tortminder – Page 23 – Pat’s Answers Blog

Justice

The Lord’s mission was to redeem us from sin, not to redistribute our property or impose an economic equality on us.

The concept of justice is based on numerous fields, and many differing viewpoints and perspectives including the concepts of moral correctness based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, equity and fairness. It is the moderation or mean between selfishness and selflessness – between having more and having less than one’s fair share.

Plato’s definition of justice is that justice is the having and doing of what is one’s own. A just man is a man in just the right place, doing his best and giving the precise equivalent of what he has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level.

Socrates argues that lovers of wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good, (moral). If one is ill, one goes to a medic rather than a farmer, because the medic is expert in the subject of health. Similarly, one should trust one’s government to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain power by giving people what they want, rather than what’s good. Socrates uses the parable of the ship to illustrate this point: the unjust government is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power over the ship’s course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator takes charge.

But we must be wary of the current “social justice” snare. Many good people over many years have been beguiled by the Left’s use of the term “social justice.” This is because fair-minded folks rightly love justice and hate injustice. But “social justice”—or, at least, how it’s often used by liberal Leftists—isn’t necessarily justice.

The modern left’s “social justice” strives for absolute economic equality. It endeavors to reduce, if not erase, the gap between rich and poor by redistributing wealth. This is “justice” more akin to Marx and Lenin, not according to Moses or Jesus. It is a counterfeit of real justice, biblical justice. Modern notions of “social justice” are often wolves in sheep’s clothing.

The fundamental error of today’s “social justice” practitioners is their hostility to economic inequality, per se. “Social justice” theory fails to distinguish between economic disparities that result from unjust deeds and those that are part of the natural order of things.

We are different from each other. We are unequal in aptitude, talent, skill, work ethic, priorities, etc. Inevitably, these differences result in some individuals producing and earning far more wealth than others. To the extent that those in the “social justice” crowd obsess about eliminating economic inequality, they are at war with the nature of the Creator’s creation.

The Bible doesn’t condemn economic inequality. You can’t read Proverbs without seeing that some people are poor due to their own vices. There is nothing unjust about people reaping what they sow, whether wealth or poverty.

Jesus himself didn’t condemn economic inequality. He told his disciples, “ye have the poor always with you” (Matthew 26:11), and in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:24-30) he condemned the failure to productively use one’s God-given talents—whether many or few, exceptional or ordinary—by having a lord take money from the one who had the least and give it to him who had the most, thereby increasing economic inequality.

The Lord’s mission was to redeem us from sin, not to redistribute our property or impose an economic equality on us.

By all means, let us tackle persistent injustices. But let us be careful to abide by the biblical standard of impartiality and equal treatment by law, lest we create additional injustices.

Prudence-the mother of all virtues

Culture and disciplined actions should be about the beneficial action.

Prudence (Latin: prudentia, contracted from providentia meaning “seeing ahead, sagacity”) is the ability to govern and discipline oneself by the use of reason.

It is often associated with wisdom, insight, and knowledge. In this case, the virtue is the ability to judge between virtuous and vicious actions, not only in a general sense, but with regard to appropriate actions at a given time and place. Although prudence itself does not perform any actions, and is concerned solely with knowledge, all virtues had to be regulated by it. Distinguishing when acts are courageous, as opposed to reckless or cowardly, is an act of prudence.

In modern English, the word has become increasingly synonymous with cautiousness. In this sense, prudence names a reluctance to take risks, which remains a virtue with respect to unnecessary risks, but, when unreasonably extended into over-cautiousness, can become the vice of cowardice.

Aristotle gives a lengthy account of the virtue phronesis (Ancient Greek: ϕρόνησις), traditionally translated as “prudence”, although this has become increasingly problematic as the word has fallen out of common usage. More recently ϕρόνησις has been translated by such terms as “practical wisdom“, “practical judgment” or “rational choice“.

The function of a prudence is to point out which course of action is to be taken in any concrete circumstances. It has nothing to do with directly willing the good it discerns. Prudence has a directive capacity with regard to the other virtues. It lights the way and measures the arena for their exercise.

Without prudence, bravery becomes foolhardiness; mercy sinks into weakness, free self-expression and kindness into censure, humility into degradation and arrogance, selflessness into corruption, and temperance into fanaticism.

Culture and disciplined actions should be about the beneficial action. Its office is to determine for each in practice those circumstances of time, place, manner, etc. which should be observed. So it is that while it qualifies the intellect and not the will, it is nevertheless rightly styled a moral virtue. The difference between prudence and cunning lies in the intent with which the decision of the context of an action is made.

Consider how much improved our plight would be if folks in general and our public servants in particular exercised rational judgement and prudence in their affairs both personal and public.

