice through a different lens than I do.
@@tentwoletterwords Thank you! As for your piont, I think we reached a common denominator regarding the subjectivity of justice! Your sens of justice seems to favour the individual and its freedom - a position to which I lean as well. But a point could be made that this focus on the individual is a modifier akin to the modifier "social".
You are blessed to live in a country where your sens of justice is mostly backed up by the legal order you referred to above. The problem is in my opinion that the "rule of law" is not really a helpful answer to the question of justice. Because the rule of law is just as long as the law is just. Ulimately the question (to which there is in my opinion no absulte answer) is shifted not answered.
PregerU needs to have their own media station on TV!
to make people less informed than they
already are? PU is a joke
The statue of the Lady Justice has her blindfolded for Justice is blind. She also is holding scales the scales of Justice.
@stephanie silverman I'm not referring to such a liberty I'm referring to the lady holding a scale blindfolded she's Lady Justice
A man raised in a loving home is just as capable of commiting a crime as a man from a broken home. A criminal can be a criminal even if he was brought up behind a white picket fence it's called we know right and wrong
Just as capable, but not as likely. Stable families are one of the most important factors for a moral society.
@@CalebMorgan fully agree but again if a American on a higher moral family wants to steal or commit crime he still will that's all I meant
Sure God being the ultimate judge
Will judge us justly based on our heart and the all of the circumstances surrounding our sins. A persons mental state would be part of the circumstances therefore a persons environment and upbringing would play a significant role no ?
"blessed are the poor before god, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them" Mt 5,1-12
"He who is without sin cast the first stone"
"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God"
"If anyone is poor among your fellow Israelites in any of the towns of the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward them. Rather, be openhanded and freely lend them whatever they need"
"Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked"
Nothing but fake christians pushing their bootlicker agendas. Maybe they should open up a bible instead of being spoonfed their beliefs
I love how these comments with the "blessed are the poor" quote from the Bible are taking the verse out of context to push their agenda. Did you even watch the freaking video?? She quoted the actual scriptures that clearly state you're reading those scriptures out of context!
This is why most folk spend their time laughing at the left. You don't even know what you don't know. Maybe if you actually read the Bible instead of Googling words then pulling out those scriptures related to whatever word you typed, you'd be smarter and better informed about the real world. Instead of that irrelevant bubble you live in.
Tired_as_hell Yes. Thank you. This video is so incredibly misleading, she thinks social justice is something to be compared directly to the justice system, and that we just want criminals to not be punished. That’s not what it’s about, it’s about showing compassion to the poor and the oppressed in everyday life. God doesn’t show partiality when it comes to judgement, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t care about needy people and that’s what this video missed entirely.
Blessed are not the ones who take advantage of the system.
TheUnholyOne we are not taking the verses out of context. The video took the concept of Social Justice out of context by comparing it to the justice system and saying that the left wants less punishment for criminals who are oppressed people. She clearly does not understand what social justice is about and the video is terribly misleading, doing the thing where they frame “leftists” as “the bad guys who want bad things”. Nobody ever said criminals should be punished less because they’re poor or black; usually they are punished more. Nobody ever said “no” to being concerned about people who are hurt; in fact, it is quite the opposite.
A reasonable person: “Hey, maybe we should invest more in poor communities so the people in them are less likely to rob banks.” These goofballs: “WE CAN’T DO THAT, THAT WOULD BE SOCIAL JUSTICE.”
If you and your friends want to go invest in small businesses in poor communities then go ahead. I’m pretty sure they’re talking about government handouts here pal
MattYourFriend Hell yeah, the government should definitely be investing more in poor communities. Pal.
You mean give away money? Yeah, a spoiled kid is always satisfied...
pigjubby1 Give away money to poor communities in order to make the world a better place? That would be pretty satisfying to me.
@@lucasofmirrah5042 someone doesn't understand basic economics
So racial justice isn't justice? so the freeing of slaves wasn't justice? so abolishing the Jim crow laws wasn't justice? unbanning chinese people from american isn't justice? Justice can take on many forms but just blind punishment isn't as simple as you think.
exctly, if the punishment for a crime is a fee, then its not a punishment for the rich. If we don't make the punishment proportionally hurt everyone the same, then it means the privileged are let off easily
This video is hilariously dumb. Thanks so much for making an argument that never needed to be made PragerU.
