According to the Bible, those people are wrong. In fact, those beliefs are diametrically opposed to the Scriptures.
EXAMPLE: the Book of Leviticus (19:15) declares: "You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great; with righteousness shall you judge your fellow." Here the Bible warns us not to "favor the poor" and does so even before we're told "not to honor the great," because partiality for the unfortunate is an even stronger human temptation, and therefore a greater sin. Both great and poor are to be treated equally, with fairness to both and without favoritism. Being treated equally is not the same as making them equal, which is what "social justice" demands.
But the progressive liberals cry, "What about all the biblical demands to show compassion to widows, orphans and the poor?"
A verse in Leviticus draws an important distinction between charity and justice and basically states "Do not say that since the wealthy man is obligated to help the poor one, it is proper for a judge to rule in favor of the poor litigant so that he will be supported in dignity." The Bible insists that justice be rendered honestly; charity may not interfere with it. In other words, while it is an obligation of individuals to help the less fortunate, no authority, whether a judge or a government, shall mandate it, or force it.
The Bible also states, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (19:18). This well-known verse makes clear that the same God who wants us to deal kindly with our fellow human beings also requires that we respect and honor ourselves. You don't harm yourself for the sake of your fellow man; the Bible consistently backs the conservative supposition that we help others best when we help ourselves. For if we harm ourselves, we are no longer in a position to help others. Who is best situated to help the poor - a wealthy man, or a poor one?
There are many, many verses in the Bible that make it exceedingly clear that it is a Christian undertaking for individuals to help provide for the less fortunate, but requires that it be voluntary. Forced "charity" is not charity, and does nothing to bring us closer to God.
Seen another way, the Bible recognizes that the great and poor should not be made equal by manipulation. Such equality would remove any need or desire to strive to be better. And God requires us to strive to be better. "Keeping up with the Joneses", though trite, is also the motivating factor that encourages people to try harder. Whatever wealth a person has is earned because the person wants something better. And the more he earns, the more he can help others. But that help must be voluntary if it is to have value to our soul.
As for the bogus "collective salvation" that President Obama and many liberal clergy speak of, that is a complete 180 degree turn from Christianity. "Collective salvation" does not recognize that Christ died for our sins, and that each of us, individually, will be judged by God according to his Word. That is the most basic Christian tenet. But under "collective salvation", as espoused by Obama, none of us can be saved individually, and we will only find salvation if we do so together, collectively as a whole (which is the goal of "social justice"). And that is anti-Christian at its core.
The next time you hear your clergy advocate social justice through taxation or coercion, or your preacher mentions "collective salvation" you would be well advised to seek out a new place of worship - one that follows the tenets of the Scriptures.
One in five Americans believe Obama is a Muslim. I don't know - it does seem to ring true in some ways. I don't care if he is muslim or not. But what I find more intriguing is that 43% do not believe he is a Christian. And I share that belief - anyone who believes in collective salvation, forcing charity and sees Christ only as "an historical figure" (Obama's statement to the Sun-Times) is not a Christian by any stretch of the imagination.