Fortitude or Courage

Thucydides, a 5th Greek historian said; “The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.”

Courage (also called bravery or valor) is the choice and willingness to confront agony, pain, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation. Physical courage is bravery in the face of physical pain, hardship, death or threat of death, while moral courage is the ability to act rightly in the face of popular opposition, shame, scandal, discouragement, or personal loss.

“First, in feelings of fear and confidence the mean is bravery (andreia). The excessively fearless person is nameless…while the one who is excessively confident is rash; the one who is excessively afraid and deficient in confidence is cowardly.“
— Aristotle

Fear and confidence in relation to courage can determine the success of a courageous act or goal. The confidence that is being discussed here is self-confidence; Confidence in knowing one’s skills and abilities and being able determine when to fight a fear or when to flee from it. The ideal in courage is not just a rigid control of fear, nor is it a denial of the emotion. The ideal is to judge a situation, accept the emotion as part of human nature and, we hope, use well-developed habits to confront the fear and allow reason to guide our behavior toward a worthwhile goal.

Civic courage is described as a sort of perseverance – “preservation of the belief that has been inculcated by the law through education about what things and sorts of things are to be feared.”

Thucydides, a 5th Greek historian said; “The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.”

Our Founding Fathers understood the virtue of courage. What a pity that so many of our citizens, and particularly our public servants have lost sight of it.

Golden Triangle-Cardinal Virtues-Temperance

Temperance is a virtue akin to self-control. It is applied to all areas of life. St. Thomas calls it a “disposition of the mind which binds the passions”.

The four classic cardinal virtues in Christianity are temperance, prudence, courage, and justice. Christianity derives the three theological virtues of faith, hope and love (charity) from 1 Corinthians. Together these make up the seven virtues.

Temperance is defined as moderation or voluntary self-restraint. It is typically described in terms of what an individual voluntarily refrains from doing. This includes restraint from retaliation in the form of non-violence and forgiveness, restraint from arrogance in the form of humility and modesty, restraint from excesses such as extravagant luxury or splurging now in the form of prudence, and restraint from excessive anger or craving for something in the form of calmness and self-control.

It is generally characterized as the control over excess, and expressed through characteristics such as chastity, modesty, humility, self-regulation, hospitality, decorum, abstinence, forgiveness and mercy; each of these involves restraining an excess of some impulse, such as sexual desire, vanity, or anger.

Temperance is a virtue akin to self-control. It is applied to all areas of life.

St. Thomas calls it a “disposition of the mind which binds the passions”.

Consider the major improvement in our current society if we learned to apply the lesson of temperance and generally subdue our passions.

Morals and virtue

As Franklin explained, “As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” In other words, if we don’t govern ourselves, we have no choice but to be governed from above.

Virtue (Latin: virtus, Ancient Greek: ἀρετή “arete”) is moral excellence. A virtue is a trait or quality that is deemed to be morally good and thus is valued as a foundation of principle and good moral being. Personal virtues are characteristics valued as promoting collective and individual greatness. In other words, it is a behavior that shows high moral standards. Doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong.

The Founders Warned Us: With Loss of Virtue Comes Loss of Our Republic.

It is the secret at the heart of America’s founding—one that we have largely forgotten. Unlike other countries, America is not defined by a particular ethnic or religious group. Instead, our country was formed around an idea: liberty. But what does it take to maintain liberty?

Now, in order to find the answer to this question, we have to go back 229 years, to 1787. Having won the American Revolution, our founders went about creating a new form of government—one that would be strong, but not TOO strong; one that relied on self-government.

As their summer-long convention finished, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” He famously replied: “A republic, madam—if you can keep it!”

And what could cause us to lose the republic? Well, that’s simple: the loss of virtue.

John Adams wrote that “the only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue.” Have you heard that lately? Me neither.

What Franklin understood—and what modern crime statistics tragically bear out—is that if citizens do not voluntarily practice virtue, the authorities have no choice but to attempt to enforce it.

Beginning tomorrow I will be starting a series of blog posts outlining the Golden Triangle of Freedom. The argument boils down to this: Freedom requires virtue; virtue requires faith; and faith in turn requires freedom. Remove any one of the triangle’s sides, and the whole structure collapses. In the posts following I will begin outlining the first leg of the “Golden Triangle”, virtue.

Another one bites the dust

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. -Mark 6:11

For Jews to shake dust off their feet was a sign that Gentile territory was unclean. In the New Testament this action indicates that those who have rejected the gospel have made themselves as Gentiles and must face the judgment of God. (See also Acts 13:51) To sprinkle dust on the head was a sign of mourning (Joshua 7:6), and to sit in dust denotes extreme affliction (Isaiah 47:1). “Dust” is used to denote the grave (Job 7:21). To lick the dust is a sign of abject submission (Psalms 72:9); and to throw dust at someone is a sign of abhorrence (2 Samuel 16:13; Acts 22:23). To bite the dust is to suffer a defeat. It became a common expression through its use in American movies about the early west.

Given the many B-feature cowboy movies in which the bad guys, or occasionally the pesky redskins, would ‘bite the dust’, we might expect this to be of American origin. It isn’t though. The same notion is expressed in the earlier phrase ‘lick the dust’, from the Bible, where there are several uses of it, including Psalms 72:9 “They that dwell in the wilderness shall bow before him; and his enemies shall lick the dust.”

Human Sacrifice

The Food and Drug Administration signed a contract on July 25 to obtain “fresh” human fetal tissue from aborted babies for the purpose of creating “humanized mice” with an operable “human immune system.”

Sacrifice was a common theme in the Aztec culture. In the Aztec “Legend of the Five Suns”, all the gods sacrificed themselves so that mankind could live. Some years after the Spanish conquest of Mexico, a body of Franciscans confronted the remaining Aztec priesthood and demanded, under threat of death, that they desist from this traditional practice. The Aztec priests defended themselves as follows:

Human sacrifice as shown in the Codex Magliabechiano, Folio 70. Heart-extraction was viewed as a means of liberating the Istli and reuniting it with the Sun: the victim’s transformed heart flies Sun-ward on a trail of blood.

Life is because of the gods; with their sacrifice, they gave us life. … They produce our sustenance … which nourishes life
The Food and Drug Administration signed a contract on July 25 to obtain “fresh” human fetal tissue from aborted babies for the purpose of creating “humanized mice” with an operable “human immune system.”
The FDA paid $15,900 to Advanced Bioscience Resources, a non-profit company near San Francisco Bay.
The contract will expire on July 25, 2019.
The Family Research Council called on the Housing Appropriations Committee to pass a bill that would prohibit the Department of Health and Human Services from paying for fetal tissue from aborted babies.
“It is difficult to imagine anything more shocking or upsetting than the U.S. government soliciting bids from traffickers in the remains of infant victims of abortion,” said Cathy Ruse, Family Research Council’s senior fellow for legal studies.
The fetal tissue contract is for ongoing research at the FDA.
“Fresh human tissues are required for implantation into severely immune-compromised mice to create chimeric animals that have a human immune system,” an FDA notice said.
The Congressional Research Service assured the public that fetal tissue was from “elective abortions.”
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is committed to ensuring that its research is conducted responsibly, conforms with all legal requirements, and meets the highest ethical standards,” the FDA said in a statement.
The FDA also made a similar argument to Planned Parenthood, saying “research involving human fetal tissue accounts for a very small fraction of the FDA’s total research.”
This is the eighth contract the FDA has signed with ABR.
Seven contracts explicitly discussed human fetal tissue.
“Every part of this transaction is a tragedy,” Ruse said. “A woman is driven to abort her baby, and there in the shadows is a government contractor waiting to tear apart the baby’s body to deliver pieces in exchange for payment.

The destruction of language (and common sense)

Are we actually expected to just accept the bastardization of language unquestioningly? Can you even hold a rational debate when words have either lost their meaning to taken on connotations in the general parlance without question?

How is it that so many words have become loaded with negative or positive sentiment without any real justification.

For example; Isolationism = bad, no justification.

Diversity = diversity of color, race and sexual stuff, never diversity of ideas. Nationalism and the nation state = bad.

Patriotism = bad.

Capitalism = bad, even though there is no completely capitalist country in the world and there cannot be one, we can only move along a spectrum as we need a government to enforce market rules.

Ethnic = non white, as through whites don’t have an ethnicity.

Antisemitism = hatred of Jews even though the Iranians as Persians are a semitic people, as are other who speak semitic languages.

The list goes on and on.

How do we get past the hijacking of language when questioning it often requires having such a wide body of knowledge that it is outside the scope of the average uncritical person who doesn’t read widely? The answer; Small minds. Inability for abstract thinking. Zero forward thinking. Life just hits them in the face and dumbfounded they are amazed at the outcome.

Some common sense truths

Diversity isn’t a strength that makes us better, it’s a weakness that takes many special steps (emphasis on assimilation, patriotism, colorblindness, etc.) to overcome.

America is turning into such an intolerant, victim-centered, outrage-based, politically correct, that joke isn’t funny, how dare you hold an opposite opinion-centered culture, that a lot of people are afraid to tell you the truth anymore. It’s easier for people to sometimes just keep their heads down and hope that the outrage mob will pick another victim. But, unfortunately, when people become afraid to speak the truth, common sense can die in the darkness because everyone is caught up in saying what we’re “supposed to” believe instead. An America that encourages free speech, discourages censorship and believes in a free exchange of ideas will ALWAYS be superior to the ugly, backward “safe space” of a culture that so many people are trying to create today.

