Judging

People in general oppose passing judgment on others, and this is a good thing because most of us are really not equipped to pass judgment on anything, let alone on stuff which we know NOTHING about. There's a reason why judicial judges have to have years of legal training and practice behind them before they can be qualified to pass judgment, and even then it is not uncommon for them to take months and many separate hearings in order to pass judgment, and it usually takes them even longer to settle on fair sentencing. Why then do we "common" human beings feel that we are adequately skilled to pass judgment on our fellow man? No, knowledge of the bible and spending years in church does not make u adequately skilled.

However, there is a flipside to this. Yes, its quite true that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Here's a question: if I see with my own eyes a person taking something that does not belong to him, can I call that person a thief immediately, or do I first have to wait for the courts to find him guilty first? And if I do decide to call him a thief without waiting for the courts, am I then passing undue judgment or am I simply stating a fact based on what I witnessed with my very own eyes? And does it matter if the stuff I saw him taking belongs to me or if I had nothing at all to do with it? Some people think it matters.

Another question is, if I am a thief myself, does that mean that I am then not qualified to label other people as thieves, even though they clearly are, simply because I am guilty of the same crime as well? Should we be differentiating between labels which are merely descriptive (thief, prostitute, liar etc) and those which pass condemnation? Do we even know the difference? And lastly, to which should we be focusing more: honesty, brutal as it may be, or political correctness, to protect feelings and not be defamatory? Or does it vary depending on the matter at hand?

Think about it, tell me your thoughts.

Mzwa