Rush to Judgement

[juantoo3]

Rushing Headlong to Judgement​

It seems to me that one of the greatest challenges we collectively face is whether we put a greater emphasis on a person's behaviors, or on the individual person. I know I can be as guilty of this dilemma as the next person. I asked this question before in a thread dedicated to this subject, and overwhelmingly the responses I received were that the greater value should be placed on the person, not the behavior. The reality it seems is quite different.

Jesus taught us repeatedly "Judge not, that you be not judged." I cannot help but struggle with this, when the overwhelming propaganda of paranoia that permeates society is to rush to judgement when certain issues are raised. By virtue of the politics of the war on crime and through the machinations of the mass media, society as a whole instinctively reacts in a knee-jerk fashion whenever certain issues are raised, convicting individuals (and even whole nations) in the court of public opinion long before they ever face a fair and impartial justice system.

We need to look at this responsibly and consider our part in the process. Rightly or wrongly, we tend to scapegoat certain persons who are no more than accused.

One subject stands out among others in our society, and seems above all others to draw the instant conviction of society without any semblance of fair trial; pedophilia. Were vigilantes still the norm, as it seems many of us secretly wish, any person merely accused of this crime would be strung up, castrated, and tortured in every imaginable way we could to exact our vengeance, justice system bedamned. And if that person were actually innocent of the charges, would we not then be guilty of an even more heinous crime than they?

Allow me to posit an example, one that is very possible at least here in the states. A person with a vendetta for whatever reason, can call Social Services *anonymously* and report the abuse of a child. The report does not need to be factual or true, Social Services is bound by law to investigate. This anonymous accusation is in direct violation of the Constitutional right to face one's accusers. And the anonymous tipster might even receive some financial reward if the accused is convicted. Now, Social Services goes to investigate a young father with a two year old daughter. He is a doting father who helps his wife in caring for the child, changing diapers and bathing the little girl as needed. Social Services asks the little girl "does daddy touch you there?" To which the little girl innocently replies "yes," and all hell breaks loose.

The little girl is removed from the home and placed with a foster (which all too often creates problems of its own!). The man is charged and probably confined to jail to await trial. The news media blows the story way out of proportion because sensational stories drive up viewership. The public rallies with the war cry "off with his head!" The man is already convicted in the court of public opinion even before going to trial. He loses his job and friends, and now faces the very expensive task of proving his innocence and clearing his name. He faces a politically motivated District Attorney who cannot afford to appear "soft on crime." The man cannot rely on court appointed legal assistance for bringing the justice of truth to light, the court appointed counsel will tell him to plea bargain and admit guilt for something he would never dream of doing to his precious little girl. His face and name are put on the rolls of child molesters for the whole county to view, and his neighbors around his home are "warned" of his living in the area.

No matter if after a fair trial he should happen to be exonerated and cleared of any wrongdoing, his neighbors will continue to cast angry glances and keep their distance. The media has no requirement to clear the man's name or admit their inaccurate reporting. The legal system can take their time removing his name from their warning rolls with no repercussion. And Social Services has no requirement to provide information allowing the man to sue the false accuser for defamation or to "fix" any mental health issues that may arise in the child for improper removal from her home because Social Services are above the law.

I invented this scenario, but it is all too possible, given the current laws and the zeitgeist of the public mind. There are men being falsely accused of such crimes that are in reality guilty of no more than caring for their child. And society is only too happy to lynch such a man without anything resembling a fair trial; between an overwhelming desire to scapegoat and the aura of fear perpetuated by the legal and social system, and the political air of emasculation wherein a man *must* be wrong about everything and anything particularly when it comes to issues regarding children by virtue of no more than hormones and facial hair.

Yes, this is an extreme example. I am using it to make a point. Do we place a greater value on a person, or on what a person does? Now, what is your answer as soon as I mention the word: pedophile?