We've chosen the apple again, in favor of our own interests, over the perfect wisdom of God's justice. We will pay the price if we don't change our minds about the kind of relationship we want to have with reality
The thumbnail has me weak hahah
This is one of the best videos of PragerU. Seeing 2.5k dislikes is worrisome as it reflects a sad reality.
you are very ignorant if you think this video is good...
@@anassbai8761 how- it’s all logical
@@alltheworldswonders4926 It doesn't make an arguement at all. Her points all come down to saying that the bible says social justice is wrong. Firstly the bible doesn't say that, it makes it clear in parables like the prodigal son that the circumstances of the perpetrator matter. Even though the prodical son has already had his share of his father's fortune he is welcomed back, according to this video that was wrong because his repentance and mistakes don't matter. He got what he was given so he wasn't entitled to more. If you don't consider a 2,000 year old book a bood enough reason to say that social justice is wrong then really this video has nothing to say otherwise.
This is why the One True Church, the Holy Catholic Church is important. Once you can interpret the Holy Bible on your own, you will dictate the meaning of the Bible. In the first place, the Holy Bible came from the Catholic Church. Look at the Philippines, the Catholic Church have at least a little more influence than other sects or religions. We have no Gay Marriage here. If America is the same, there's no Gay Marriage in the U.S. LGBT Marxists have more work to do in the Philippines, most people here don't like them. Why? Because Catholicism is the true faith that God would recognize.
The law exists for one reason only and it is to stop or redress an injustice.
In order to remain just, the law has to remain a negative. When the law becomes a positive, injustices are created.
Progressive taxation, hate crimes, Affirmative Action are all examples of what happens when a law or act is created to be a positive for some but creates a negative for other.
There are only three basic human rights: freedom, property ownership and the right to defend yourself and your property.
If the Government enacts any law or act which fails to uphold all three basic rights, then injustices are created.
Read: "The Law" 1850, by Frederic Bastiat.
Like giving delinquent adolescents the right to vote instead of prohibiting parents/guardians from letting their offspring do whatever they want?
While I agree with all the main points of this video, I feel that it tried to lean a bit too much on the bible. Now I know PragerU is a Christian organization and so are most of its members, But quoting from the bible actually undermines your argument! Especially the book of Deuteronomy ( please see Deuteronomy 22:28-29 as an example)
Your video does a fantastic job at destroying the concept of social justice in a clear and rational manner. However SJWs will focus only on your biblical quotes and will use that in an attempt to dismiss the point.
Keep up the great work!
Well, PragerU is actually a Jewish organization, given that its founder, Dennis Prager, is a conservative traditionalist Jew.
@@thomasecker9405 I agree
Personal responsability is a must.
And this is why conservatives lose debates, you're not steel manning the Social Justice position, you're just strawmanning it. Entirely.
“The weak are good, the powerful are bad”? babe let me fix that for you “ the powerful are never held accountable while the weak suffer under the oppression the powerful instilled to make sure they stay weak”
The only powerful people who are never held accountable are the leftist elites and politicians.
Karla M it’s funny how I didn’t even specify weather it’s republican or Democrat 😭 I literally mean all of them, all of them get influenced by big banks, exploitative companies, insurance companies, ect. The people in this video even profit from you thinking the way you do, they want you to hate the left so you don’t look up how much each of them are getting paid and by WHO lmao
@@sparklegirl19 So Donald Trump is a Leftist politician?
@@RyGuy147 no
That is true but saying all the powerful are bad just because they have that power is wrong. There are many people with power that use that power for good and saying all of them are bad just because they are powerful is wrong. But i do agree
I hope parents are sharing these PragerU videos with their children while their kids are at home and out of the propaganda factories (public schools).
social justice isn't taking away responsibility, it's deciding the best punishment or reaction. say an abused child commits murder. just punishing them wouldn't help. giving them therapy and kind and helpful friends would be a much better option in that case. social justice would allow someone's punishment and rehabilitation to be personalized and thus much more effective.
