Poor Glenn Beck is in hot water again and it is really Beck and not that frog he didn't really boil a few weeks ago.

This time the Fox News commentator who, as great a conservative/libertarian/anti-progressive as he is, once again ran his mouth before fully engaging his brain on the issue of social justice and churches.

Beck touched on the problem of social justice which is not an issue involving justice for everyone in society. Beck viewed the term as a buzzword for priests, ministers, rabbis who want to effect a Communist or Nazi version of social justice.

That's way over the top but, in Beck's defense, it really involves misinterpreted definitions.

Take the words separately.

"Social" refers to society and everyone in that society. That would include the rich, poor, and everyone in between. "Justice" refers to fairmindedness, equity.

Combined, however, the term "social justice" takes on a whole new meaning in contemporary jargon, a meaning many on the Left interpret as sharing the wealth, as Obama said during the campaign, or wholesale re-distribution of America's wealth, taking from the rich to share with the poor.

Obama's favorite community activist organization, the almost-defunct ACORN, was a prime proponent of social justice which to them meant taking from anyone who worked for a living and giving to ACORN-types.

That scheme was fine for Robin Hood who never came close to impoverishing the nobility from whom he stole. The ACORNers plan was not as much to raise up the poor as it was to bring down people of means.

The distorted Leftist view is that whoever has money acquired it by force, deceit, cheating, or other nefarious deeds and thus are not entitled to their ill-gotten gains.

So too is another relatively small group unentitled, those who inherited their money. Think Rockefellers and Kennedys, unentitled since their inherited wealth was derived from forebears who used force, deceit, cheating to originally get rich.

There's something to be said for seizing and re-distributing all that wealth, not much but something. The same people who buy into the idea also allege that White Europeans stole America from the indigenous populations whereas this land of ours was acquired through a time-honored method: war and conquest.

In short, we won, they lost. 'Twas ever thus. Case closed.

Likewise with wealth acquired through less than admirable ways, as in rum-running by Papa Joe Kennedy or being a thieving oil baron like John D. Rockefeller. It may not be especially palatable to most people who didn't come up with the idea first but the alternative of social justice through income re-distribution is even less palatable under the American system.

Who would get what and how much would they get? What criteria would be established to determine the most needy? If the most needy get the bulk of other's wealth, would the less needy but still needy be content? If it's fairly distributed, who's to define what's fair? The government? And who is to pass judgment on any government's sense of equity?

Personally, I'd almost trust the Kennedys and Rockefellers before any government entity.

All those questions are moot, anyway, in our constitutional, democratic republic and if that re-distribution of wealth in the name of social justice were ever to become the law of the land, my guess is that within a generation or so those who started out poor will be poor once again and those who began rich would be rich again.

Jesus Christ may have preached social justice and I'm personally in favor of it. That is, as long as the financial aspect of that justice is predicated on voluntary giving through charity. If not, I vote for Glenn Beck and advise that anyone who is advised by a priest or church to share the wealth insist that the priest and church share their wealth and perks first.

If they agree, tell them you'll think about it, then switch churches.