Don't get me wrong, our children are precious to us, and rightly must and should be defended against those that would hurt them. But where do we draw the line? Do we automatically jump headlong off the cliff to judgement as guilty simply because the media and the Social Services attach a name and face to an unsubstantiated accusation? Is the public justified in condemning innocent persons in order to insure the safety of our children? Is society justified in ruining the lives of tax paying citizens in order to secure a moment’s respite from the perpetual fear of crime?

Perhaps nowhere else is the apocryphal quote attributed to Ben Franklin more true, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

There's a little town about 30 miles or so from where I live that holds a solemn remembrance every year to commemorate the rush to judgement. Every January 4th Rosewood, Florida somberly marks a time when a number of people were hung and shot to death by a mob of vigilantes over no more justification than a false accusation. By no means is this an isolated occasion in American history, but rather than serving as a sobering lesson it seems we are determined to continue in our old ways.

Remembering Rosewood - The Most Thorough Site

The Real Rosewood

Rosewood massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We want the world to be a better place. Instead of working on ourselves to bring it about, I guess it just seems easier to mindlessly point a finger and cast our judgement onto someone else. Some old habits are too hard to break I guess, it's been going on for more than three thousand years. We’ve been scapegoating others since the book of Leviticus.

We still can't quite seem to figure this one out. We want to believe we place a greater value on a person than on their behavior and that a person can be redeemed in spite of their behavior, when the truth is our actions betray us. Redemption among our fellow human beings is very difficult, and depending what prejudices are faced maybe even impossible. Even those who serve their time and pay their debt to society all too often remain convicted in the court of public opinion for their entire lives. “Forgive that ye may be forgiven.” Easy words, hard to practice.

WWJD?

 

[Dondi]

Why is this in the Christianity section? Is this a problem specific to the Christian paradigm? Wouldn't it be more properly placed in the Politics section?

 

[cyberpi]

If pedophilia is what Silas and Niranjan were involved in then maybe I can start to see why some here rushed to judgement and then conviction, branding them in the local court of public opinion as 'uncivil'. But I still don't see why the resident crowd cheered and clapped as the scapegoats were banished without a peep. It would be nice if their intollerable words and viewpoints could be forgiven, but I question whether it is those alleged pedophiles who should really be seeking forgiveness.

WWJD? Maybe he would judge and simply say, "You snakes. You vipers. You hypocrites. How will you escape the eternal judgment of hell?"

I have been around a few folks who have tried and even developed a chemical dependence to some drugs branded illicit, and so I have learned a little bit about the AA and NA (Alcoholics + Narcotics anonymous). I find it an impressive group. Anyone know the 12 steps? It is important for people to NOT be the enabler. Do not be the enabler for someone else's drug habit. So if forgive means to ignore, or to forget, thus further enabling the lie, then DO NOT FORGIVE. But if forgive means to openly rebuke, but to then clap and cheer, and slaughter the cow for a feast if and when that person repents, and seeks help with "Hello, my name is, and I'm a ...", THEN DO FORGIVE. Forgiveness is a matter of timing and for what should be clapped and cheered for.

But with Niranjan, Silas, and others... even if they were pedophiles... they never really got to address their accusers. The clapping and the cheering was at the wrong time and for the wrong purpose. I personally rebuke whoever banned them for their intolerable words and viewpoints.

 

[Saltmeister]

We still can't quite seem to figure this one out. We want to believe we place a greater value on a person than on their behavior and that a person can be redeemed in spite of their behavior, when the truth is our actions betray us. Redemption among our fellow human beings is very difficult, and depending what prejudices are faced maybe even impossible. Even those who serve their time and pay their debt to society all too often remain convicted in the court of public opinion for their entire lives. “Forgive that ye may be forgiven.” Easy words, hard to practice.

Most of us have reputations to defend. We don't want to think that we, of all people, turn out to be one of those whom we condemn and see as despicable. We find ways of distancing ourselves from such people. We want to impress those who have held us in such high esteem.

We never knew they we could ever be like the person we despise. Pedophilia. We all have the potential to develop the disease. We condemn pedophiles because we can't imagine ourselves committing such a crime. We distance ourselves from such people.

