Eric Bailey's

Or ... maybe ... someone wanted to see how those around him/her felt about Christians. It isn't a bad thing to say so if people said no I'm a christian ... or no my parents are christian ... people could recover with well I mean some christians I / my parents aren't judgemental etc ...

Or it could be a prelude to parental complaints ... but don't let that interrupt you kids need to have what they say challenged and their perceptions broadened daily.

:)
 

I suspect that it was something that a bunch of them either experienced in a class (a teacher encouraging the view or presenting history to encourage it) or in interacting with some of the other students.

Either way the quick reaction to being challenged is to say "some". Whatever the come back is, two things struck me.
1. People who complain about other's judgementalism are actually being judgemental
2. I think that we are all judgemental about something. One preacher I heard stirred up things with people by saying we are all prejudice.
 

The inviolate law of the "rural" community, be it 1st or 3rd world, is the primacy of community; that is, using communal structures to reinforce the feeling of trust -- the "I can count on him/her if I need help" scenario. This is because with smaller numbers dispersed over a broader geography, the individual is much more at the mercy of his/her environment, and thereby is much more in need of a sheltering community.

Conversely, the inviolate universal law of the urban community is "tolerance"; that is, the "I won't kill that freak, if he doesn't try to kill me" scenario. In an urban society, the primary danger to the individual comes not from the elements but from each other. Self-contained, confined groups mingling together have clashes of moralities, which, in a recently-urbanized society, could result in extreme violence. Thus, tolerance is deliberatley fostered, not so much as a virtue, but rather as a microcosm of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Interestingly, the logical outcome of these two belief systems is the fostering of personal (as opposed to cultural) diversity in the rural community, and the incredibly powerful homogenization of individuals in an urban setting. All manner of personal beliefs are accepted; but any deviance in personal behavior -- especially public displays of behavior -- is incredibly frowned upon. Any private behavior, so long as it remains private, is accepted; but beware the deviant who makes his/her diversion known publicly. Any public display of difference flaunts the sense of homogenaity, and is therefore a nascent threat to the community. Hence, we hide the visible minorities in ghettoes, in "cultural communities", in suburban cul-de-sacs; and we keep them there, until they are able to successfully learn to "pass" as one of us.

And, hence, we also scapegoat those sub-communities that are highly resistant to assimilation. There is something always inherently "bad" about these peoples: they cook children's blood into matzohs, they defile crucifixes, they use lard as a lubricant on shell casings, forcing good Muslims to eat pork. There is always something "hoity-toity" about them; by being different than us, they are saying that they are better than us.

There neither are, nor have there ever been, rural genocides. They always begin in cities.

Canada, with its highly urban culture, is simply worshipping at the altar of tolerance; at which, ironicly, there is no tolerance for any system that does not put tolreance as the highest of virtues.

- Neil
 

Some of what you wrote was more difficult to follow, but I think that your last paragraph said a fair bit.

Our love of tolerance only extends to those we share the same beliefs with, thus they too must be tolerant. If they are intolerant there is something wrong with them and they are scorned one way or another and rejected.

The private vs public display of beliefs is that two-edged sword that we so strongly want with the separation of church and state allowing us to believe what we want (so long as it falls within some parameters of what society will accept). Watch the movie Serenity.
 

Christians are judgemental...so are many other people but it is a fact that this is the stereotype and stereotypes are usually based on an average of behaviour. I do know many Christains who think they are better then everyone else, more enlighted...let us pray for those poor scum who are going to hell, that they might figure things out like I did. Jesus saying that He was the way the truth and the life does not make it ok for us to be looking down our nose. The qustion for me is not are Christains judegmental...yes they are...the question is how do we change our practice, how we do church, how we teadh our children so that the phrase Christains are judgemental is no longer so true...
 

Yes, despite my original offense at that statement when I heard it, one of my realizations is that Christians are judgemental, along with everyone else.

It is funny that the main characteristic that Jesus criticized in the religious people of his day is that same problem we face as the religious people today.
 

Although I like (and have used) the "don't be judgemental about my judgmentalism" trick, I think it is possible to *recognize* "judgementalism" (though I don't think we've defined it yet) without practising it (in that instance).

I suppose I think that because my (still herein unspoken) def'n of judgementalism doesn't include the mere recognition of another's shortcoming, but has more to do with the rejection of relationship and good will that *might* (but not always) result from such a recognition.

However, it does sound as if the students were *generalizing* (and stereotyping), but they weren't having a scientifically statistical discussion. They might readily accept the use of the word "some" (and could be encouraged, like the rest of us, to say "some" when we mean "some").

And it does *sound* (but I wasn't there) as if their recognition of the problem was leading to a rejection and ill-will (& possibly resulting from the same).