[Doug64]

This is written from a Catholic-centric POV, but is universal enough for everyone:

The other day I heard a radio commercial advertising “sedation dentistry.” The reworking of your teeth takes place in one session while you are asleep. You meet first with the doctor for a “non-judgmental” evaluation. When he inspects your crooked and missing teeth, he promises, he won’t gasp in horror or give you a lecture. He’s certainly not revealing an inability to properly evaluate teeth by refusing to judge the condition of our smiles. But the term is ambiguous and it’s contrary, “judgmental,” has become, increasingly, a dread weapon of moral destruction.

Many people today also expect religion to be “non-judgmental.” Self-esteem, apparently, is in short supply at the moment. So there is a demand that priests (and ministers – and imams?) be inspiring and vibrant and – above all – non-judgmental. All this, in order to enable us to “feel good about ourselves” – regardless of behavior.

Someone recently told me about a Catholic religion teacher who was called by a concerned parent. The teacher was presenting the Catholic faith in a methodical fashion. An upcoming topic was to be love and marriage. The parent wanted assurances that his young daughter would not be taught that the lesbian lifestyle of her older sister is immoral.

If the younger sister came home with a crisp understanding of Christian marriage, she would become hopelessly “judgmental” – a truly horrible person – at least in Dad’s judgment. And she might even find herself denied entry to one or more colleges on the basis of her “intolerance.” You see, believing and living the Catholic faith is “judgmental” and it ruins education – and careers.

The demand for non-judgmental authority figures, however, defies logic. If a criminal tries to break into your house and you call 911 for assistance, you wouldn’t want a “non-judgmental” police officer to be dispatched to accompany the burglar on his journey. In small claims court where you sue to retrieve a $500 over-charge, you wouldn’t want the magistrate to be “non-judgmental.” When a doctor discovers a dangerous cancer that needs immediate treatment, the last thing you want is someone who is “non-judgmental.”

Indeed, “non-judgmental” authority figures under these circumstances would be negligent – perhaps criminally so. Lobbyists for a “non-judgmental” morality would agree, but in so doing they render the term “non-judgmental” unintelligible, except as a “new morality” code word.
The Good Shepherd by Eric Gill, 1926
The Good Shepherd by Eric Gill, 1926

God created the mind to think and distinguish clearly and make judgments with sufficient evidence. Making judgments with insufficient evidence is usually sinfully rash (although sometimes even that isn’t sinful – ask any anti-terrorist investigator who may have to act on the best evidence available, to keep us safe). The inability or refusal to judge is either virtuous or vicious. We are unable to judge, for example, the state of a person’s soul. We will never have sufficient evidence to judge whether anyone is condemned to Hell. God alone judges a person’s soul. This is why Jesus Himself teaches, “Judge not and ye will not be judged.”

But when we have sufficient evidence – as when a doctor diagnoses a patient – we have an obligation to make a judgment. When there is sufficient evidence that certain behaviors are sinful, we have an obligation to so judge. While it’s certainly possible to be uncharitable and even cruel with properly formed judgments, the failure in charity doesn’t make us “judgmental.” The error is not in the judgment; the error is in the evil use of a correct judgment.

Increasingly the non-judgmental “ideal” is used to silence the proclamation of the Gospel, betraying the diabolical root of the term. When a person is described as “non-judgmental” the term may evoke an attribute of kindness in general. Such a person “affirms people where they are at” regardless of behavior.

But below the surface of a so-called “non-judgmental” person are indulgence and apathy, an inability to see evil, personal narcissism, the pathological desire to be liked, going along to get along, as long as everyone is comfortable. This is why there are so many “non-judgmental” priests, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent by the People of God on each of them during their seminary education, an education that should have included solid courses on logic and Catholic moral theology. To describe Jesus Himself as “non-judgmental” is not only inaccurate, it is exceedingly shallow and insulting.

Similarly, to label a priest “non-judgmental” is damning. It means he is incapable of thinking clearly, affirms his people in their moral errors, and doesn’t take stands opposing the new morality of polite secular opinion. It means he doesn’t have the courage to warn his people against the danger of mortal sin and the fires of Hell.

