“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly” John 7: 24

Many in what was once referred to as Christendom (presently Western Culture) have come to slothfully habituate a perverse derivative understanding from – their sentimentalized attachment to – remnant Christianity; such a perversion of Christian doctrine is exemplified by, but not limited to “judgment,” as in “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1) One may travel the byways, the highways, the bars, the barrios, and in-between and hear self-proclaimed Christians, agnostics, secularists, and atheists admonish those which dare to pass judgment upon another individual or group. Even clergy may be heard perverting this basic teaching of the Lord… It matters not whether the individual professes – or denies – Jesus Christ, there seems to be ubiquitous remonstrance for those possessed with hardihood to haughtily judge others actions and advocacies. Of course one wonders how those that take umbrage with those which pass judgment, if one may not judge… It seems that contradictions are lost upon sentimentalist.

In all 4 gospels Jesus mentions passing judgment, but he is most succinct, and most clear, in the gospel of John, chapter 7 verse 24. And we should mention John contains another type of judgment, viz: final judgment, which Jesus makes clear, is solely God’s purview (See John 8: 1-11 regarding the woman – to be stoned for having been caught in adultery). If one reads the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), and ruminates upon their contexts where judgment is discussed, one will garner an understanding of judgment very like that of John. Thus, Jesus commands his followers not to “not judge,” but to judge as Lady Justice is to ostensibly judge, viz: as if one were blind…

Our interest – here – is not to unravel Scriptural confusions, but to consider a few matters which have perplexed society, because – we induce, people refuse to be just in their judgments…

1.) Ponder – for a moment – how victims of pedophilia were likely greeted if they made claims of abuse against a member of the clergy, a teacher, and a relative or close friend. Today, the clergy member – for all practical purposes – is now guilty until proven innocent; an individual esteemed by many that historically has been given a pass on such matters. If the overriding principle – avowed by all Christians – of original sin (man is a fallen creature, and should be trusted not to be worthy of trust; note the Founders of the U.S. correctly held such a view; thus the divided Government)…

2.) Before Bill Clinton was elected POTUS a considerable number of women made claims which indicated the Bill was an abusive satyr, and Hillary did whatever was necessary to discredit Bill’s victims. As the Arkansas Attorney General, Governor and POTUS Clinton and his wife got a pass because of appearances (Note: policy positions e.g., abortion advocacy and sexual libertinism, are part-n-parcel of appearance). James Carville, Lanny Davis, Dan Rather, CNN, NARAL, Plan Parenthood, many in Hollywood, and almost all social-political Leftists aided-and-abetted the Clinton’s sullying/destruction of Monica Lewinsky, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick and victims of Bill and Hillary Clinton’s abuse. Imagine for a moment if the Clintons were judged justly… Hillary wouldn’t have lost the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama (nor would she be a New York Senator…), and Hillary would not have been POTUS Trump opponent in the 2016 Presidential election; her career would have been over! Would placing Bill and Hillary in the same jail-cell be considered “cruel-and-unusual punishment”?

3.) Robert Mueller’s investigatory team has indicted a gang of Russians, but indictments are not guilty pleas or the same as a conviction by a U. S. court of law. Mueller’s indictments appear to have been served – at the time they were served – to manipulate public opinion. If Mueller has the goods i.e., proof of treasonous collusion, or obstruction-of-justice, he should make it public since the Russians will never see the inside of an American courtroom… And if we judge Mueller’s investigation by the law covering the appointment of a Special Counsel, we cannot but judge Robert Mueller’s investigation is illicit; a Special Counsel may not be appointed for a counter-intelligence investigation, as Andy McCarthy (McCarthy – the former New York district Federal prosecutor who convicted the Blind Sheikh, presently a writer at NRO) has repeatedly pointed out Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein violated the Special Counsel statute in appointing Robert Mueller… McCarthy indicates Mueller’s investigation is fine as long as he is investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election, but that Mueller is utilizing the pretense of investigating Russia to dig for dirt on Trump and his associates, even if the dirt must be manufactured through coercion… If the Press judged justly – or were just – the Press would not only reveal – to the public – the political taint of the Mueller investigation vis-à-vis POTUS Trump, but they would also make clear that Hillary Clinton was given a pass by the Obama Justice Department. Moreover, they would pressure the Department of Justice (particularly AG Jeff Sessions, and AAG Rosenstein) to appoint another Special Counsel to investigate the 17 Federal Agencies cited as backing Obama policies vis-à-vis e.g., Uranium One and the transfer of 20% of American uranium to the control of Russia, and also for those same Agencies hiding damning aspects of Obama’s Iran nuclear agreement…

4.) If the issue of abortion were to be decided justly, the primary concern would be in determining whether the act of abortion terminates an innocent human being or something less. As it turns out, the only way one may objectively (i.e., justly) define what is to be human, is to define human-life in potency; such a definition would afford legal protection from conception onward. As it is misinformation i.e., appearances, has aided-and-abetted the wanton murder of more than 60 million innocent children – in the United States – since the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision. If Americans were delivered the undiluted truth about the act-of-abortion – i.e., if the ambiguity injected into the issue, by supporters of abortion was removed – it is likely that even die-hard Democrat abortionists would abandon their unabashed support for ending the life of the innocent intrauterine babes, because American opposition to abortion would grow, and grow, because justice generally accompanies registering truth.

Now there are many other issues – and topics (e.g., imagine how the popularity of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and so many others, would change dramatically if the Press reported the truth about these politicians, their advocacies/policies and the effects of realized policies…) which could be examined, and if judged justly (i.e., if the truth were unambiguously reported) it is likely that the public advocacy too would change quite dramatically. Readers likely can think of scores of issues, and people that reflect their marketing; dare we point out that marketing is generally an enemy of the truth and justice…