We are not better than our fellow neighbour. If your friend becomes a rapist, you could become a rapist too. If your friend cheated on his wife, you'd probably do the same too. If your friend murders, you might become a murderer yourself. Your friend lies, and that means that you can be just as much of a liar yourself. If you have a pedophile for a friend, you can just as easily be one yourself, maybe even a better one at that. Your next door neighbour is a terrorist. Have we not all had our moments of rebellion? Your brother brutally beats up his wife and kills her. You could do the same when you're at your worst. The guy next door starts taking drugs. You are just as prone to drugs as he. It was a matter of probability.

You are just as capable of committing the same misdeeds as that of your neighbour. Never think you're immune. We condemn others because we're hypocrites. We pretend we're not capable of the same crimes and misdeeds as others. There's a liar in each of us.

That means Juantoo, that there's a pedophile in you and me. There's a murderer, terrorist, adulterer and wife-beater in all of us. Choice doesn't matter. It's a ticking time-bomb. It's only a matter of time.

It's just that we never thought we would ever do such horrible things. Nobody goes into life planning to be a villain. Horses are for courses, not the other way round. Life put you in that situation.

Defending a pedophile is often seen as synonymous with being one yourself. I disagree. You are just saying that the reason why that person was a pedophile and you were not is because you are lucky you weren't born into the kind of life story that person received. You would have done the same thing in their situation. They're just another version of you.

The rosy picture says that ideally, nobody is a wife-beater, murderer, liar, terrorist or pedophile. The reality is however, that because we are all just as capable of doing the same horrible things, when you condemn one of those people, you condemn yourself. The legal system condemns people as a deterrent against crime, but the condemnation doesn't reflect reality.

 

[juantoo3]

Good points, all!

Why is this in the Christianity section? Is this a problem specific to the Christian paradigm? Wouldn't it be more properly placed in the Politics section?

Certainly this problem extends beyond the Christian paradigm, but in this specific issue (rushing to judgement) is not the institution of Christianity uniquely qualified in this country to deal with the problem, aftermath and solution?

But with Niranjan, Silas, and others... even if they were pedophiles... they never really got to address their accusers. The clapping and the cheering was at the wrong time and for the wrong purpose. I personally rebuke whoever banned them for their intolerable words and viewpoints.

Cyberpi, your rebukes have not gone without consideration. I still stand by my previous actions because I did what I did and I cannot change that. I am not perfect, neither am I a martyr. I do like to try to learn from my mistakes, and to keep things in perspective. Regarding Niranjan and Silas, neither was condemned to prison nor had their reputation besmeared by society at large. What was done was an attempt to keep peace, so let's keep things in perspective.

Having said that, I do wish there were another way to deal with such things. There is no comparison (apples and go-carts) between being verbally assaultive/ abusive and pedophilia. So trying to draw a connection there is really stretching things a bit. But for the sake of discussion, how then would you deal with such disruption if you were in a position to protect those being verbally assaulted? (For instance, if your child's teacher verbally assaulted your child, how would you react to the teacher?) What comparison between being party to disruption compared with simply receiving hearsay "proof" from your buddy's wife's neighbor's hairdresser's email (so it *must* be true!). There is an unclear line between mob madness and personal experience, self defense being a very valid response in my opinion, whereas getting caught up in the zeitgeist of a mob rules vigilantism is not.

Most of us have reputations to defend. We don't want to think that we, of all people, turn out to be one of those whom we condemn and see as despicable. We find ways of distancing ourselves from such people. We want to impress those who have held us in such high esteem.

We are not better than our fellow neighbour. Have we not all had our moments of rebellion? It was a matter of probability.

You are just as capable of committing the same misdeeds as that of your neighbour. Never think you're immune. We condemn others because we're hypocrites. We pretend we're not capable of the same crimes and misdeeds as others. There's a liar in each of us.

Choice doesn't matter. It's a ticking time-bomb. It's only a matter of time.