“Non-judgmental” clergymen do not concern themselves with lost sheep. “Non-judgmental” clerics have made their peace with evil and are comfortable with the adulation of their sheep. They are hirelings, evil shepherds and anti-Christs. (I hope I’m not missing nuances.)

There is good reason the Lord calls Himself the “Good Shepherd” rather than the “Non-Judgmental Shepherd.” Christ was kind to the crippled and infirm; merciful but firm with the woman caught in adultery (“Go and sin no more”); courageous in calling out the Pharisees as a “brood of vipers.” He warned of the fires of Hell for those who were hateful. He was inflexible in condemning adultery. And He suffered gallantly on the Cross for all our sins – including the abundance of our rash judgments and failures in Christian charity. Christ is truth personified.

In contrast to the secular “non-judgmental” moral code, the vocabulary of the Faith is refreshingly clear. To be “good” includes virtues such as justice, mercy, honesty, reverence, kindness, generosity, prudence, courage, temperance, chastity, charity, and truth. Christ is the Good Shepherd precisely because He reveals and teaches the goodness of the Heavenly Father. And we can be good too if we honestly follow Him on His path to heavenly glory. It is virtuous and holy to encourage our loved ones to do so as well.

[Potemkin]

The Good Shepherd by Eric Gill, 1926

They made a poor choice of image to illustrate their lecture on the importance of being judgemental. Eric Gill was a predatory paedophile and sexual degenerate, who painted pious religious pictures in his spare time.

Eric Gill's Wiki page

[Rich]

It should never be forgotten that Conservatives can be very into non judgmentalism when it suits them. They tell us we shouldn't be judgemental about Thomas Jefferson for having slaves. Similarly with the Confederacy. They tell us we shouldn't be so judgemental about Paedophile priests are the hierarchy and parishioners that colluded with them or turned a blind eye. At the beginning of the Cold War Conservatives were very non judgemental about ex Fascists and Nazis. Forgive and forget was the order of the day.

Now Non judementalism has its place. In way one of the goals of Zen, in as as much as it has goals, is to enter not non judgemental states, where everything is absolutely equal. People enter into these states through other spiritual practices, through art and sport. Some people are prone to these states without doing anything out of the ordinary. It can also be useful to be able to suspend one's judgement. To defer one's normal judgemental patterns and open to new thinking.

However non judmentalism is not a template for life, for relationship or for politics. Like "positivity" it quickly leads to performative contradiction. its not a coincidence that "non judgemental" Christianity produced the fanatical pathological intolerance of the Medieval Church. Its heretic torturing scholasticism, strangely replicated by 20th century Communism. Leftists like conservatives can be very judgemental. They're just tend to be judgemental about different things. They can be very judgemental about someone joining the Klu Klux Klan for instance. To be political is by its nature judgemental. It is in its essence discriminatory.

[pugsville]

prejudice gets a bad wrap. making snap decisions on manifestly incomplete information, it's a valuable skill. it should be used, but with awareness of what you are doing. in many circumstances in life it's extremely beneficial and I have no problem with it in the right circumstances. but awareness of how you are operating your prejudice and what bias it has should be understood to get the most benefit and avoid the pitfalls.

the church runs all sorts of non judgemental arguments to get religion on par with science. creationism. what a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.

[Drlee]

This is a testament to the power of fashionable language. We are told we ought not be judgmental, which, in addition to being pretty obvious nonsense, is a self refuting idea. There is a difference between unfounded prejudice and a personal moral code.

We religious people are called to be judgmental pretty frequently. That said, there is room for great latitude and interpretation in the development of our personal moral code.

What should be clear to religious people is that we are to be inclusive and not sit in judgment of others. This does not mean that we are called to endorse abortion (for example) if we deeply feel that it is against Gods will. We are definitely not to endorse it but to argue against it. Judging a person who has an abortion is quite another thing altogether. Of course we can be very clear with ourselves that we would not make such a choice but our arms should be open and our hearts filled with love for one who did.

We can construct our communities in a manner that we believe fits our moral code. That is what this election is all about. Right wing radical or communist we are all (hopefully) trying to build utopia.

