To judge or not to judge, is that the question? Sure seemed to be earlier this week at the County Criminal Courthouse. What started as a less-than-heartening day of civic responsibility ended a profound pointer, a reminder, back to purpose.
Yes, I had been summoned for jury duty. I made it as far as I’ve ever made it. You see, I’ve never actually been on a jury, but I have made it to the voir dire phase several times. Perhaps being relatively liberal in a relatively conservative state has something to do with my failure to reach the box; I don’t know. In any event, the prosecution and the defense asked the usual questions, the ones conceived to cull the herd.
The typical pattern of extremes began to emerge. Hoping to dodge service, many swung hard to the right, “No sir, I could not sentence a guilty person to probation, even if the law allowed it. If he is guilty, he deserves the maximum punishment.” Others swung hard to the left, “No sir, I could not stand in judgment of another human being. That is not my place.” When asked if I could sit in judgment of another human being, I tried not to swing too hard either way, “No sir, I would not sit in judgment of another person, but I could judge a behavior in light of the law. I can separate the two.” My qualified answer seemed a bit lost on the defense council, but the process continued and eventually they sent me home….again.
So how do we reconcile the content of the Course with the task of determining a brother's guilt in a court of law? Well, turns out it is pretty easy when you stop to ask for help. The Course doesn’t ask us to give up our judgments, our special relationships; the Course merely asks us to look at them without judgment. Looking at our judgments without judgment is the essence of looking with the Holy Spirit. Being in our right mind is being in our wrong mind without judging it.
The practical reality is that I can’t be here and not judge. That’s what “here” is. Normal people can usually look at a set of facts and determine if those facts indicate an unlawful behavior. So can Course students. Being normal is imperative as we walk our path.
Believing that we can withdraw from judgment in this world merely reinforces our belief in it. Not making a decision is making a decision. Leaving that decision to somebody else is making a decision. Finding someone “guilty” of a crime does not mean that I witness the sin within them. To the contrary, we may find that we are merely limiting a brother’s ability to hurt him/herself or others. Could you not stop a child about to put his hand on a hot stove? Would you call it sin?
Please, don’t hear me say that the Course encourages us to sit on a jury. Do hear me say that the Course doesn’t tell us not to sit on one. Remember, this isn’t a course in behaviors. This is A Course in Miracles. Neither the seeming battleground of the courtroom nor the seeming battleground in our mind can keep us from shifted purpose unless we allow it.
That being said, wouldn’t you want you on your jury?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Wow, interesting perspective. See? Blogging, I've noticed, makes me so much more observant of what is happening. As a Course student, it is helpful to me as well. I pause and consider more so now than before.
ReplyDeleteVery good lesson on judgment.
> Could you not stop a child about to put his hand on a hot stove?
ReplyDeleteI've let each of my younger kids put their hand on a hot stove. Not red-hot... just hot enough to *hurt* but not to *blister*.
Learning from mistakes is a powerful lesson. Learning from "don't do that..." takes a *lot* more time & effort to get it to stick.
But to answer the question as it was posed, No I wouldn't let my child or other loved one do something self-destructive if I could help it, *especially* not if I was in a position of authority and responsibility.
> Would you call it sin?
Only if the child knew the consequences were "bad" and was knowingly choosing them anyway. But, to answer your question in the context in which it was framed, nope, not a sin at all to do something we don't know is wrong.
> wouldn’t you want you on your jury?
Ooh, what a fascinating question!
I happen to say yes, but if I were to answer it generically for "any human" rather than "Scott", why then it's way more interesting to me.
Personally, I'd say Yes but mainly 'cause I believe in being held accountable for our choices. If I did wrong, I would not be hoping for mercy but rather for appropriate consequences, perhaps tempered by a belief in my willingness to embrace those consequences as part of improving. I'd plead guilty to a crime that I'd committed, in other words, and I've done so in the past. That's my role as accused.
My role as juror would be to honestly and earnestly investigate the evidence & facts & testimony of the accused, and decide what I thought to be the best course of action for everyone involved.
I think that the average person would hope for leniency. That's natural, and way more intuitive than hoping for appropriate consequences. If they feel like they're a lenient person, then they'd probably want to have themselves on the jury. But I also think that the average person doesn't care much about a stranger, and I guess I'm assuming that this hypothetical juror is not personally familiar with the accused. If you're simply cloned, then it's the much same as the accused sitting in the juror's box while questions are asked, then walking to the witness stand to testify as himself, then walking back to the juror's box to deliberate with the other juror's.
But if the juror is assumed to be unaffiliated with the accused... most of us would be a lot more strict and harsh on ourselves than we'd ever believe possible. Not many people are very big on undeserved compassion.
Tanget: It's horrifying to me to see how many people call themselves Christians but aren't at all interested in compassion toward anyone who isn't part of their flock (either theologically or culturally or emotionally). I find as many truly compassionate people among atheists as I do among Christians. I think that's pretty disappointing.
Thanks for the fascinating posts, Dave!
Thanks for the thoughtful comment, Scott. Appreciated.
ReplyDeleteCouple of quick thoughts: 1) Being responsible (accountable) for our choices is indeed the point here. The problem is that we have no awareness of the choice that caused "here", so we hold myriad externals accountable (God, The Universe, Karma, parents, science, etc.) We always receive the consequences of that choice. 2) No need to be horrified(fearful) of those who judge (aren't compassionate). We all judge....all of the time. No surprises. The recognition that we're all in the same insane flock(from the Christians to the atheists)is the first step toward peace and the undoing of the problem. True compassion must include the victim and the victimizer whatever form those ideas seems to take.
Nice follow-up thoughts, thanks!
ReplyDeleteDodging the consequences of our choices is an activity that's difficult to recognize. Embracing the consequences of our choices is something that American society preaches strongly against.
We all totally judge, for sure. It never fails to amuse me when I hear someone claim to never judge others, or claim to be open-minded. I see those two claims proven wrong more than any others.
Thanks for responding to my comments! Makes me feel heard & validated & stuff. It's appreciated! It's not like I need it for every comment I make, but now & then is awesome.