Nobody goes into life planning to be a villain. Life put you in that situation.

Defending a pedophile is often seen as synonymous with being one yourself. I disagree. You would have done the same thing in their situation. They're just another version of you.

The rosy picture says that ideally, nobody is a wife-beater, murderer, liar, terrorist or pedophile. The reality is however, that because we are all just as capable of doing the same horrible things, when you condemn one of those people, you condemn yourself. The legal system condemns people as a deterrent against crime, but the condemnation doesn't reflect reality.

Salty! Some great points! I bolded the ones I thought really spoke to the issue I am trying to raise here. I would disagree that choice doesn't matter, I think choice is crucial, upon it turns personal responsibility.

We all might be capable of doing the same horrible things, but it is through choice and responsibility that the majority of us do not do horrible things. That is not to say we might not skirt the edges; drive over the speed limit, cheat on taxes, eat a grape in the grocery store without paying for it for example. So it seems we do measure the worth of behaviors, obviously eating a grape without paying for it is not an equal crime in status or consideration with pedophilia. People do not go to prison or have their reputations ruined by false accusations of eating grapes and not paying for them.

I do want to emphatically state that I am not defending or supporting pedophilia. Once again this is used for the shock value because it is such a galvanizing subject...and that's the point. This is one of those few subjects where merely an accusation can drive the mob into a frenzy. I think we should guard ourselves against that mob frenzy mentality. So what if the evening news posts a "suspected" child abuser's name and photo as a community warning...until convicted we should reserve our judgement, and even then perhaps reserve our judgement if the person is not directly involved with our family. "Judge not, that you be not judged." WWJD? That is not to say we should not exercise some degree of caution; one may not wish to invite such a person to babysit. But is it just, fair and righteous to mentally condemn someone without due process?

As a side note I also think the provisions for anonymity should be abolished and that there should be legal repercussions for frivolous false accusations of this calibur that can ruin reputations and destroy families.

 

[cyberpi]

I still stand by my previous actions because I did what I did and I cannot change that.

Whether or not you should stand by anything, or change anything, this strikes me as a peculiar reasoning. Should the pedophiliac stand by his actions because he could no longer change them? Should the mob who punished a dad stand by their actions because they could no longer change them? I suggest that people can change the future, and that the AA and NA folks know a recipe that works. Their recipe involves the past though.

I am not perfect, neither am I a martyr.

The word martyr is interesting and twisted. Are you suggesting that you think a martyr is perfect?

What was done was an attempt to keep peace, so let's keep things in perspective.

I thought banning the alleged pedophiliac from his children was an attempt to keep peace. Well, wasn't it? Allegedly for the children? Allegedly for the society? A social service?

There is no comparison (apples and go-carts) between being verbally assaultive/ abusive and pedophilia. So trying to draw a connection there is really stretching things a bit.

I was hoping you would notice that. What is different and why was the method of judgment so similar?

What is the method of judgment that a person uses to attempt the condition of not being likewise judged? I submit that method is to be avoided.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Juan, fantastic post!

Jesus says not to judge. God judges, not man. Cool. God is the ultimate judge. But God doesn't operate in the sphere of human relations. Who will be the judge there if not man? The Bible suggests that God has vested interest in the rulership of this world, but it's clear that men run their own affairs. Further, a major theme of the OT seems to be the idea of enlightened dominion of the earth through egalitarian, if theocratic, governance. So I think it's reasonable to say that what Jesus means is that God should be the judge of things in his realm, like the ultimate worth or salvation potential of a person. One shouldn't presume to make these sorts of judgments against one's fellow humans.

I think that the arena of public opinion demands that we judge things we lack adequate information about. It's all part of the process by which the mass media creates a demand for its product in the virtual world of public opinion.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

More great responses! Cool!

Whether or not you should stand by anything, or change anything, this strikes me as a peculiar reasoning. Should the pedophiliac stand by his actions because he could no longer change them? Should the mob who punished a dad stand by their actions because they could no longer change them? I suggest that people can change the future, and that the AA and NA folks know a recipe that works. Their recipe involves the past though.