"Not if he's consistent' ... He isn't. The bible is loaded with contradictions.
"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:24
"Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.”
Proverb 31:8-9
"He who oppresses the poor taunts his Maker,
But he who is gracious to the needy honors Him."
Proverbs 14:31
Jesus replied and said, “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among robbers, and they stripped him and beat him, and went away leaving him half dead. And by chance a priest was going down on that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. Likewise a Levite also, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side.
But a Samaritan, who was on a journey, came upon him; and when he saw him, he felt compassion, and came to him and bandaged up his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them; and he put him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn and took care of him. On the next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper and said, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I return I will repay you.’ Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to the man who fell into the robbers’ hands?” And he said, “The one who showed mercy toward him.” Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”
Luke 10:30-37
Again, all of these quotes are about compassion, not justice... God tells you to judge everyone equally, but outside of judging, you have to be kind and compassionate. If a poor killed someone, you must not favour him over the rich, but if you come across a poor in the street, you must be kind to him and help him... Do you see my point ?
I agree with Surio. You clearly did not understand the clear differences. Justice and Compassion mean two different things in Biblical context. Look to The Cross for a clear example of what God’s Justice is. He poured out His Wrath on His own Son so that we wouldn’t need to bear it. Jesus, the ONLY truly innocent person that has ever lived became our perfect sacrifice so that we wouldn’t be eternally condemned. God’s Justice is REAL. God is NO RESPECTER OF PERSONS. No one is arguing against compassion. We are arguing against undermining justice for the sake of speculative and subjective presumptions about groups and identities. Groups and identities don’t matter when it comes to Justice. Justice is about Right or wrong. Period.
Jimmy Graham You’re disgusting. That Psalm is about Israeli captivity in Babylon. It’s a song of lament and a cry out to God to punish the babylonians for what they’ve done to the Israelites. Get over yourself.
This is awesome. I just wish justice was served to those in power.
Careful sir, you're starting to sound like.... well, like me and my fellow leftists.
@@blairbrown4812 yeah but I dont think they're what you think they are
@@Ben-ek1fz cool
This is stupid, because it doesn't happen.
She's actually speaking of REHABILITATION INTO SOCIETY!
@@Ben-ek1fz yeah literally lol. Just false facts backed up by “god”…
The American judicial system is undermining justice, not the labels of social or racial justice. Justice is such a loosely defined idea that no one is truly certain of. I can be certain that it is not just when a cop disregards another human's life, kills him or her, and is allowed administrative leave; this while a black man may die in prison with a marijuana conviction. When racial justice is being fought for, it is with the idea that our system will tip the scale in a different direction, as the scale has been so skewed for such a long time.
As a retired Social Worker in the court arena, I utilized the truth in this presentation throughout my career in working with offenders and their families. It was always a challenge as I worked along side my hard core "social justice workers" colleagues. But I held true to the CRITICAL NEED for personal accountability and remembering victems first in all my recommendations to the court. THEN, offered my offending clients assistance to change their belief systems and subsequent actions.
Excellent work, PragerU, this was spot on! 👏👏👏👏👍
If you have money for a good lawyer and the neibor dosent they wont have the same outcome in court so justice does not exist in a capitalist sociéty, everybody should have a public defender if we wan true justice in the western world. Im not a communist at all but the fact that you need money to buy a good représentation in front of a judge destroy the concept of equality ○○○
It’s on paper as “ justice” but in reality these nuts are for power and control.
This is just a description for justice as a concept.
Justice does not exist, there is only power. Sure, sometimes people with power try and invent excuses why they're the good guys, but that's all they are - Excuses.
Justice is just the word for what the guy with a gun wants.
Do you not know anything about then American government? We have checks and balances for that very reason.
Mosees the greatest lawgiver my ass, the guy was stoning people for working on sundays lol
Man i don’t know why i waste my time here
Though I'm not the biggest fan of Allie Beth Stuckey and I think she can be radical at times, I agree with this video. Mrs. Stuckey was straight on and correct to disprove social justice.
Where tf did they get that definition of social justice. I cant find it anywhere and cannot be further from the actual definition.