The following is an open response to a comment posted on some ones blog. The comment struck me in a number of ways. Not only as the typical offensiveness of liberals picking and choosing Christian theology to try and condemn Christians for not being Christians but also because it just smacked of so much that is wrong with liberals. It kind of exemplified the foolish naïve thinking of the left. I admit the response is harsh at times and for those who might find that abrasive I apologize, but the world is a dangerous place and I just don’t think we can afford people like this’ foolishness to go unchallenged and to be called out for the nonsense it is.

For people who wish to read the comments of this person uninterrupted and in context you can go over to gregmc’s blog Fighting for our Loves and read his excellent post to which this comment was a response.

Where to begin. Well I’ll just start where the liberal does.

People do not have a 'right' to judge others. As Christ said, you should remove the log from your own eye before you start worrying about the splinter in your neighbors.

This depends of course on what you mean by “judge” This is actually a fairly good place to start because it sort of speaks to the heart of what is wrong with liberals. One of the most significant issues I have with liberals is that their world view (and their antipathy towards religion) is that they think “freedom” mean freedom from being judged. Anything that casts doubt about the rightness of their behavior is resisted. In short they believe that it should be their right to live in mortal sin without anyone so much as daring to look cross eyed at them.

This is of course utter nonsense. The right to “judge” as in the judgment on the final condition/reward/punishment of/for your soul is of course the Lords. I for the most part in my life tend to believe we should live and let live. I don’t obsess about what people do in the privacy of their own homes and I don’t waste my time worrying about whether someone is or isn’t going to get to heaven because they drink or smoke or dance or have gay lover. It isn’t my decision…I don’t get to “judge.”

However, Christ’s admonishment to “Judge not lest ye be Judged” was not an admonishment to surrender judgment when it comes to common sense, practical necessity and basic things like right and wrong. Christ didn’t just tell people not to judge, he also told people to go forth and sin no more. The problem with liberal thinking is they want people not to judge them so that they can go out and sin to their hearts content.

Well it is certainly true that should they choose to live a life of sin embracing it to their hearts content it certainly wont be my place to judge them come their reckoning. However, there are other kinds of judgment.

Render unto Caesar.

Aside from the big Judgment, there are other meanings to the word judgment

make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion:

and

a judicial decision given by a judge or court.

So while in the strictest sense of not judging the condition of someone’s soul we are nevertheless not called upon by Christ to surrender our reason. Nor are we called upon to withhold the judgment of the law.

The law intervenes to keep us from depriving others of their God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The law has no business interfering in personal affairs unless people are harming others.

This is utter nonsense and shows a fundamental incomprehension of the nature of the law. The law does nothing of the kind. Indeed the founding father’s understood that in order to create a society and nation people had to surrender some of their rights to the State for the sake of the whole. The argument has always been how much and how far such a surrender should go and the constitution is a declaration of what rights the Government may not infringe upon.

By this ludicrous reading of the law the government has no right to confiscate my taxes, but of course it does and since the author of this is a liberal they no doubt would be the first to argue that I am in fact not paying enough in taxes. But of course that is the hypocrisy of the left that so infuriates so many on the right. They don’t really mean that people should be left alone. They mean that liberals should be left alone while they should have every right to take your money and redistribute it and throw you in jail for thinking differently and speaking differently.

I have no doubt the author of this commentary would vehemently deny wanting to arrest people for thinking but facts are stubborn things. The same liberal European west that liberals continuously admonish America for not emulating, these liberal societies do precisely that on a regular basis. There can be no doubt and no argument that if the constitution permitted it they would do it and I am guessing it is only a matter of time before some liberal court determines that the constitution permits just that.

Why did Jesus say not to judge? It's not just random; most of the things Jesus say make great sense. For one, when we judge, we elevate ourselves to God's permission. Humility is a moral virtue; we should avoid the moral hazards of deciding it is our job to do God's duty.

I have already addressed the fact that there is a difference between the “judgment” that belongs to the Lord and the judgment of reason and the judgment of the state so I won’t go over that again. I will however expound a bit on how the judgment of reason and the judgment of the state can interact to deny a sinful behavior from having legal sanction.

A reasoned mind can draw the conclusion (judgment) that certain behaviors are not only not conducive to the long term health of the State, but that in fact they can be perilous to the social fabric that makes up the State, and thus the practice of such behavior can lead to the breakup of the social order. For that purpose the State, and in our particular society that would mean “The People”, can through the use of their judgment and the exercise of their authority make it illegal for people to commit certain acts. Thus it is within the power of the State to deny gay people the right to “marry”. Just as it is within the right of the state to say people can’t copulate on the sidewalk or defecate in the park.

So people through the context of society can judge a behavior to be unacceptable to the health of the state and make it illegal without violating the admonishment of Christ to “judge not”. Christ is speaking of the judgment of the lord, not the judgment of the state.

Also, as good people, judgement only separates us from those who can most benefit from us. If we believe someone is going wrong, we should seek to be close to them, to show them the Light. We should not try to ostracise them.

Paul clearly understood that there was a difference between the sin and the sinner.

Corinthians

“Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?”

“Put away the wicked man from among yourselves.”

The New Testament is pretty clear to love the sinner but hate the sin. So long as a person is going to insist on the continuance of their sin it is not only within reason but well within the strictures of Christianity to cast that person out of the company of men. In short you can use the judgment of your mind and the judgment of men to set aside someone committing wrongful acts. This can be done on many levels. Legally, we put murders in prison. Personally, we make decisions not to hang out with druggies or gang bangers etc etc. We are not called upon to embrace sin merely because it is not our place to judge the spirit. Such a fallacy of logic is contrary to the teachings of Christianity.

Right now, I believe that the conservative leadership is trying to get everyone to focus on their neighbor's splinters instead of their own logs. They don't want to make a big deal out of adultery (which is condemned far, far more in the Bible than homosexuality, and considering how destructive it is to families, is a FAR FAR more important concern than homosexuality), they want to focus on the sins of a minority.

This is an absurd argument adulterers aren’t running around trying to get judicial activist judges to declare polygamy legal. The state (the people) have made the determination (the judgment) that marriage should be considered a sacred institution and should not be available to gay couples. You are trying to argue here that because it’s not as prevalent of a sin as adultery that it should be ignored.

Sin is still sin in the eyes of the Lord from a Christian perspective. There is no such thing as just a little sin.

Also from Corinthians

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with men, ^6:10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Now I don’t say this to point fingers and say “ooo you sinner.” We are all sinners. But we are called upon to repent of our sins. You are suggesting that because something to you seems a small sin we should have no business saying as a society that we refuse to endorse such action and give it the sanction of the state. You, as all liberals, would try to use the words of Christ to silence even opposition to sin in society. But you can’t pick and choose and say “oh Christ said not to judge so therefore you have to keep your mouth shut when the world is falling to sin.” Such logic is ludicrous and certainly doesn’t hold up to even the most elementary reading of the theology.

It's a shockingly cynical way to exploit people's real worries about our culture in order to retain power. Don't pay a bit of attention the seriously destructive sins (in fact, many of them happily engage in adultery themselves, and it doesn't hurt them; adulterer and family-abandoning Ronald Reagan is celebrated as a great conservative hero!). Make a big deal out of a sin that most people don't want to engage in anyway. It's not about morality, it's about power. If they wanted to protect families, they'd probably stop screwing around on their wives. And it allows people to sit back and feel nicely self-righteous because they aren't engaging in a sin that they have no temptation to engage in anyway. You have a thrice-divorced, Viagra-toting Rush Limbaugh kavetching about the immorality of two gay men who have been together for twenty years wanting to make a binding commitment to one another.

I’ve already gone over the simplicity and just sheer silliness of trying to compare sins and saying one should be allowed because another one is. But this particular section gets even more...well just plain idiotic. To suggest that an ideology is wrong or corrupt because a handful of people behave incorrectly is just flat out childish and stupid. I’m sorry to be so severe but it is. It is also interesting to note that for someone who started off admonishing people how to be good Christians the author of this drivel seem to be singularly unfamiliar with the concept of forgiveness or charity. (a common theme among liberals).

Whatever particular adultery Ronald Reagan may have committed he never went around and asked for the state to sanction it. Further more, Ronald Reagan is a hero to the conservative movement because of his leadership and his ideas on government, as well as his courage and dedication to achieving those goals. Had He spent his life as a debaucherous drunkard like Kennedy or a shameless womanizer like Clinton I dare say he would not have been a hero of the conservative movement. But of course he didn’t and wasn’t so your attack on him is just sad and pathetic.

As for Rush. I dare say neither you nor I know the slightest thing about him and his sex life other than some report of him carrying Viagra which I would wager neither of us know all the detail about. The last time I checked carrying around Viagra wasn’t a sin. I would also once again note that for someone who was so eager to tell us that we are horrible people because we “judge” gay people. You are yourself revealing yourself to be an intolerant judger yourself.

I would also like to take issue with the mischaracterization that conservatives want to just punish gay people because they are gay. It is true that as Christian conservatives we find homosexuality to be a sin. The vast majority of us however haven’t the slightest desire to tell gay people what they can or can’t do in the privacy of their own home. It is when they wish to impose their immoral lifestyle on society at large that we take umbrage and take action. The insistence on adopting children into gay homes, the imposition of gay marriage. These attempts to enforce acceptance of sinful behavior as a societal norm is what conservatives reject. You characterization to the contrary is just ill informed tripe.

Am I really the only person around here who see the laughable absurdity of this?

Yes

Do conservatives ever sit back and really analyze their claims to morality?

Frequently, but of course conservatives don’t have “claims to morality.” They do believe that it is important to try and have a moral society. I don’t know a single conservative that thinks they are free of sin and wrong doing in the eyes of the Lord. But neither do they throw their hands in the air as your would argue we should and say oh well GUESS ITS JUST ALL SIN SIN SIN. Don’t dare suggest that we shouldn’t allow child pornography because once I coveted my neighbor’s lawn mower.

Oops one time I lied once so I guess I should keep my mouth shut about gay marriage.

Your argument is just silly.

I said this before, but I will say it again: conservatism are morally bankrupt. This is the ideology that celebrates war; that focuses on dehumanizing groups of people (dehumanizing people is the first step to convincing someone that said people do not need to be treated morally or ethically). It is the party that seems to delight in the idea of torturing other of God's children, brushing aside assertions of experts that torture is a terrible interrogation device.

Once again I am stunned by your simplistic, perception. Your assertions here are just ridiculous. Conservatism celebrates war? No. Conservatives do tend to comprehend that war is a part of the human condition, as is evil, and that at times wars are necessary to defeat evil and provide for security. Liberals however live in a world that doesn’t exist except in their own demented, brain numbed, naïve, utopian, fantasies where we can all just get along and be at peace with one another. If only we would just sit down and talk.

Dehumanizing people? What tripe. There is nothing dehumanizing about conservatism. Quite the contrary conservatism celebrates people and their individual goals and desires and pursuits. It is liberalism on the other hand that would have everyone sacrifice their own personal needs for “the whole” It is the ideology of the left, the authoritarian, totalitarian, marxist utopians that dehumanize people because people don’t matter.

As for torture. Well this is just one of the stupidest comments you have made yet. The liberals in typical Chomsky fashion have distorted the meaning of torture so that such a comment is frankly void of any meaning. I would wager that you think of torture as something completely different than I do. You no doubt think of water boarding as torture. I do not. No conservative I know thinks that cutting off peoples fingers and hooking their genitals up to batteries is acceptable. However most conservatives I know think that yes aggressively questioning someone using effective techniques is acceptable in situations where people’s lives are at stake. If you want to call it torture...then so be it. I don’t much care. If it saves a thousand people lives by water boarding some terrorists them go for it. That you would NOT water board someone to save a thousand lives says far more about you and your moral bankruptcy than it does about mine.

And as for your comment that torture doesn’t work. I don’t know who your experts are…in typical liberal fashion you cite unnamed experts and wave it around like it somehow meaningful commentary…but I dare say the only real experts on torture are people who torture and if it wasn’t effective I am guessing torture would have fallen out a long time ago. For the record, water boarding has never once failed as a means of interrogation. Not once. So you and your experts are just wrong there.

Conservatism, at it's base, has its roots in fear. Convince people that they have a great deal to fear, that they are in huge danger from all sides--terrorists, Muslims, homosexuals, black men, Mexicans. Then, out of their fear, people will abandon morals; in their desire for self-preservation, they will decide that all forms of inhumane, cruel, and unloving treatment is justified. Slowly, all morality is degraded. They no longer have moral qualms about the most horrific treatment of the people whom they should love. They stop seeing all people as part of God's creation.

This is just fantasy…and nonsense to boot. Conservatism doesn’t have anything to do with fear. I also think that in this instance as a liberal you might want to revisit your whole mote in the eye notion before leveling this charge. Liberals actually do rely on fear for their power. Its why their political campaign are always about victimization. “Oh black people are oppressed. Latinos are oppressed. Women are oppressed. If you don’t vote for democrats you will be even more oppressed.” “If you vote for conservatives they will starve children, destroy the environment, take away your retirement, deny you medication, and otherwise destroy the world.”

Who relies on fear? Your assertions are the same liberal attempt to label conservatives as racist homophobes. Its empty meaningless garbage. I will say this though. If you don’t believe in the threat of terrorism than you are an ignorant fool. The threat is real and frankly your assertion that it isn’t is the most offensive thing you have said. It is reckless and grossly irresponsible of you to try to convince people that they are safe from the threat of terrorism. This is precisely why liberals can’t be trusted with power right now. Because they don’t even comprehend the nature of our enemy or that we even have one.

Go tell the victims of the world trade center there is no terrorism. Or the London train bombings. Or any other of the thousands of people whose lives have been irrevocable harmed by terrorists.

Your tripe about fear leading to evil is just nonsense. A bunch of empty rhetoric. Fear is a natural part of the human condition and the will and desire to survive is as well. Contrary to your naïve world view the world is actual a brutish nasty place (Hobbesian). Fear keeps people alert to the dangers that surround them. Foolishness would be to go through life as you apparently do believing that there is nothing to be afraid of and that if we just love one another all will be well. Thousands of years of documented human history proves me right and you wrong.

When you are overtaken by fear of evil, you slowly succumb to evil.

Once again just more silly commentary. It’s not even worth commenting on in any measurable sense. For this I would just say I would like to see the author of this silly comment try to prove it in some quantifiable sense. It’s an empty declaration.

Believers in Christ have no reason to fear. Drop you terror and return to morality. Love all people as we are commanded. And you will return to the liberalism most of us have when we are young, before life has taught us to fear and hate.

It depends on what you mean by fear. It is first of all an absurd comment for you to make because I guarantee that you are full of fear just as all humans are. So to tell other people that they shouldn’t have their fears is convenient of you for your argument but not exactly honest. As for not fearing because we have Christ. There is a measure of truth to that. I don’t fear eternal damnation because I believe in Christ. But I fear pain and suffering as any sane person would. I fear for the well being of my children and the life they may have to live if ignorant fools like you continue to undermine all that is good about our country turning into a den of depravity without the will to fight because it has nothing worth fighting for anymore. I fear the wolves in the night as much as any sane man would that wants to live because life is sweet and glorious gift from God. I want my children to enjoy it as well.

I will close with this. There is a reason that when we grow up we leave behind the liberalism of our youth. It is because the liberalism of youth is ignorant, naïve, stupid and childish. It’s called growing up. You should try it.