I agree the future can be changed, the past however is another matter (disregarding political spin). Since I am not familiar with AA or NA, perhaps you might fill us in?

The word martyr is interesting and twisted. Are you suggesting that you think a martyr is perfect?

No, I think you have long been trying to set up a game of duelling martyrs. Niranjan and Silas vs. me (and/ or the CR staff in general).

I thought banning the alleged pedophiliac from his children was an attempt to keep peace. Well, wasn't it? Allegedly for the children? Allegedly for the society? A social service?

I was hoping you would notice that. What is different and why was the method of judgment so similar?

What is the method of judgment that a person uses to attempt the condition of not being likewise judged? I submit that method is to be avoided.

Ah, good point...is all judgement the same? Would you mind expanding please?

Jesus says not to judge. God judges, not man. Cool. God is the ultimate judge. But God doesn't operate in the sphere of human relations. Who will be the judge there if not man? The Bible suggests that God has vested interest in the rulership of this world, but it's clear that men run their own affairs. Further, a major theme of the OT seems to be the idea of enlightened dominion of the earth through egalitarian, if theocratic, governance. So I think it's reasonable to say that what Jesus means is that God should be the judge of things in his realm, like the ultimate worth or salvation potential of a person. One shouldn't presume to make these sorts of judgments against one's fellow humans.

Two different forms of judgement then? Godly and earthly? Which then was Jesus referring to? Is there something translational that clouds this from the original Greek into Elizabethan English?

I think that the arena of public opinion demands that we judge things we lack adequate information about. It's all part of the process by which the mass media creates a demand for its product in the virtual world of public opinion.

I do feel we need to make certain...estimations, educated considerations, wisdom judgements...in order to guide and direct our lives and families. I do see a definite distinction between careful consideration and getting caught up in thoughtless automatic assumption of guilt.

There is an associated danger as well. At best, a calmer voice can be lost in the tempest of emotion. At worst, the crowd can turn on the one calling for calm consideration (often confusing a call to reason for complicit guilt along with the accused). It can be a very tough challenge to stand against the crowd, as history has repeatedly shown.

Jesus asks us to judge not that we be not judged, yet society is quick to judge and looks upon those who refrain (or are slow to conclusion) as either guilty as well or at least subversive. It does create a difficult challenge.

Great replies from all so far, I look forward to more.

 

[cyberpi]

Jesus says not to judge. God judges, not man. Cool. God is the ultimate judge.

Are you sure? A few verses to consider:

John 5:22-30 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Are you sure? A few verses to consider:

John 5:22-30 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; and hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment. I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.

" I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

So, if Jesus of himself does nothing, and his judgment is just because his will is merely a conduit for God's will, then who is actually judging?

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

There are some things we have to make judgment calls on, but there are a great many things about which it would be better to reserve judgment in the light of our lack of information. It would be better to just say "I don't know." But it's very hard to say "I don't know." Nobody wants to hear that. There is pressure to take a position, and there are any number of sources of pre-made positions one can easily take which don't require the pursuit of any real understanding of the facts.

I served on the jury at a murder trial about ten years ago. I wound up being the hold out from an otherwise unanimous guilty verdict because of what I saw as reasonable doubt about the evidence and testimony of witnesses. Everyone was so angry at me. I cost them extra days away from their livelihoods. The thing was, I thought the guy was guilty too, but I couldn't be 100% certain based on the evidence and testimony. It wasn't as dramatic as Twelve Angry Men, but it was that kind of scenario. There is tremendous pressure to go along with the consensus point of view whether it's a matter of religious doctrine, or politics, juris prudence, or just to get along with one's family or co-workers.

I see this accusation of judgmentalism thrown up against Christians a lot. "Jesus says not to judge, you Christians judge, therefore you're a bunch of hypocrites" kind of thing. I always wonder from what hypothetical moral high ground the accuser thinks himself qualified to throw that stone.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, and thank you both cyberpi and China Cat for your responses.

