In defense of judgmentalism toward stupid behavior and ideas

Judgmentalism is a loaded word. It has acquired a similar amount of emotional and rhetorical baggage to the word Fascist, making it one of the worst words that a purveyor of political correctness can use to denounce someone. This word conjurs up images of a bigot in many people. A hateful curmudgeon who viciously attacks well-meaning, good people for having the wrong ideas, beliefs, behaviors, etc. This image is wrong, of course, for many reasons, some of which are obvious to everyone, and some that may only be obvious to those who have given it some thought already.

The origin of non-judgmentalism is Christian, not secular. In the transition between scripture and secular understanding, the very meaning of non-judgmentalism was largely lost. It was a call to humility, to focus on perfecting one's own behavior and a move away from sin, not living in peaceful tolerance of people whose behaviors are quite intolerable. It would never have made sense, in the context of the Christian sermon it was delivered in, to use "judge not or you shall be judged" as a cover for cultural habits that are objectively abominable, such as tolerating the prediliction that Islamic immigrants to Britain have for mutilating the genitalia of their little girls.

The prevailing, predominantly multicultural, "non-judgmentalism" is a very twisted, dare it be said, evil, bastardization of Matthew 7. It is taken out of context on at least two levels. First, it was taken out of the context of being preached in a Jewish society, a society that embraced a universal standard of morality in the form of the Mosaic Law. Second, it ignores the New Testament context which includes many firm teachings that even if one never does anything that even remotely smacks of judgment, one is still under the judgment of God. Therefore, it requires either a breathtaking ignorance of history, culture and scripture, or a malicious dishonesty to read Matthew 7 and conclude that it in any practical way supports modern notions of non-judgmentalism. The more accurate, scriptural understanding of Matthew 7 might be read as "live and let live, within the limits of God's law."

Now, lest there by histrionics about theocracy, executing homosexuals and things of that nature, there are two distinct ways of "judging" that are lumped together. The first form of judgmentalism, as society is often prone to calling it, is a steadfast refusal to abandon one's principles, coupled with a strong belief that they are better and ought to embraced by everyone. The second form of judgmentalism, is true judgmentalism, as it is based almost entirely in arrogance and hatred. The difference between these two is the difference between a preacher firmly standing behind scripture that says that homosexuality is immoral, and Fred Phelps, a "preacher" who would have everyone believe that IEDs are God's answer to America's "embrace" of homosexuality.

The first form of judgementalism is sorely lacking today, especially among those who value individual liberty. It is precisely because intelligent, educated men and women who value liberty and traditional American values have become more tolerant of beliefs because they are beliefs, irrespective of their connection to reality, that America has lost control over much of its own government. How many people are willing to actually stand up for common sense, and demand face-to-face that government bureaucrats show some of it?

This unthinking disease has infected every corner of our government it would seem, and yet many people are unwilling to chauvinistically stand up and boldly declare "you are behaving stupidly, you damn well can do better." No better example exists today than the overuse of SWAT units by law enforcement. Cases such as this are all too typical. It would be a genuine mercy to work on the assumption that this small town police force is run and manned by people too stupid to see the ludicrous nature of deploying an assault team against a citizen's home over a minor injury to a nearly teenage child, rather than suggest that these Keystone Kops have a fantasy of playing English-speaking Gestapo jackboots. Such deployments are so routine in many areas that it has become accepted practice to SWAT a fly with a machine gun, rather than use ingenuity and cunning to preserve peace and limit the danger to others.

Again, how often do people stand up to the police and judgmentally declare them to be cowards and idiots for such actions? Not that many people, aside from those who are ideological prone to simply hating the police because they are the police because most of America has been convinced that no one is really fit to examine the evidence, and damn the judgment call that anyone makes (unless they're a prosecutor, at which rate it's expected that they hen-peck every decision a private citizen makes in their use of force). In a society that was more judgmental, that was quicker to call a spade a spade, without concern for whatever face someone might lose, such abuses would be rare because of the merciless ridicule that the police, and the larger law enforcement system, would face.

Going back to that story once more, who would be willing to stand firmly in the face of the paramedics and call them what they are, egotistical, petty fools for fighting with the father of the child when the father happened to have military training as a combat medic? Knowing that the father was qualified to make the same diagnoses that they are, any reasonable person could only conclude that their efforts to report the family were driven by pride and a desire to see people suffer. Yet who would condemn them for using the state as a weapon like this? Not many people because they have been conditioned to see such actions as misguided, not a combination of evil and stupidity. Evil for being willing to hurt them out of pride, stupidity for not recognizing the pointless nature of arguing with the father, since he has their same expertise.

In this case, and many more like it, including but not limited to cases as petty as a child being suspended for drawing a picture of a gun in a public school, there is at least one common problem. Intelligent people are unwilling to risk being declared judgmental by denouncing the stupid action or argument, and demand that the person who was responsible for it be held accountable as though they should have known better. Yes, fire the police chief for using a SWAT on a non-violent offender. Fire the teacher for reacting hysterically to a mere picture or some other harmless childish antics. Fire the social worker for not being convinced that the child in front of her is really telling the truth that they weren't molested or abused. Fire and disbar the prosecutor who has been shown to go after people whose case against them is weak at best. Be judgmental, stand up for common sense, and demand accountability from those who lack it and who have power over everyone else.