Discrimination, Judging and Discernment

A short article exposing the fallacy behind the edicts of the current presidential administration concerning fairness, equality and discrimination.

                                Discrimination, Judging and Discernment


For the past seven years, one of the main agendas, or often voiced ones, of the presidential administration, has been a concern for discrimination against specific types of manifestations of certain people's beliefs, by both businesses and individuals. The theme is centered on equality and fairness. But is the issue represented in a clear and concise light, and is it truly and genuinely fair, or is it a hidden bias beneath a guise? Are the new edicts conducive to equality, or are they wrongfully discriminatory against people who are already fair, just and compassionate? Let's attempt to discover the truth by peering below the surface.

According to Webster's, one definition of judge, in verb form, is "to form an estimate" of, which is an opinion as to what each individual thinks and believes about a person, thing or situation, which is, or should be, illustrated through that person's life, activity and business policies. Other definitions of judge are "to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation, to form an opinion", and one meaning of the word is to "think". The terms judgment and to judge have been demonized during the past several decades, certain people using the Bible to condemn all forms of judgment. But what does 'The Book' actually say?

At first glance, even the most widely read and cherished writing seems to contradict itself, but does it? Many passages refer to judging, some warning not to and others apparently condoning the protocol. Is that Book opposing itself, or is there some misunderstanding somewhere, either by the writers or by modern readers, who desire to misconstrue meanings in order to either unjustly discriminate or else condemn an acceptable practice?

While the Old Testament was originally written in ancient Hebrew, the New Testament was compiled initially in Greek, because that was the main language in use at the time by the majority of the population in Palestine and much of the world. Therefore, in order to obtain a pure rendition of scripture, it's words and what it all intends, we need to reference Greek words. Greek is a lot like Spanish, in that one word can have many different denotations, the correct one depending upon context. The same is true with the English language to a far lesser extent, as many more words are applied, instead of relying upon context to decipher what is being said.

The following words for judge, as a verb, and corresponding definitions, are listed in Vine's as being found in the original writings: krino, to choose, determine; anakrino, "to examine, investigate, question"; diakrino, having to do with discerning, ultimately ends in a decision, an opinion. These definitions tie in with gnome, a Greek word for judgment, which is "a way to know and understand". There are, of course, judgments that only an appointed judge can make, and the Almighty, but concerning opinions, each person has the natural right to form, and even state, their point of view, with or without a declaration such as the First Amendment.

Anti-discrimination laws are being thrown at Americans by means of a broad, undesirable essence of the word's implications, which is, again according to Webster's, "to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit". Even that in itself is not enough by which to deem an action unfavorable, unfair or unacceptable. Basis is, basically, the very beginning of something, it's foundation or basic principle. That is the very root belief which drives anything, and can be either good or bad. By the presidential administration's pronouncement against discrimination, all fundamental beliefs are bad, and under that guideline, nothing in the world could be legally opposed, if the law states as such, taken to it's utmost extreme.

Discrimination is a practice which every person in the world implements every single day, constantly. Discriminate means "to mark or perceive the distinguishing or peculiar features of; distinguish, differentiate; to distinguish by discerning or exposing differences; esp.: to distinguish (one like object [or idea, doctrine, belief]) from another; to use good judgment". These are all desirable qualities and necessary for personal, individual and national well being and survival. When we fail to discriminate, we fail to live and we neglect being productive, also forfeiting our naturally inherent right to choose and believe as we see fit, in the same breath discerning that some things should not be applied as a premise for unfairness.

For example, it is fair for society to make accommodations for the handicapped segment of society, so that they can appreciate and enjoy life to the fullest extent possible, utilizing the skills and talents which they possess. Of course it is. At the same time, is it fair to all, or even wise, to force an employer such as a police department to hire someone who is crippled as a patrolman? Would it be right to make a church hire an atheist as a pastor? How long will it be until a Negro sues the KKK for denying membership [notwithstanding the fact that the KKK shouldn't be allowed to exist in the first place, howbeit, under equality and fairness, what's to prevent racists from claiming that they were born that way?]? Do you see the hypocritical and deceptive paradox? These examples may seem absurd, but by presidential definition of fairness and equality they are legitimate. They are no more ridiculous than a woman being awarded a million dollars because she spilled a hot cup of coffee on herself.

And even though the new statutes prohibiting discrimination are proposed as being geared toward corporations and smaller business entities, supposedly to eliminate unfair treatment due to bigotry and biased selection, they are actually punishing people for holding certain views about right and wrong, and discriminating against people for holding fundamental views of morals and ethics, virtually forcing folks to violate their sacred beliefs.

Without discernment and discrimination as portrayed in this article, an anything goes mentality will develop, which is already rapidly blooming, the differences between right and wrong will blur and eventually disappear, and an entire culture will no longer exist, being swallowed up by an aura of neutrality which, firstly meaning undecided, results in instability, attaining to nothing, resulting in nothing truly productive, ultimately culminating in worship of the state, the government, a goal of the Communists. A popular country music song says, in part, "...you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything...", and the present state of the union's fundamentals is indicative of a rock teetering on the brink of a cliff.



                                References


Vine, W.E. Unger, Merrill F. White, William, Jr. Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words With Topical Index. © 1984, 1996 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary. © 1963 by G. & C. Merriam Co.