I think you both have managed to highlight the quandary of picking and choosing "verses" to go either way with this concerning judgement.

What precisely is *righteous* judgement? Are we to presume we are judging righteously because we belong to a clique that tells us we do? Are we to presume we have some direct connection to the source of righteous judgement?

What about forgiveness, what role does it play in a person's redemption?

There are some things we have to make judgment calls on, but there are a great many things about which it would be better to reserve judgment in the light of our lack of information. It would be better to just say "I don't know." But it's very hard to say "I don't know." Nobody wants to hear that. There is pressure to take a position, and there are any number of sources of pre-made positions one can easily take which don't require the pursuit of any real understanding of the facts.

Great point, especially about the pre-made positions w/ no requirement for understanding...I think we are subject to that on so many levels. Anybody who has ever analyzed an election season can see how simple bumper sticker slogans can galvanize millions of people...if they are primed and ripe to be so moved. Generally, an argument made by a liberal condidate probably will not sway or galvanize a conservative voter, but liberal voters will grab such sloganeering as gospel and run with it. The mirror image is also true, conservatives tend to galvanize with conservative messages. The truly independent voter who genuinely considers the issues is a very rare bird in my experience.

So it seems we do tend to like our judgements "pre-canned."

I served on the jury at a murder trial about ten years ago. I wound up being the hold out from an otherwise unanimous guilty verdict because of what I saw as reasonable doubt about the evidence and testimony of witnesses. Everyone was so angry at me. I cost them extra days away from their livelihoods. The thing was, I thought the guy was guilty too, but I couldn't be 100% certain based on the evidence and testimony. It wasn't as dramatic as Twelve Angry Men, but it was that kind of scenario. There is tremendous pressure to go along with the consensus point of view whether it's a matter of religious doctrine, or politics, juris prudence, or just to get along with one's family or co-workers.

I've often wondered what it would be like to serve on a jury, even tried to volunteer once (they wouldn't let me...something I still feel was strange). Even more people tend to try to get out of jury duty, in part because of the inconvenience to their rote lives. I feel something like jury duty is as much a privilege as a duty. One of those little annoyances that only sitting in the defendant's seat can make one fully appreciate.

Actually, I can see how this particular subject (jury duty) serves as a metaphor for how much our actions, behaviors and attitudes impact on the lives of others.

I see this accusation of judgmentalism thrown up against Christians a lot. "Jesus says not to judge, you Christians judge, therefore you're a bunch of hypocrites" kind of thing. I always wonder from what hypothetical moral high ground the accuser thinks himself qualified to throw that stone.

Very good point. I can't help but think there has to be an underlying distinction that is either ignorantly or purposefully made, a translational error of some kind that blurs the distinction.

I see some of this attitude float over onto the concept of "turn the other cheek." Which I have long understood as not starting a *hateful* thing with a neighbor, but being strong enough to nip it in the bud if the neighbor starts something with you. Quite a contrast from the usual interpretation of being a punching bag or door mat. Non-Christians and Christians alike do seem to think Christians should not be able to defend themselves against attack...personally I have not seen that in scripture, I think that attitude is a convoluted interpretation.

Moral high ground...I like that description. I think there is some (OK, a great deal of) mutual ignorance between Christians and non-Christians over what the moral ground is for the other. From what I can gather, moral is basically moral. "Do unto others ..." is one way of saying it, and there are many more ways of saying the same thing. So it seems to me there is no moral *high* ground from the clique perspective, even though there is a great deal of political manuevering to posture oneself even within a given clique as to just how moral a person is, Christian and non.

I am thinking that all the finger pointing serves to reinforce the inconsiderate thoughtless judgement. Being outside of a given clique only provides vicarious justification to level thoughtless judgement, "if he's not one of ours, then he deserves what he gets, he's got it coming to him."

