The religion of non-judgment

I think it’s pretty clear that the nation’s most prominent religion today is Nonjudgementalism. Nonjudgmentalism is the great religion of non-judgment. Under Nonjudgmentalist theology, judging others is the only possible sin. If you judge others, Nonjudgmentalists will judge you. But just as long as you follow this one golden rule, you will ultimately be admitted into the Nonjudgmentalist paradise.

Everyone already knows that condemning certain immoralities in public is politically correct and could bring on a firestorm of criticism. But I think few people understand how greatly our laws have actually begun to correspond to the divine decrees of Nonjudgmentalism. In family law, for example, the division of marital assets (in Tennessee, at least) may not be based on marital “fault.” A spouse who cheats on or commits violence against the other may in fact wind up with 60% of the marital estate following a divorce, despite the wrongdoing. It is important to avoid judging wicked individuals in these cases because judging the individuals might keep us from bringing the nonjudgmental paradise to earth.

Somewhat surprisingly, even in the criminal system (which is supposed to be about imposing judgment on criminals) our laws tend not to cast judgment, either. Instead, criminal law primarily aims at “incapacitation” of the dangerous. For example, executions for murderers have become exceedingly rare. Rather, we just throw murderers in prison along with all the other criminals. The most common argument against the death penalty clearly invokes Nonjudgmentalist beliefs:  Specifically, people will say, “Well, I don’t want to execute anyone because then we might execute the wrong person.” Oh, I get it. A judgment might theoretically turn out to be wrong, so therefore we should just not impose any judgment at all. This policy of non-judgment makes sense under the new religion, which proclaims it far better just to throw all the defendants (innocent or guilty) in prison for twenty-or-so years. That way, maybe they can spend that time sitting behind bars to come up with some new legal arguments or factual evidence and can demonstrate their innocence somewhere down the line. (The great virtue in this strategy is that the current jury and judge do not have to think.)

We even indoctrinate our youngsters into this Nonjudgmentalist legal framework. In many schools, for example, if two boys get caught fighting, they are both punished even if one was only defending himself. When these young people grow into the adult world, however, they will get into even worse trouble if they have not been properly indoctrinated. This greater danger looms because the adult world has embraced Nonjudgmentalist theology even more strongly than the schools. If you ever have to shoot someone who was actually trying to attack you, for example, go ahead and expect to be arrested and to lose many many thousands of dollars fighting to keep yourself out of prison. (And that result will occur only if you are lucky. Instead, you might spend many many thousands of dollars and then wind up in prison.) Self-defense is a difficult defense to assert in the modern world — thanks largely to idiot cops and panzified prosecutors — even if all the evidence tends to point in your favor. Nonjudgmentalist law condemns self-defense and instead expects citizens to “turn the other cheek” toward violent criminals.

The reason some states have adopted the “Castle Doctrine” laws in recent years — giving a presumption of self-defense if the shooting takes place inside the shooter’s home — was to combat the Nonjudgmentalist prosecutors who despise the doctrine of self-defense. But obviously these laws have only limited applicability (i.e., the house) and have not even been enacted in many jurisdictions.

And of course, don’t even get me started about the lax prosecution of perjurors who have made false criminal accusations. For example, false rape accusations are almost never prosecuted. But even if they were, in Tennessee about the most prison time a person can theoretically get for a perjury conviction is around four years imprisonment (which is significantly less than the victim of the false accusation might suffer). Under Nonjudgmentalist thought, it is important to avoid judging the witnesses who appear in court. If a woman falsely accuses a man, judging her might deter others from making similar allegations, and such a result would erode the paradise we have created.

And regarding the current economic climate (where national debt almost exceeds the GDP), the Nonjudgmentalist jurists have adopted a rather humorous approach. Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, specifically, it is illegal for a debt-collector to embarass a debtor in front of a third party. Even though debtors used to be enslaved or thrown in prison, in our enlightened Nonjudgmentalist society, embarrassment would be far too harsh. It is highly important to avoid making anyone feel bad about himself.

Of course, probably the most obvious flaw in Nonjudgmentalist belief  concerns the idea that avoidance of judgment is actually possible. For example, if your neighbor plans to sacrifice his daughter to the feathered reptile god Quetzlcoatl when you just happen to walk by, you must judge between the participants. You can call the police or pull out a weapon of your own in defense of the third party (thereby judging your neighbor), or you can remain silent and keep on walking (condemning the neighbor’s daughter…to death). Although all other moral choices might seem significantly different or otherwise less clear-cut, they really are not all that different. Ultimately, refusal ever to “judge” commits you to judging goodness itself as outdated, and you thereby commit yourself forever to the side of wickedness.

Nonjudgmentalists themselves at times tend to recognize this flaw in their own reasoning. It is why they do still throw murderers in prison, despite their commitment to nonjudgment. They recognize that their paradise of amorality can only fully occur in their blessed-and-holy other realm, to which they aspire but which can never fully occupy this current world. They tacitly admit that in this terrible and fallen earth they must sometimes stoop to the dirty, sinful work of imposing limited judgment — at least in some matters. Just do not judge them too terribly for it.


0 Responses to “The religion of non-judgment”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: