Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Thursday November 16, 2006
Social justice on ESPN
Now this is fantastic: Gregg Easterbrook, writing for ESPN.com's Page 2, not only does a fantastic job talking about the past weekend in football -- as a Steelers fan I particularly appreciate his observation that that "direct snap" to Deuce...posted by J-Walking @ 6:09am Permalink 
Email This 
Add to:
Subscribe
Comments
David: How would you define "social justice"? And if you support raising the minimum wage, why not raise it to $30 or $40 /hr?
Posted by: Will Hinton | November 16, 2006 5:39 PM
I think you're missing a vital point here, Will: nobody who works full-time should be poor. It's sinful when anyone is having to work 80 hours a week just to pay rent and put a little bit of food on the table. So I, personally, would be glad to see my potential salary go down (I'm a counseling intern, therefore unpaid currently) if it would mean more people in my community could afford housing and decent food. That's what social justice means.
Posted by: Matt Butcher | November 16, 2006 6:02 PM
Oh, and "why not raise it to $30 or $40 and hour?" is a low thing to say. Nobody's proposing any such thing, and you know it. There's even an idea that we can have an exception to the minimum for high school kids who have jobs, which is something I've personally supported for years. Nobody's out there saying that the minimum wage should result in a six-figure income. We're just saying that you shouldn't be poor if you work. It's about fair wages, not wealth.
Posted by: Matt Butcher | November 16, 2006 6:06 PM
I agree with Mr. Hinton. Just what does "social justice" mean because it sounds like socialism to me. I work hard to earn my keep and I shouldn't be forced to give away money just because it makes do-gooders feel better. Plus the idea of a minimum wage exception for teens just forshadows more government regulation. First, the government would probably set a requirement that if a household earned less that X amount of dollars, that teen would get X minimum wage. If the household earned higher than X, that teen would receive the lower Y rate. Furthermore, parents would have to document their income so that employers would know how much to pay their teen. Parents now have an incentive to lie about their income. And employers have an incentive to not hire teens because it's too much paper work. Employers may just hire adults because it's easier. Is the government then going to mandate an age quota so that teens trying to help their families will be employed? Well, even more government regulation, which means even higher taxes. While I have no problem giving money to charities of my choice, I don't like the government taking my money to give to others. I can monitor a charity and if I feel that they are not getting the job done, I can give money elsewhere. When the government takes my money, there is no accountability. If the system isn't working, there is no way for me to put my money into something more effective.
Posted by: Christian Evans | November 16, 2006 6:43 PM
Matt: How is it sinful for someone to work 80 hrs a week to pay the rent and provide food? Who is sinning? Please explain the theology behind that. You mention that you are willing to see your salary go down. It's a good thing since the government isn't asking whether you care or not. They are forcing you. And that is not charity. I'm also curious as to your definition of poor. I am more and more convinced that "social justice" is simply another term for forced redistribution of wealth, which isn't charity, doesn't work, and preys upon class envy.
Posted by: Will Hinton | November 17, 2006 3:32 AM
It is true that the love of money is the root of all evil.
Posted by: Kevin Young | November 17, 2006 8:18 PM
I find it interesting that our predominantly Republican congress has expressed so much interest in trying to extrapolate legislation from issues of "sin" that Jesus does not address in the Gospels (gay marriage, abortion, etc) but does not try to extrapolate social justic issues, such as a living wage, from the many Gospel passages on money. He talked about the poor more than just about anything else. IMO, it shows you where their true devotion lies. And for the record, even though I am a Christian, I don't believe in building a government based on Biblical principals, since they serve two totally different purposes.
Posted by: poetographer1967 | November 17, 2006 10:34 PM
Sinfulness in the realm of compensation does not come in the form of individual sin, but of corporate sin. Society shows how much it values the work of a person by how much it pays, so to speak. Our values are twisted in that we make athletes and entertainers rich, while those who work hard with the bodies and hands are living in poverty. However God's children are provided for, I don't care--whether it be from my money donated to religious causes (which I give), my time to social improvement projects such as Habitat for Humanity (which I have volunteered for and will again when possible) or through the government -- I don't care. "But woe to you rich, for you have received your consolation. Woe to you who are full, for you shall hunger." Luke 6:24-25a.
Posted by: Matt Butcher | November 18, 2006 5:22 AM
I absolutely agree with Matt and poetographer. For five years, the Republican-majority Congress has focussed on "moral" issues that Jesus himself never talked about, and at the same time refused to even bring a minimum wage bill to the floor for a vote for NINE YEARS. I'm old enough to remember when someone working at a minimum wage job DID earn enough to support their family. Mom could even stay at home if she was good at economizing. As Christians, if we're going to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, we aren't we focussing on the war on poverty? And what's wrong with a little socialism anyway? What was Jesus if not a socialist? And oh by the way, the Book of Acts' description of the first Christians seems to suggest THEY were (GASP) Communists! I found the CNN exit poll of the Ohio voters on their minimum wage ballot proposition incredible. They were broken down by, among other things, income level and even church affiliation. A big majority of people making more than $250,000 a year and up voted AGAINST any increase. It boggles my mind that by and large, those with the most seem to have the least generosity of spirit towards those with the least. But the really amazing statistic, to me, was that about half of those who attended church weekly or more voted against, while 71% of the people NEVER attended church were in FAVOR of giving a raise to the poorest of the poor. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006//pages/results/states/OH/I/03/epolls.0.html
Posted by: Linda | November 19, 2006 1:24 AM
I don't remember reading about a minimum wage law in the Gospels, either. Just because I think minimum wage laws are a bad idea, doesn't mean that I am unconcerned about the poor; I routinely give to charities that help the poor around the world. My problem with the min wage, socialism, & communism is that the govt controls the $. This diminishes the influence of the church & Christians. I would much rather let individuals decide where & how they want their donations used. This is the diffence between the early church & modern day communism; in the early church individuals voluntarily supported each other's & the poor's needs, whereas communism takes by force & ultimately ends up enriching its leaders at the expense of everyone else. Minimum wage laws are usually flawed anyhow; they don't help the average working family to any extent, because most anyone who has a family will have been in the workforce for enough years to have moved beyond the minimum wage. Minimum wage laws primarily benefit the youth & entry level workers, who generally don't need govt assistance.
Posted by: Wyatt | November 21, 2006 3:47 AM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?