Hmmm, plenty of food for thought, China Cat. Keep it coming.

 

[Quahom1]

If pedophilia is what Silas and Niranjan were involved in then maybe I can start to see why some here rushed to judgement and then conviction, branding them in the local court of public opinion as 'uncivil'. But I still don't see why the resident crowd cheered and clapped as the scapegoats were banished without a peep. It would be nice if their intollerable words and viewpoints could be forgiven, but I question whether it is those alleged pedophiles who should really be seeking forgiveness.

WWJD? Maybe he would judge and simply say, "You snakes. You vipers. You hypocrites. How will you escape the eternal judgment of hell?"

I have been around a few folks who have tried and even developed a chemical dependence to some drugs branded illicit, and so I have learned a little bit about the AA and NA (Alcoholics + Narcotics anonymous). I find it an impressive group. Anyone know the 12 steps? It is important for people to NOT be the enabler. Do not be the enabler for someone else's drug habit. So if forgive means to ignore, or to forget, thus further enabling the lie, then DO NOT FORGIVE. But if forgive means to openly rebuke, but to then clap and cheer, and slaughter the cow for a feast if and when that person repents, and seeks help with "Hello, my name is, and I'm a ...", THEN DO FORGIVE. Forgiveness is a matter of timing and for what should be clapped and cheered for.

But with Niranjan, Silas, and others... even if they were pedophiles... they never really got to address their accusers. The clapping and the cheering was at the wrong time and for the wrong purpose. I personally rebuke whoever banned them for their intolerable words and viewpoints.

Interesting...the first step (in AA, NA), is admitting that one is powerless over the "affliction" they have, and can do nothing without a "higher power" assisting them...ironic that you would ask such a question, I should think...

 

[cyberpi]

Interesting...the first step (in AA, NA), is admitting that one is powerless over the "affliction" they have, and can do nothing without a "higher power" assisting them...ironic that you would ask such a question, I should think...

Why exactly is that ironic to you???

What I was describing is this:
Codependence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am stating, and I'd love to see a show of hands of people who agree or disagree, that if you will NOT judge the actions or words of a person, then you do NOT love them.

Within that 12 steps there is required judgment. That is, judgment of SELF. Confession. If a person is unwilling to confess, then they are unwilling to judge even themselves. How just is the person who will not equally judge themselves? Is confession a part of anyone's religion here?

What is not in the 12 steps is: Give your money to a government, who will then wage a WAR against drugs, and throw anyone in jail with an addiction at the expense of the people, and steal their possessions and life at their expense. There is judgment there, but a lot more than judgment. I see criminal removal of life when there is punishment in excess of any crime. It is a war.

What is also not in the 12 steps is: Blindly give your money to a charity or social program, who anonymously gives it to drug users on the street to give them free shelter, and free food, and free money, to go spend on the thing that kills them, absent of any and all judgment. That too literally kills people.

 

[cyberpi]

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."

So, if Jesus of himself does nothing, and his judgment is just because his will is merely a conduit for God's will, then who is actually judging?

Chris

If a teacher judges you with homework, but the subject matter was written by someone else, then who actually judges? I would say the teacher. If the teacher seeks his own will, then how just will his judgment be? I would say biased and unjust.

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

 

[juantoo3]

What I was describing is this:
Codependence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Very well, read the article. I'm not sure how codependent enabling behavior and the debate over whether or not it is actually a psychological "disease" relates to the subject of knee-jerk condemnation by a mob over "pre-canned" judgements. Or did I miss something?

I am stating, and I'd love to see a show of hands of people who agree or disagree, that if you will NOT judge the actions or words of a person, then you do NOT love them.

Fair question, and I hope you will receive more answers. I do feel "we" tend to dismiss those we pre-judge, look the other way, and form mental excuses that manifest in a variety of prejudicial behaviors overt and covert. Responses require effort, whether here in composing a reply, or taking the time to stop and place pocket change into a red kettle, or helping someone retrieve something they have dropped on the floor. We do these things for those we care about, and by and large do not do these things for those we dismiss. Prison is the ultimate dismissal in this existence...we remove those we dismiss from the privilege of being in the presence of society.