[Doug64]

What should be clear to religious people is that we are to be inclusive and not sit in judgment of others. This does not mean that we are called to endorse abortion (for example) if we deeply feel that it is against Gods will. We are definitely not to endorse it but to argue against it. Judging a person who has an abortion is quite another thing altogether. Of course we can be very clear with ourselves that we would not make such a choice but our arms should be open and our hearts filled with love for one who did.

I don't think this is quite right. The point isn't that we shouldn't judge but that, having judged, we exercise as much compassion as the situation permits. Yes, all-too-many women that get abortions are sinners. So are all-too-many women that get pregnant outside of marriage. So, too, are all-too-many of the men that played a part in their sins. So how do we respond to that? Jesus had several responses, depending on the state of the sinner -- from his harsh criticism of the Pharisees that refused to acknowledge their sin, his simple "go, and sin no more" for the unrepentant sinner who perhaps at least acknowledged what she was, to his multiple forgiveness of sins of the repentant sinners. His parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector is a fine example of the two extremes.

[Drlee]

Yes, all-too-many women that get abortions are sinners.

All men sin........

We are completely justified in judging that abortion is a sin. We are not justified in pronouncing the person who has one a sinner. This may or may not be true. God is the judge.

[Doug64]

We are completely justified in judging that abortion is a sin. We are not justified in pronouncing the person who has one a sinner. This may or may not be true. God is the judge.

The only way that a woman that gets an abortion is not a sinner is if the abortion isn't a sin -- which it may not be, depending on her own personal level of understanding. And yes, God is the one that knows what that level of understanding is. But while we may not be able to say whether the woman is a sinner, we can say that she is in the wrong -- either a sinner or ignorant but either way a violator of God's law. And THAT is anathema to those that preach non-judgmentalism.

[Rich]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

What the Bible says about Abortion

Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life. -- Exodus 21:22-23

The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. -- Leviticus 27:6

Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD. -- Numbers 3:15-16

God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. -- Hosea 9:14

Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. -- Hosea 9:16

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. -- Hosea 13:16

God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die. -- 2 Samuel 12:14

God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed. -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

God's law sometimes requires the execution (by burning to death) of pregnant women.

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. -- Genesis 38:24

Note even killing a born child up to the age of three is only considered worth five shekels, or three if its a girl. But note that a man is perfectly entitled to kill hs own children up to the age of five. If a woman has an abortion it would only be a crime if she did it without her husbands permission.

[Doug64]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/abortion.html

Rather than point out the problems with the argument you posted, I'll just suggest that if you have a problem with labeling abortion a sin then pick an example you agree with. This thread is about the incoherence of non-judgmentalism, not abortion.

[anasawad]

Ok. Now m sure from Rich's post that bibles differ hugely in meaning after translation.
Because that hell aint in the Persian version of the bible i read.
(The meaning).
Or i think that the trinitarian bible is quite different than that of unitarians.

[Paradigm]

Jesus preached forgiveness toward one's neighbor and told his followers "Judge not, lest ye be judged." He also rebuked the Pharisees as hypocrites for considering themselves righteous and looking down upon the "sinners" in society. He embodied that apparent contradiction of being judgmental toward judgmental people. And yet, this incoherence is only apparent. What he was judging was this attitude of dividing society between the "righteous" and the "sinners" and placing oneself in the former category while looking down upon those in the latter. It was this attitude that created oppressive hierarchies, dehumanized people, and actually perpetuated the very evils they were condemning. We see this today in the way we tend to look at drug addicts, prostitutes (who Jesus knew a thing or two about), panhandlers, ex-cons, etc. The kind of judgment he was condemning was the kind that marked someone as tainted and outside of God's saving grace. Jesus is sometimes interpreted as saying that all sins are equal before God, but I think this is a mistake. For him, the greatest sins were those committed by those who called themselves righteous -- sins that divide up the world between the deserving and undeserving. By treating someone as contaminated and beyond redemption, you deny to them the power of the Holy Spirit to work through them and attain within them the grace of God. This is what I believe he meant by that one unforgivable sin: blaspheming the Holy Spirit.

[Drlee]

Excellent post. I agree entirely.

[Doug64]

“If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains." Paradigm, well said. It isn't the judgment of others' actions that is the problem, it is what you do with the judgment.