As children, we are blank slates. We have no idea what is right or wrong except what others tell us. It is others that teach us what is okay and what is not. So, to a large degree our beliefs start out as the beliefs and feelings of others. There comes a point though where our minds have developed to a certain degree and we begin deciding for ourselves what we should and should not do. Often we begin to disagree with many of the same people that helped us form our original beliefs in what is right and wrong.
Over time, we find that, we all have our own interpretation of what is right and wrong. And we tend to place different levels of value on people based on whether they are doing what we believe is right or wrong. Heated debates, arguments, fights and even wars break out over such differences in opinion.
Each man or woman believes that he or she is righteous as long as he or she is following their own code of right and wrong to the letter. We condemn those who do not think and act as we believe they should. In our eyes they are bad people or somehow worth less than we are.
But what makes them any better or worse than us? If we are each following our own code of conduct that we fully believe in, each of us is doing what we believe to be right. How can one be condemned for doing what they believe is right?
The other day, I read something that Dr. Martin Luther King once said. He said "I judge people by their own principles - not by my own.” After much thought, I heartily agree that this would be a much better way of dealing with others.
It has often been said that knowing what is right and intentionally choosing what is wrong is what makes an act evil. If we were all to look at people the way Dr. King did, there would be a lot less discord in the world. Most of the fighting that happens is due to people declaring one another to be wrong or doing wrong without us even really understanding the other person's point of view. We just decide that because it is different from what we believe that it must be wrong.
What we should be doing is opening a dialogue and asking questions until we fully understand the other person's point of view. Why do they think certain things are acceptable? What does the whole picture look like? Often it is what is just around the bend that allows us to reach full understanding of a situation, but we cut others off before they can reveal what is just around the corner.
Then once we understand the other person's point of view and realize that they are in fact saying and doing what they believe is right, we can compare our two belief structures and look for areas where they are similar. Perhaps we can minimize the differences so that they are not so abrasive to one another. Perhaps one or the other may have a change of heart once they fully see things from the other person's point of view. Or maybe one may discover that they held a belief due to a false premise that suddenly becomes more obvious when fairly viewed by an outside party.
If God waits until man is dead to judge him, then truly no man has the right to judge any other. But if we are going to do it anyways, shouldn't we judge a man by his beliefs and not our own?
No comments:
Post a Comment