A Few Serious and Satirical Thoughts about Judging Others

Posted: 11/07/2013 in Uncategorized

“You can’t legislate morality or ethics!”

“Who are you to judge others’ beliefs and behaviors?  It’s wrong to be judgmental!”

“It’s wrong to try to control people’s lives by pushing your views on others, especially in government!” (e.g., “People are free to love who they want!  You need to stay out of other people’s bedrooms and quit trying to control others’ lives!  A woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body!  Keep your morality and laws away from her ovaries!”)

“Christians need to quit judging others!  They shouldn’t try to legislate their morality or try to control others’ lives!  It’s wrong for them to try to control the lives, behaviors, or decisions of others!”

Hmmm….

leg·is·late

: to make laws

: to control, create, or cause (something) by making laws

judge

: to form an opinion about (something or someone) after careful thought

: to regard (someone/something) as either good or bad

: to make an official decision about (a legal case)

gov·ern

: to officially control and lead (a group of people) : to make decisions about laws, taxes, social programs, etc., for (a country, state, etc.)

: to control the way that (something) is done

: to control or guide the actions of (someone or something)

1.  Therefore, if someone believes it is wrong to legislate morality…

…doesn’t he need to obey his conscience and refuse to vote or participate in the political process because all legislation is simply someone’s ethics and morality being made into a law designed to control the lives and behaviors of other people?  Isn’t every law an example of legislated morality?  For instance, should he oppose all taxation used to financially support the truly poor in social safety nets since his view is that it is wrong to legislate one’s morality?

…will he refuse to participate in or support any game or sport other than “Kill The Guy With The Ball” – since all games and sports have rules that control decisions and behaviors of the participants?  If it is wrong to force subjective rules of behavior on others, shouldn’t one apply that belief consistently in every area of life – since wrong is wrong?

…will he then adamantly oppose all legislation that restricts freedom of religion or otherwise overrides the theology and consciences of Bible-believing Christians?

2.  Therefore, if someone believes it is wrong to judge others…

…isn’t the judicial system by definition, immoral?  And why would he want to get judges in power who are sympathetic to his views?  By definition, isn’t the Supreme Court and every ruling made by the judiciary immoral – especially since they make judgments about laws (which are examples of legislated morality)?

…then can there be any way to objectively determine if something is immoral or wrong?  Doesn’t that require making a moral judgment – specifically judging the beliefs and behaviors of others as inferior to one’s own (or to a fixed moral standard)?

…then how can one make the judgment that “it is wrong to judge others”?  Is this not both hypocritical and absurd?

…then will he adamantly oppose all judgmental words and actions leveled against Bible-believing Christians (including opposition to any judicial rulings against Christians in matters of personal conscience and theology, such as principled stands regarding natural marriage, parental rights in education and corporal punishment, sexual propriety and other male-female distinctions, etc.)?

3.  Therefore, if someone believes that it is wrong to try to control other people’s lives and choices, especially by legislating one’s morality or having judges rule in a way that supports that control…

…does he then advocate total anarchy?  Is he in favor of abolishing all government?  Since government, by definition, involves controlling the lives and behavior of others, shouldn’t those who advocate this position also advocate the smallest possible human government?  Meaning, shouldn’t they (if consistent) support keeping government out of everything, including education, healthcare, business regulation, and so forth?  Isn’t government in the business of controlling other people’s lives and behavior by force if necessary?  Isn’t a better question about determining the proper limits to how much government should be able control people’s lives?

…will he defend the prerogative of Christian business owners and employers to hire or fire – provide or withhold benefits – even discriminate against certain behaviors in their workplace and among clientele – according to their fair-minded religious scruples?  Will he support the right of physicians and pharmacists to refuse treatments and prescriptions that violate their religious scruples?  Will he fight for those whose medical premiums, taxes, etc.,  are being used (by force of law) to support or promote actions and institutions (e.g., Planned Parenthood/elective abortion) deemed personally repugnant or immoral and theologically unacceptable?

Are these not all basic questions of right and wrong – fairness and injustice?

Don’t the concepts of morality (including the legislation of moral rules through government law-making) and judging (right and wrong, good and evil) demand an objective standard in order to be just?  What could possibly be the sufficient standard that is higher than personal opinions or the concept that “might makes right”?  If a legitimate government power alone determines what is moral and right, doesn’t that make the anti-slavery and women’s rights movements immoral and wrong by definition since they opposed the fixed government standard and “settled law” of their era?

And since concepts like good, evil, morality, right, wrong, fairness, and injustice must mean (literally) absolutely nothing in an atheistic, secular humanist, or scientific naturalist worldview because they are non-physical realities that cannot be proven to truly exist in their materialistic framework – why would those who hold to such worldviews participate in politics, government, and law-making?  Isn’t it hypocritical to try to force what they do not believe in (objective morals) via legislation and court rulings on others (whose DNA alone supposedly determines their life choices – including religiosity – anyway)?

(Satire alert:) In other words, shouldn’t everyone who denies such things as (a) real good and evil, (b) real right and wrong, and (c) objective moral values and rules rooted in the character of a divine Creator – shouldn’t these non-physical reality “deniers” all be exempted from participating in the process of governance that itself is based upon the very non-physical realities they deny?

(Satire alert II:) If society determines that those who deny the existence of non-physical realities (e.g., good and evil, right and wrong, beauty and justice, objective moral values) are sufficiently incompetent, impaired, or illogical, should society institutionalize these “flat-earthers” for their own protection?  Or should they be “re-educated” involuntarily?  Could they be deemed psychologically unstable enough to merit commitment to psychiatric institutions?

(Satire alert III:) Does not the promotion of belief in only a physical, materialistic existence hold the possibility if not likelihood of being used by extremists to unjustly oppress others (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kims of North Korea, etc.)?  Therefore shouldn’t those with such worldviews be forbidden from voting or holding political or military power?  Did not the atheistic and secularist regimes slaughter 100 million people in the 20th Century once they attained such power?  Shouldn’t professors and teachers with an atheistic or secular humanist worldview be immediately fired, if not arrested, for promoting such an extreme and dangerous ideology that diminishes the intrinsic value of humans and has already resulted in the deaths of millions?  Shouldn’t children be protected from such hate speech?  Given the realities of the last century alone, if one believes that there should be a firm separation of Church and State, is it not logical and safer to suppose that there should be an even firmer separation of Atheism/Secularism and State?  Though I do not advocate all the points made in my obviously satirical position, is it completely absurd to think that similar questions will not one day be asked by atheistic secular humanists and scientific naturalists about Christians like me?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s