In some instances this cannot be helped, in the case of mental illness or some other reason that a person so set aside simply cannot function in society without posing a threat. But what of the person that *can* be redeemed? Why does society enforce the stigma of "guilt" long after the debt to society has been paid? Is it done to remind the person of what they have done? Wouldn't the penitent person be even more acutely aware of their misdeed than anybody else (other than perhaps a victim), and if truly penitent would they not be remorseful? Dunno about anybody else here, but I do know I have no intention of EVER remaking the major mistakes in my life, and that is a conscious choice on my part to guide my life in a way that makes me steer clear of those things that would get me into trouble again (or to be especially moderate in those things I cannot avoid).

Within that 12 steps there is required judgment. That is, judgment of SELF. Confession. If a person is unwilling to confess, then they are unwilling to judge even themselves. How just is the person who will not equally judge themselves? Is confession a part of anyone's religion here?

I agree tentatively about judgement of self, pending what precisely you are trying to say. Self critique is not the same as *pre-canned* finger pointing at others, although I can see how the same thought process driving the finger pointing can direct the self-critique. More often in my experience are those quick to judge others for faults similar to their own, that people see in others what they fail to see in themselves.

I see criminal removal of life when there is punishment in excess of any crime. It is a war.

I agree. However, who decides what is fair retribution ("punishment"), and what is not? The arbiter, or the gallery? Putting a person in prison for life for using drugs *does* seem a bit harsh to me, of course I am no socially appointed judge in such matters. Putting a person in jail for life ("criminal removal of life") for dealing drugs that take others' lives seems to me a suitable punishment fit to the crime. Capital punishment (presuming "beyond reasonable doubt" on my part) seems to me a punishment suitable to the crime of murder, but that is my opinion.

Where do we draw our lines? Do we embrace the convicted murderer, invite "him" into our homes, trust our children alone in his presence? Yet, by the same token, do we dismiss such a person as irredeemable?

What is also not in the 12 steps is: Blindly give your money to a charity or social program, who anonymously gives it to drug users on the street to give them free shelter, and free food, and free money, to go spend on the thing that kills them, absent of any and all judgment. That too literally kills people.

Yet the mob blindly enables the mob, an emotional feeding frenzy with no logic or reason, sealed in judgement in their hearts and minds against redemption. I can't help but think this is the judgement Jesus was telling us about.

But then, maybe I am mistaken.

 

[noctuary]

the responses I received were that the greater value should be placed on the person, not the behavior. The reality it seems is quite different.

What is a person, if not their behavior?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

What is a person, if not their behavior?

Hi!

Well, ...to myself it's not just about my behavior. I often act contrary to my own self interest. But in the public realm- yeah, it's all about what you do or do not do. Really, in my private world it's about that too, but I'm not always the same person on the outside as in.

Chris

 

[cyberpi]

juantoo3,

Confession is a judgment expressed outward, communicating it to other people. It is NOT an internal dialogue. It is a required step that simply can not be skipped.

The "mob" does not judge... they condemn. In the parable of the people wanting to throw stones at a person, the mob wanted to condemn, whereas Jesus pointed the finger and JUDGED the mob. He also JUDGED the person telling her to not SIN anymore. Jesus used judgment, whereas the mob wanted to rush to condemning her by stoning.

Words do not remove from a person. They add. Jail time, separation from family, being stoned to death... those things remove from a person. Judging with words adds to a person, but condemning with high velocity or high mass projectiles removes from a person.

When Jesus judged the mob, if another mob came along and wanted to attack and stone the first 'uncivil' mob to likewise teach them a lesson... would it be due to Jesus' judgment? Who could instead blame the obedient mob for behaving like dogs, right?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Noctuary! Welcome to CR!

Thank you for your contribution.

What is a person, if not their behavior?

Would you care to expand your thought?