Don’t judge others, you idiot

I think it’s safe to say none of us want to be told we’re doing something morally wrong.  Who wants to be thought of as a bad person?  Well, the more I encounter this admonition from someone who preaches ‘don’t judge’ the more I am finding it comes from the same kind of person: One who is politically, socially, and religiously liberal.  The problem is they seem to be quite hypocritical in this respect.

It seems to be OK for them to judge the politically, socially, and religious conservative.  That’s just fine.  You see, it’s OK to judge when you’re right and they’re wrong.

This person just happened to put this attitude on display in a very public way and illustrates my point beautifully.

dont judge irony


  1. paynehollow says:

    I can certainly agree that this is an idea on which people often speak too loosely. The point is not to make NO judgments, but to generally mind our own business on matters that aren’t a concern of ours and, when we DO judge, to not judge hypocritically or gracelessly. There are too many people on all sides who can’t disagree respectfully as a brother and sister or fellow citizen and neighbor. Learning to disagree without resorting to “He’s a socialist! He’s a bigot!” would be a good thing to work on as a society.

  2. John I think you should’ve kept the identity of the twitter person anonymous, unless of course you have permission. I say this because it may distract from the point you are trying to make.

    The “don’t judge” concept today can be renamed “don’t take a stance or right or wrong” or “don’t advocate absolute truth”. It’s a use of the word is part of a thinly veiled postmodern agenda.

    • The reason I didnt is because it is an open account. If she held a private account to which I was privy, I would have not disclosed her identity.

      I fully expect anything I post publicly on the internet to be open to the public. I don’t hide my name, and only vaguely refer to my location.

  3. paynehollow says:


    The “don’t judge” concept today can be renamed “don’t take a stance or right or wrong” or “don’t advocate absolute truth”.

    What I would encourage you all to do is reconsider blanket statements like this. For the most part, people who might cite “don’t judge” are absolutely NOT making the moral claim of “don’t take a stance on right and wrong.” The evidence is in their very desire for others to not judge. That IS a moral claim. No, they are not saying we should have no morals, they are asking for compassion, morality, reason and restraint in HOW we disagree on important moral issues.

    The person who might say, “Don’t judge…” would not condemn you for you deciding that, for you, a marriage to the opposite gender is desired. They do not judge you nor condemn you for that. What they are objecting to is your inserting your moral view on OTHER people’s lives.

    So, EVERYONE would agree, “Yes, if someone is going to harm a child, to beat a wife, to rape a woman, to FORCE their opinions on others… These are all moral wrongs that we should draw a line at.” It is not a position of amorality or apathy. It is, rather, the moral position that says, “We need to respect the moral authority of one another. In people’s own lives, they should have the moral and religious liberty to find the Good and Right and Godly on their own, not have it forced on one by the other…”

    Thus, it’s not “don’t judge,” when you get right down to it, but, “Let’s each judge for ourselves, so long as no harm is being done to others…”

    I respect you and John and Glenn, et al, enough to let you decide for yourselves what is moral and good and right (as long as your beliefs don’t harm others). Do you respect us to do the same?


  4. paynehollow says:

    So, is it the case that you want the right to decide what is right for you and for everyone else, but not others to tell you what is right? Or are you saying that the others are RIGHT to call you racist and a hateful bigot?

    I don’t see how you can have it both ways.

    As to your Nazi example, I made it quite clear that the dividing line is “as long as they’re not harming others…” Nazis were harming others, thus, it’s okay to tell Nazis to stop, but you’re not harming anyone in thinking you want to be married to a woman, so it’s not okay to tell you stop or that you’re going to hell for marrying a woman.

    Again, it’s all about the Golden Rule: Allow for the liberty of conscience for others even as you’d like others to allow you to have freedom of conscience.


  5. paynehollow says:

    Okay, so others recognize that you are wrong and they don’t mind telling you. In fact, they don’t mind telling you that you’re racist, bigoted and not a Christian. By your measure, then, that’s okay. As to what measure they are using, they are using the same measure you are using: What you think is right. Now, you might say, “Whoa! I’m using the BIBLE, not my mere intelligence…” but others will say the same thing. So then, it comes down to WHO is thinking “right” on what the Bible has to say, ie, what YOU think is right, versus what THEY think is right.

    The “don’t judge” people are merely asking you to respect the freedom of conscience and do unto others as you’d have them do unto you. You appear to be rejecting that Golden Rule and want to cling to “I’ll do unto others what I THINK is right, but I don’t want them to do the same…”

    Do you see the rational and moral inconsistency there?


    • Their assessment would be incorrect and based wholly on “reading between the lines” and deciphering “codewords” and “dogwhistles”. When I make my assessments I do so with explicit examples. Big difference.

  6. paynehollow says:

    Look at it this way, John:

    1. I probably agree with you on 90% of moral reasoning. But, there is some small percentage of things I disagree with you about.

    2. Now, I could say, “John disagrees with me on how best to morally decide Issue X, Y and Z, and I’m basing my morality on my Christian belief system, therefore, John is not a Christian. He is a Godless and immoral human who hates the good and decent and wants to destroy America.”

    3. I COULD say that, but that is irrational and hyperbole. Beyond that, it just doesn’t accord with real world facts. Beyond that, it isn’t how I want to be treated.

    4. Instead, I say, “Well, brother John, you are my brother in Christ and no doubt, we have much in common, but I disagree with you on Issue X and here is why… I’m concerned that your position on Issue X is contrary to sound moral and Christian teaching. I pray you’ll reconsider…”

    5. You see, instead of demonizing, I emphasize that we are brothers who merely disagree on an issue. Instead of treating you like a monster, I treat you with respect, as a brother. We STILL disagree, but we do so in love and with grace and respect.

    Do you not see the value in treating others that same way?


  7. paynehollow says:

    The fact is, John, that I am not a socialist. I am opposed to gov’t owning the means of production. I believe in capitalism – although recognize its many flaws – and thus, believe in a regulated capitalism. But a regulated capitalism is STILL capitalism and not socialism. I am okay with having a gov’t safety net to stop the poor, ill and marginalized from death and despair, but I support that within the bounds of a capitalism, not a socialist gov’t.

    The fact is, no matter how you parse it, that I am a capitalist. But your side revels in calling people like me socialists.

    The fact is I’m a Christian, saved by God’s grace through faith in Jesus. I’ve repented of my sins/continue to do so and seek God’s grace and ways in my life. Basic orthodox Christian stuff. I love and believe in the Bible as the Word of God and take it extremely seriously.

    Those are facts. I’m not asking you to pretend otherwise, I’m just suggesting that you are free to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

    And yet, folk on your side revel in calling people like me “anti-Christs” and “not Christian,” and advocates of immorality.

    The problem, dear John, is that your side seems to want others to abide by the Golden Rule, but you want to be exempt from it yourselves. I continue to pray that we all embrace this Way of Grace.


  8. paynehollow says:


    Their assessment would be incorrect and based wholly on “reading between the lines”

    This is exactly what you and yours have a tendency to do. I’m a capitalist and Christian, by admission and by observable reality, and yet, you ignore what I actually say and “read between the lines” to find something there that I didn’t say and don’t believe.

    That is a mistake. You are right to assert that in your own defense, you just fail in giving that same grace to others.


  9. Dan,

    I appreciate your thoughts and your use of “don’t judge” outlined much earlier in the thread. In my personal experience, however, simply holding or advocating an opinion (without any attempt to force/legislate that opinion on others) is enough to get the “judgmental” label. I’m not saying you do this, but many do.

    Second, the devil is in the details, as they say, especially on the question of “what doesn’t hurt others.” For instance, I strongly believe that abortion does hurt others, which means that I can’t simply, in good conscience, say “you hold your opinion and I’ll hold mine.” In that case, my moral objection becomes more than a subjective opinion but one which I would like to see legislated/”forced” by government in order to protect innocent persons.


