New York mayoral candidate (and perennial preener for the public eye) Anthony Weiner got into a shouting match on Rosh Hashanah with a patron in a local bakery. The voter took offense that Weiner had not only been sexting while serving in Congress, but continued doing so even before mounting (no pun intended) his campaign for mayor.
His heated tirade against the patron frequently referenced: “You’re judging me! Who are you to judge? Are you my Rabbi? You’re not God, so I don’t have to listen to you.”
There is nothing more disgusting than a man caught doing wrong again and again, yet continuing to seek public trust, then shouting against his critics: “You’re judging me!”
Those who resist judgment of any kind take their cue from the Sermon on the Mount:
“Judge not, lest ye be judged.”
Most have interpreted this verse to mean that we should not hold other people accountable for their behavior, that we should “Let boys be boys” and girls get away with anything.
Such immoral advice is adverse to good living, wise governance, and any semblance of civil society.
Let’s first consider the religious tenet sans distortion:
The King James rendering of the original Greek text would read for today’s audience: “Do not pass sentence on others” or “Condemn not lest ye be condemned.”
The crucial difference between judgment and condemnation is too often overlooked in our society, and Mr. Weiner confused the two, whether by accident or on purpose. Condemnation (especially when never-ending) kills, but discipline grants life to a child, an adult, to anyone who has strayed from the proper way of life.
Schools operate better when teachers and administrators understand this key distinction. As a substitute teacher in a local district, I took one student to the office for kicking another student in the crotch. Ouch! As soon as I held the student accountable, he started to cry. “Please don’t get me in trouble! I don’t want to get expelled!”
I replied: “Of course you won’t get expelled. How will you learn? You will receive a consequence, though.” This student had never gone to the office before, or he had never done something so serious in his life as hurt another student. I did judge the student, but I did not condemn him.
How else do we grow if no one points out the errors in our thinking and doing?
As parents, as peers, as partners in any endeavor, there must be judgment, recognition of wrongdoing and right-doing. How can we function in a world where “Anything goes”? Nothing would go anywhere.
One ethics professor commented with NBC’s Conan Nolan that a life of “I won’t judge you, and you won’t judge me” cannot work. “What am I supposed to teach my children? How do I raise them if I choose not to support a clear moral code?” This gentleman was specifically referencing Polish Director Roman Polanksi’s ongoing flight from American justice for sexual assault against a fourteen-year old girl. He has not been brought to justice for this egregious act. Should Polanksi be allowed to walk free just because he’s rich and makes good movies (depending on the critics)?
To condemn people ministers punishment instead of teaching someone to do better. Traffic tickets, jail sentences, and termination from employment define punishment, yet even they serve as restoration to right living.
So, are the voters judging Anthony Weiner because he chooses to run for mayor, even though he continued to take lewd photos of himself, even though he had assured his wife he was down with flickering himself below the belt?
Of course they are judging him.
Are they condemning him? Not at all. Weiner chose to run, where the public gets to judge whether he’s the right candidate for the job. However, the patron in the bakery also declared that Weiner should not have run because he sets a bad example. I agree with the patron, and I vigorously degree with Weiner’s vehemence. “You’re judging me! You think you’re better than me? You think you’re God?”
Weiner not only failed morally, but he continued to do so and lied about recovering from his former, private peccadilloes (again, no pun intended).
Politicians have moral failings, and forgiveness should be available. Rabbi Schmuley Boteach has commented that Americans need to be more forgiving. Rudy Giuliani kept his private affairs private. Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich regretted his two previous failed marriages. Yet unlike Weiner, they did not continued in their perversions. Weiner did, perhaps still does. Therein lies the rub. His brazen breach of trust coupled with reaching out for the vote is very troubling. Voters are not condemning Weiner for taking pictures of his wiener. They reject him because he is untrustworthy, and unabashedly so.
And that’s a fair judgment.
Voters should let bygones be bygones when a person’s personal failings have gone by, but when they resurface, there is nothing immoral about holding a man accountable for his past, especially because it’s still present.
Weiner had no right to whine – and he should seek forgiveness, but not in the public eye.