Are we liberals deluded when we talk about justice issues? 

Maybe not deluded but confused.  The very concept of justice requires truth. Without truth, there can be no justice.  If truth is forged on the sandy ground of liberalism, then how sincere can the justice be?  Social justice is often founded in the human truth of 'human rights. If you are seeking ordination or lay leader status within the UCC; is it to be grounded in Biblical truth or human truth?  The form of social justice that will spring forth from the seeds that you will plant will be determined by that answer much more than whether or not you consider yourself to be liberal.

Truth...  Isn't that the problem?  I can be 'fairly' accurate at judging the form of an argument, and we can say if an argument is logical or not.  But can we say the same of the premises?  I often find myself wondering if the little 't' truths that I think I know can even be properly communicated with any accuracy.  And if person to person communication rests on nuances and arbitrary assumptions about the meaning of words, each carrying their own social baggage, how much worse the interpretation of history and the interpretation of a tradition that is vague at best?   After reading some Ayn Rand this winter as a response to Plato's republic I'm not sure if I'm even a liberal anymore.  I think that the current 'liberal' scene is actually much more conservative than it lets on.  Standing firm on the concept of a collectivist approach to ethics they seem willing to subject individual rights and responsibilities to the rights of any seemingly unhappy group.  Which I cannot.  There are no rights unless they are the rights of each and every person equally.  Only the government needs to have it's conscience at the service of other people, the rest of the country deserves a right to conscience (racist, radical, or capitalist) provided as individuals their right does not infringe upon other's rights.  Which does not mean that the radicals can hijack the public sphere.   But it does mean that they are allowed a voice.  This view is very egalitarian (which some would say is liberal) and yet is firmly grounded in the concept of individual rights (which is very conservative).  

I'm also not sure if Justice and Truth are equivocal.  The one is a measure of an action and the other is a measure of a thought or concept.  I think that it's the same problem that Plato has in talking about Virtue in republic.  He conflates it with Justice and then loses that argument when it descends into an argument for 'fairness'.  Both may have the same meaning in their given field, much like how Truth applies to facts but correctness applies to arguments.  But perhaps these kinds of subtleties aren't important anymore...  I'm not sure.