    • Here’s the thing. When liberals say conservatives are evil homophobic racists, I interpret that to mean they think conservatives are evil lying homophobic racists.

      When conservatives say they believe in traditional marriage and that people shouldnt be on welfare their whole lives, liberals interpret that to mean they are evil homophobic racists.

      See the difference?

  10. Yup, I know exactly what you’re saying and have taken some “evil homophobic” (haven’t gotten racist yet) attacks. That said, I know some liberals who have a different stance on homosexual marriage that I do but who don’t think I’m evil or homophobic. They just think I’m wrong, which is certainly something I can respect.

  11. paynehollow says:

    But again, if all I’m saying is, “I support tax dollars going to help homeless veterans and feeding kids,” I’m not saying, “I’m a marxist and want to strip businesses of all they have!” but that’s the charge I (and many like me) are facing. All I’m saying is, doesn’t it make sense for ALL of us to quit the demonizing charges. Instead of calling those who support welfare programs “socialists,” say, “I don’t think that’s the best way to help the poor,” and let it go at that. Similarly, those on the left who say, “You hate gay people,” they can simply say, “I don’t think it’s just or in the best moral decision to refuse gay folk the right to marry…”

    You seem to want the respect from us that you’re not willing to give to us.

    As it is, I will continue to consider you a fellow Christian and give you the benefit of the doubt that you don’t hate black people as a race or gay folk, regardless of how you treat our side, I’m just saying that there’s a hole in your argument that I don’t think you are acknowledging.


    • Dan

      Do you remember our discussion from a while back? You said it was ok to take from an individual or business if they had more than they need. You refused to put a cap or number on what the gov could take. That is a problem and that ideology has no place in the the american government.

  12. paynehollow says:


    simply holding or advocating an opinion (without any attempt to force/legislate that opinion on others) is enough to get the “judgmental” label.

    Indeed, as I noted at the beginning, many people misuse the “do not judge” notion. Saying, “you shouldn’t judge others” when what they mean is, “If it’s not harming you, it’s not really any of your business and THE WAY you’re using your judgmentalism is wrong…” Saying, “Don’t judge” is something that people have used (lazily, I think) as a short cut to that longer message. But, conservatives shouldn’t mistake that semantic slip as an indicator that they don’t believe in moral right and wrong.


    the devil is in the details, as they say, especially on the question of “what doesn’t hurt others.” For instance, I strongly believe that abortion does hurt others

    And in that one area, I’m more willing to cut more conservative folk some slack. In that case, in their opinion, there very well may BE some actual harm being done, at least, again, in their opinion. IF someone believes that a babe is being harmed by an abortion, then I don’t fault them for speaking up.

    In that case.

    However, on the issue of what people smoke or drink, who they marry, how or when they have sex and most other pet conservative issues, I think it suffices to make that decision for yourself and offer it, if someone is really wanting your opinion, but no need to push it as public policy too far. It’s just not your business. Judge not, in that case. Cast not the first stone, in that case, as Jesus might say to the legalizing mob.

    After all, many folk like me believe that the abuse of the personal auto is wrong and causes harm societally, but even then, you don’t see us demanding a ban of cars, but rather, rationally and usually politely, hopefully with some good bit of joy, we make our case in favor of walking, biking and mass transit, as the better, healthier model.

    I think that’s the approach we should favor, in a pluralistic society.


  13. paynehollow says:


    You said it was ok to take from an individual or business if they had more than they need.

    Hold on, there. I have never said anything in favor of TAKING from wealthy or rich individuals just because they had wealth. What I HAVE said is that I’m okay with progressive tax schemes, but that’s taxation, not “taking.” Again, words have meanings. Taxation is legitimate. “Taking” is not.

