Daily Herald columnist Jim Slusher: Religion, politics and judgment

Wise people are warned to avoid discussing politics or religion in polite company. Today, I plan to take them both on, which I know sends a pretty clear indication of the degree of my own wisdom.

But I have to try.

I've just taken a call from an angry reader of our letters online. He is expressing frustration about a commenter whose tone in responding to a particular letter he finds offensively personal. We look into the complaint, find we agree and hide the offensive comment. In time, we may end up blocking the commenter altogether.

It is a fairly extreme case, but as I reflect on it, it occurs to me how often such outbursts appear in less offensive, but still personal form - in letters to the editor, online comments and even just quoting candidates, politicians and all manner of public figures in routine news stories. And I am reminded of a biblical injunction from my earliest childhood that I wish we all would remember more often when talking about politics and political issues.

My recollection of Matthew 7:1 is "Judge not lest ye be judged," but I see that today's King James Version actually phrases it as "Judge not that ye be not judged." The New International Version is a bit clearer: "Do not judge, or you too will be judged." And the New Revised Standard Version puts it: "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged."

Regardless of the translation, I'm not qualified to debate the metaphysical warning attendant to the quote. But I do love the simple, direct, unmistakable command that precedes it: Do not judge.

My tradition is Christian, so I write of the issue in those terms, but I've found that most major religious traditions include a similar admonition: Don't insult others, and don't assume your own evaluation of the world is superior to that of others. I wish we would all, regardless of our religious background, pay it greater heed.

Now, I have to confess that I certainly am not entirely circumspect about withholding judgment when discussing politics. But I do know that when I refer to the qualities of a person, rather than the specifics of an issue, I am making an error that not only is a kind of sin but also, more practically, weakens the case I aim to advance. People are less likely to consider my point when I insult them for believing something different.

As we plunge into the muck of a bitter election campaign season under the weight of a long-simmering political atmosphere, the implications of that simple three-word phrase keep coming back: Do not judge.

I suppose the temptation to personalize issues stems from a kind of intellectual laziness. It is easier to call someone names, to lump them into a predefined category - leftist, fascist, bigot, demagogue, idiot ... the list is endless with varying degrees of offensiveness - than to engage with the particulars of the ideas or issues they want to address. As, from ranges all along the political spectrum, we wring our hands about the state of our democracy today, it occurs to me that the greater problem isn't what does or doesn't issue from the halls of government but how we engage with each other over it.

So, I hope you'll forgive me for momentarily blending two contentious topics. But I do believe if we'd all reflect more seriously on this particular connection of them, our conversations and our communities, state, nation and world would all be better.

jslusher@dailyherald.com