As a Catholic Christian, I believe that, at some point deep in our primordial past, we suffered a rupture in our relationship with God. I tend to view the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as more of a literary description than a literal report, but I think there's enough evidence out in the world today to confirm the reality of Original Sin and its effects on our human nature. If you spend enough time studying social psychology - or enough time working with children - you'll find it hard not to conclude that some of our instincts and reasoning processes are fundamentally disordered. We are stiff-necked as all hell, and our often mistaken priorities do make a mess of this world and of the people in it.
However, as a Catholic Christian, I also believe in a God Who is merciful. If you hail from a nominally Judeo-Christian society, you're probably familiar enough with the whole story that I don't need to reiterate it here. Suffice it to say that God was not content with leaving us in our brokenness; instead, He came to Earth and gave us a transparent and accessible means to cleanse ourselves of our First Parents' mistake in Baptism and the other sacraments. And the Church He left behind has stood unchanged - aside from a few superficial alterations - for the past two millennia.
Thus sayeth my faith tradition. I relate it not to convert you, but to make a point. First of all, note the universality of its dictates. The Catholic Church does not teach that only some human beings are marked by the stain of Original Sin; the impact of the Fall is global in its reach. Note too that the Church never moves Her goal posts. If a Baptism is performed correctly - and by the way, the requirements here are pretty simple and straightforward - it is always and forever efficacious.
These features, to me, distinguish a doctrine that is at least approaching the Truth from one that is manifestly false. Unfortunately, in today's society, a loud and radical minority is busily trying to impose upon the rest of us a pale imitation of Original Sin that has none of these vital facets. This impostor - this new heresy, if you will - is, of course, the "social justice" ideology.
The SJW's version of Original Sin does not apply to everyone equally. If you'e white, you're more guilty than a "person of color." If you're straight, you're more guilty than someone who is gay. If you are "comfortable" with your "assigned gender," you're more guilty than someone who is trans. If you're a man, you're more guilty than a woman. The list goes on and on. And because identity is "intersectional," the formulae are even more intricate than the above binaries would suggest; indeed, you basically have to sit down and explicitly rack up your "victim points" to figure out just how much sin you have to expiate. The higher your point total, the less you are required to examine yourself, purge your hidden hatreds, and control your own behavior. Thus, a white, heterosexual, "cis-male" is the lowest of scum and must flagellate himself constantly to make up for it...
(You know, like this.)
... while someone who is black, "pansexual," and "genderfluid" is free to be as vicious and as abusive as "they" like -- because, of course, "they're" obviously "punching up."
The SJW's worldview is not only byzantine in its complexity; it's also protean in its application. Just when you think you've finally figured it out, the SJW pulls a Lucy with her football and goes off to change the ground rules. Consider the issue of "representation." The most reputable studies indicate that, for example, somewhere between two to six percent of the population is gay. It stands to reason, then, that in order to truly "represent the world as it is," my writer friends should make sure that two to six percent of the characters they create are gay. Right? Right? Nope -- not in SJW Land! For the SJW, the fact that gay people have appeared in virtually every modern television program that I've ever watched - and often in very visible roles - still does not satisfy. As John Trent reports today at The Federalist, she wants already established characters - like Captain America - to hop onto the rainbow bandwagon. And I suspect she'd find other reasons to complain even if Steve did get himself a boyfriend because, for the SJW, there is no endgame -- no final objective she can clearly define.
The "social justice" movement, in short, is not True and Beautiful; instead, it has all the earmarks of an evil power grab. And as I've said many times before, we shouldn't stand for it.
ETA: Welcome, Instapundit readers!