“Judge not lest ye be judged” – Matthew 7:1

aka The most underrated bible quote ever!

A friend of mine was just telling me about how Nazi book burners in WWII Germany popularized the concept of burning media/literature pertaining to homosexuality or trans identity prior to focusing on eliminating Jewish identity from the literary and overall culture.  Terrible and clearly life-effacing.

Tough not to judge such actions harshly eh?  And so, there are many who do–many who don’t think the holocaust was that bad or that it was well-deserved, and many who frankly believe that all Nazis should die and/or go to hell.  In both cases, judgment has an effacing and/or ignorant quality to it.  Holocaust minimizers/deniers efface and invalidate the historical suffering of Jewish peoples while Nuremberg lawyers aim to efface and obliterate Nazis charged with war crimes. The ignorance of holocaust minimizers/deniers (willful or not) seems obvious. Less obvious would be the ignorance of Nuremberg lawyers/judges who rebuke the “just following orders” defense or any defense founded on rational determinants of human behavior. Perhaps not the best example, but the point is that it’s tough for people to “judge not” when we each do so fairly automatically as a means of upholding our sense of livelihood, morality, identity, etc.  How could we even uphold justice without some form of judgment? AGREED! But if judgment is culturally bound and practical reality depending on your location and individual circumstances, then what does it mean to pursue “right judgment” as-needed? Such is that for which United Human Perspective strives with a spirit of non-judgment. Because it must.  For Sustainability!

ANYHOW, my friend made the point that there seems to be a huge Republican focus nowadays on banning books related to anything LGBTQIAish. I have no idea how true that is, but I did think “wow, how crazy would it be if Republicans have been burning books“. Then I switched the google search to “Book burning democrats” and was surprised to find that this cultural phenomenon is a bit more nuanced and widespread than I had initially thought. Who’s wrong? Are they both wrong? Is it possible for both to be right? No doubt it isn’t just a Republican or Democrat specific issue. It’s a human thing.

Not trying to get too much into causation, but many understand the progression of Nazi-fueled genocide (and indeed pretty much any cooperative mass slaughter) from results/insights yielded by research e.g. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison and Milgram’s Shock experiments.  Such insights help us to better understand concepts like obedience and social control… group think and cultural transition to tyranny.  Nevertheless, I believe we must never forget that actions (good or bad) are necessarily implemented by individuals to varying degree. The more we can understand the conditions that lead to butchers, rapists, killers, and all manner of victimizers, the better we can intentionally transform those conditions to be life-enhancing. The more we understand the terrible, the better we can prevent it from re-occurring.  

United Human Perspective believes in a way to understand and actualize such prevention efforts without traditional judgment—at least without the type of judging that seeks out or results in some form of life-effacement.  Rather, with discernment that honors freedom, respect, safety and love for All. For example:

I recall my latest trip into rural Appalachia: 

There I had the pleasure of meeting, working and socializing with a friendly group of self-identified conservatives of the Trump-loving variety.  One of my new friends loves Trump so much, “I would die for that man” he said.  We talked about how generally, Republicans favor less government control whereas Democrats favor more involved government.  We talked about shifts in cultural/political attitudes re. Roe vs. Wade and the current push to further criminalize abortion throughout the USA.  Briefly, part of our crab + beer-fueled conversation went something like this:

Friend: Yea, I’m pro-life to the max.  Can’t be murdering babies.

Me: True.  Except for when God decides to cause women to have miscarriages.  *I give a side-eye to gauge his reaction and as soon as I see him grin, I say*  Wait how are they gonna know if it was a natural miscarriage or an intentional abortion?

Friend: hahaha.  No idea.  That’s prolly gonna screw some women at some point.    

Me: Yea man, you know what’s one of the weirdest things to me though?   

Friend: *quizzical look*

Me: Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t Republicans want less Government control in general?

Friend: YEA!  Fuck the government!!   Makin’ me do shit!!!

Me and Friend: *laughter*

Me: Well by criminalizing abortion isn’t that like.. giving Government super-control over women’s bodies?  Ain’t that some irony?

Friend: *Eyes open wide.*  No dude… that’s not irony. That’s hypocrisy!

At that point we both laughed and continued the light politically charged banter in a spirit of utmost freedom, respect, safety and love for one another.  At least that’s what I like to think =)  Perhaps my trials and tribulations over the past year developing UHP-inspired relationships in Appalachia have finally resulted in a refined ability to nurture progressively critical and self-reflective dialogue between two unlike-minded individuals.  Orrr, maybe the fact that half the people at this party carried sidearms thereby tempering my approach.  I haven’t experienced it myself, but I’m pretty sure guns, alcohol, and incendiary political conversation aren’t the best mix for social sustainability.

Let’s be clear.  I feel. I rationalize. I judge though I try not to.  I struggle often to regulate my emotions and embrace unconditional Love. But I’ve learned that promoting socially sustainable relationship requires, among many things, a spirit aspiring to non-judgment.  When people say things that offend us or our sensibilities, it typically evokes an emotional reaction.  People get pissed off… tune out or shout at one another. Such interactions often promote zero-sum, win/lose, or lose/lose outcomes. Noone actually seems to listen or make much effort to understand viewpoints and compromise once a defensive nerve is struck. That emotional reaction is sometimes connected to a well thought out moral code.  Or not [well thought out].  And each person has their own developing moral code or at least some objective understanding (or misunderstanding) of morality and some level of ego to protect it! 

Recognition and management of those facts are key to embracing that spirit of non-judgment.  And the hardest part for me has been learning how to recognize and manage those emotional reactions in myself and others.  It started out as swallowing my pride, but sometimes I think that if my cognitive framework can’t fully rationalize the morality of an action, then it shouldn’t trigger a judgment from me.  A few years after walking through the fires, perhaps I’m now a bit more “immune” to the sway of dysregulation. Most importantly perhaps, personally, is just tapping into gratitude and self-compassion when experiencing such challenging interactions. Like literally reminding myself I’m doing my best and that’s always good enough (or at least, there doesn’t seem to be any other way it can be). However specifically it developed, the practice has paid off and I find myself having moments during UHP-guided social interaction where I think to myself, “Whoa, I recognize the hurt in me but I can check it. Focus on understanding. Empower by asking questions. I’m not getting pissed off right now.  I’m not getting anxious.  This really IS just UHP conversation!”  Helps me to believe this actually works and gets better with practice!

As of now, there’s only one judgment offered by United Human Perspective.  And that is: The death penalty is anathema to social sustainability and the main barrier to enabling cultures of care.  Eliminating the death penalty, in our opinion, would yield “trickle down” benefits that drastically accelerate cultural change in a pro-sustainability direction.  That argument will be made another day but for now we simply posit that all who are pro-life should theoretically be against the death penalty, but that’s not the case at all. 

In fact, many of my pro-life friends who eschew abortion also favor capital punishment.  An effort to rationally understand such reality might go like: A pro-capital punishment stance exists to some extent because of the difficulty imagining or understanding a valid alternative. Similar to anyone espousing the traditional pro-life or pro-choice stance re. abortion.  Similar to any entrenched moral stance really. It all has to do with a process of belief. With time, AND YOUR HELP, hopefully United Human Perspective can further flesh out these arguments for the cause of course correction.  But for now, it’s amazing how much consciousness can be raised by just recognizing various ironies or hypocrisies! Not with judgment. Discernment.