1) All lives matter.

2) People wearing MAGA hats are risking far more to advance free speech and tolerance than most college professors do today.

3) Racism still exists, but it isn’t a serious impediment to anyone’s success in America like it used to be several decades ago.

4) Women make less money than men because they prefer less stressful work and take much more time off to raise kids.

5) You can’t be a good American if you don’t speak English.

6) The false accusations, the demonization of men, and the poisoning of relations between the sexes encouraged by the #MeToo movement have done more harm than the good done by the relatively tiny number of sexual abusers that were exposed because of it.

7) Even Nazis shouldn’t be censored or punched for their beliefs.

8) Allowing gay scoutmasters to take teen scouts into the woods will obviously lead to more sexual abuse of scouts.

9) Any attempt for the government to confiscate all firearms would signal an end to our Republic and should be resisted at all costs, including violently if necessary.

10) If we are going to force the police to deal with the most mentally ill, dangerous, and violent people in our country on a daily basis, some people are going to deservedly be killed and there are also going to be some mistakes made. That is unavoidable and the people pretending otherwise are being unrealistic.

11) No one who immigrates to the United States should be eligible for any kind of welfare program.

12) It shouldn’t be considered ethical for psychologists to go along with the false idea that you can change genders and it shouldn’t be legal for doctors to do surgery or give hormones to a mentally ill person trying to become the other sex.

13) Most adults that are rich or poor deserve to be.

14) Just because a white person criticizes or gets into a conflict with a minority doesn’t mean it has anything to do with race. In fact, the vast majority of the time it doesn’t.

15) Drag queens are deviants and shouldn’t be allowed near children, much less allowed to be part of story times for kids.

16) There are only two genders.

17) If America were oppressive for minorities, they’d be leaving the country, not coming here in droves.

18) There isn’t enough proof that we’re experiencing global warming and that man is responsible for it to make radical changes designed to “fix it.”

19) 99 times out of a 100, a single mom can’t even come close to raising a child as well as a mother and father can.

20) It is okay to be white just like it’s okay to be every other race.

21) Anyone that brings their child with them as they break the law by crossing into America illegally is a bad parent and at fault, if they are separated from their child.

22) Diversity isn’t a strength that makes us better, it’s a weakness that takes many special steps (emphasis on assimilation, patriotism, colorblindness, etc.) to overcome.

23) The more mass shootings there are, the more of a reason there is for law-abiding people to arm themselves, not for them to disarm.

24) The proper remedy for speech isn’t censorship, it’s more speech.

25) Slavery was a universal phenomenon and Americans should be prouder that we, along with Great Britain, did the most of any nations in history to end the practice than ashamed that our nation had slaves, just like everybody else.

Staying out of jail is as easy as following 3 rules in life taught to me by my grandmother:

1. Be where you are supposed to be.

2. Do what you are supposed to be doing.

3. Associate with decent law abiding people.

How we ended up going to hell in a handbasket

The more liberal folks go on about what they like or don’t like. What they consider appropriate or not appropriate. The more conservatives among us let them do or say what they like. We believe in the constitution in that they have that right to say/do as they please. They ‘get their way’ on most issues as conservatives do not oppose them. They do not affect us or our way of life. An example would be “gay rights”. Sure, let them have whatever they like, I do not care as it does not affect me.

So they get bolder and start ‘demanding’ more. We WANT this or we WANT that. Again, conservative do not oppose them, it is their right to want whatever the heck they want.

At first, most of these things did not affect us. They do not want something, we do, we do it, they don’t do it. All is well.

Liberals are much more vocal about their wants and desires, conservatives are not. We are happy just being left alone to live our lives, liberals want everyone to live by how they live. They openly scream and protest for what they want. Conservatives do not fight back, at first, because they have a right to scream and protest all they like. Still, what the liberals scream about and do does not affect us.

They want to ‘help’ Somali’s and others and import them to somewhere? Sure, conservatives are all for helping folks out. No problems or complaints from conservatives. So they ‘import’ more and more of them. Conservatives were not paying enough attention.

We are coming to the point where this ‘power creep’ from the Liberal side is starting to affect the more conservative side of America.

Conservatives have been quiet too long now, we were not paying close enough attention to what was happening. We gave them too many of the freedoms we so love that they are starting to come back to bite us. Our love of our Constitutional freedoms were being taken advantage of. The liberals took advantage of all or Constitutional freedoms. Conservatives were not paying attention.