    This is the problem we get into. Someone says something, then the “other side” twists what they actually believe into something else and then they feel free to call them socialists or bigots. Let’s stick with real world positions and we’ll be much better off than summing up for someone something they have not said and do not believe.

  14. paynehollow says:

    I don’t really understand how one follows twitter. It looks like to me to be a bunch of adolescents yelling at each other (on both sides). But certainly, the fellow you pointed to is acting immaturely. Like many conservatives have acted towards me and my tribe, I’d note. I vote against that sort of behavior on both sides.

    How does the gov’t get money?

    We, the people, elect representatives to establish programs/policies and then we, the people, agree to and authorize these representatives to create taxes to fund the programs that we, the people, through our representatives have agreed to and authorized.

    Does that mean that we each of us agrees on every single program? Of course not, this isn’t all about us as individuals. We are not a majority of one. We vote for representatives who represent us for better and worse. If enough of us disapprove, we vote them out and vote for a change of policies and tax schemes. But, we don’t just take our ball and go home like a pouting 8 year old. We suck it up and pay our bills, even the ones we disagree with.

    It’s not a perfect system but, outside of an island with one person on it, I don’t know how you get around it. There are certainly many programs authorized and many dollars spent that I’d rather not pay. Any ideas on how I should stop them?


  15. Dan,

    “However, on the issue of what people smoke or drink, who they marry, how or when they have sex and most other pet conservative issues…”

    It’s perhaps a bit of a folly for me to defend a position for which I am not an ardent supporter. Personally, my only real pet issue is abortion.

    Nevertheless, I do want to observe a couple things about the issue of the so-called marriage debate. First, nobody (that I know anyway) is attempting to legislate behavior, per se. That is, conservatives aren’t arguing that homosexual acts between consenting adults should be illegal, though we do believe it is immoral. The question is about what the government ought and ought not sanction, define, etc.

    Second, there certainly is a pop-culture conservative view that “something immoral = something illegal” but that is an extremely simplistic view that I don’t think many people hold, at least if they think about it much. Instead, it is argued that the government sanctioning homosexual marriage and calling them as such would ultimately be bad for the society. In other words, it’s not just a moral argument, but a civil argument as well.

    (As an aside, the main reason why I am not personally invested in this is because I am not wholly convinced by the above argument. In other words, while I am firm in my belief that certain behaviors are immoral, I am far less certain of the effects on society.)

    My goal isn’t to defend the conservative stance (I’m sure John can do a much better job and I’m not a great conservative) I just want to clarify what might be a misconception.


  16. paynehollow says:

    Re, John’s…

    You said it was ok to take from an individual or business if they had more than they need. You refused to put a cap or number on what the gov could take.

    In trying to recall that conversation, I believe what I said was that there is no logical, objective reason to state that “taxing at 30% is moral and acceptable, but taxing at 40% is immoral…” and I stand by that. We have NO objective measure to state that taxing at X% is where it becomes immoral. I believe what I mentioned at the time was, it depended a lot upon circumstances.

    If there were a vast invasion or plague and our citizens were dying by the millions and I was a millionaire, I’d say, “By all means, TAX ME at 90%! We’ve got to do something and I can easily live on $100,000!” It depends on the circumstances. Normally 90% we could probably all agree would be excessive, but there might be a circumstance where it wasn’t.

    And I believe I asked at the time, “By what measure would you say 35% is moral but 37% is immoral…?” and I don’t believe I ever had an answer. I imagine most rational people could agree that there is not an objective rational number we could use.

    Again, what I believe I said at the time is that the only measure I could think of would be the Harm measure. If we’re taxing someone at a rate where they are suffering (think of the Israelites in Egypt being demanded to create more bricks with no straw than was almost possible, for instance…), that would be immoral, but even with that, it’s a tricky and non-specific line to draw. Is it “suffering” to have to live on only $90,000/year, but not on $100,000?

    Anyway, just to clarify that point.

    ~Dan Trabue

Any Thoughts?

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: