The Content of Their Character: Judging On the Basis Of Beliefs

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
-Martin Luther King Jr.

"Hey mister don't look down on me
For what I believe in..."
-The Minutemen

There's this trope. Lots of people say it, on many sides of many cultural divides: liberal and conservative, secular and believer. And it's come up a lot in the Presidential campaign: especially regarding the now-retired candidate Mitt Romney, with pundits and opinion-makers and the candidate himself decrying how prejudiced it was for people to refuse to vote for Romney because of his Mormon beliefs.

There's this trope. And it goes like this: It's not right to judge people for what they believe.

So here's what I want to know:

What the hell else am I supposed to judge people on?

What basis are we supposed to use to judge people, if not their beliefs?

Yes, their actions, of course. But our actions are shaped and decided by our beliefs. Why shouldn't people's beliefs be a relevant factor in guessing what their actions are likely to be? Beliefs shouldn't be the only thing we judge people on, for sure -- but why should we ignore them entirely?

I mean -- "the content of their character." Aren't our beliefs a huge part of that? How are we supposed to judge people by the content of their character and not judge them on the basis of their beliefs?

If someone believes that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt because homosexuality is a crime against God and humanity, should I really not judge them on their morality? If someone believes that their tax money shouldn't pay for poor children's health care because "those people are always looking for a handout," should I not judge them on their compassion? If someone believes that the Earth was created 6,000 years ago despite human historical records dating well before that, should I not judge them on their good sense? If someone believes that all human beings have been infested by space aliens, should I not judge them on their sanity? If someone believes that they don't have to reduce their fuel consumption because one person can't make any difference -- or because the Rapture is coming and none of this pollution and global warming stuff will matter -- should I not judge them on their social responsibility? And if someone believes that the moon landing didn't happen because they read it in the Some Guy On The Internet Journal, should I not judge them on their... well, on their judgment, their ability to discern, among other things, what is and is not a good source of information?

I look at these questions, and I get very puzzled. Why, again, is it not appropriate to judge people for what they believe?

Now, if you're talking about something like employment or housing rights, then the "don't judge people on their beliefs" concept suddenly makes a lot more sense. A person's belief in the infinite wisdom and mercy of Ganesh is irrelevant to how good they are at software design; a person's belief in the Celestial Kingdom is irrelevant to whether they'll pay their rent or their bank loan on time.

I can think of a few exceptions to this rule -- if someone believes that God wants homosexual sex eradicated from the Earth, that would probably disqualify them from an executive position at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. But on the whole, personal beliefs, including religious ones, aren't relevant to questions like housing and employment. And they shouldn't be.

But for a lot of other questions -- ranging from who you vote for to who you marry -- personal beliefs are very relevant indeed.

So maybe a better principle would be, "Don't judge people irrelevantly on the basis of their beliefs."

And of course I understand that religious prejudice -- which is a lot of what people mean when they say, "Don't judge people for what they believe" -- has a long and ugly history, in the U.S. and in the world. I understand the desire to not be bigoted, the will to fight bigotry in yourself and others. I share that desire and that will. Passionately.

But I would argue that much of that ugly prejudice is, and always has been, based on false perceptions of people's beliefs... not an actual perception of their actual beliefs. Ignorance and vicious lies about people with different beliefs are the foundation of religious prejudice. (Well, one of the foundations...) People hate Jews because they supposedly have plans to take over the world; Catholics because they supposedly grind up babies into communion wafers; Mormons because they supposedly all have six wives on the sly; atheists because we're supposedly selfish, nihilistic hedonists with no basis for morality. People hate those with different beliefs because of lies they've been told about them. They rarely hate those with different beliefs because of what those people actually believe. They often don't even know what those beliefs are.

And maybe more to the point:

You can't always judge an individual person's beliefs simply because of the religious group they belong to.

For most people, religious beliefs are only part of a whole constellation of beliefs, and for many people it's not a very important part. So even if what you know about the Jewish or Catholic or Mormon faith is more or less accurate, you still won't necessarily be able to judge any individual Jew or Catholic or Mormon simply because of the religious group they belong to.

Jimmy Carter, for instance. Jimmy Carter is a born-again Baptist, and was when he was President. But he also opposed the death penalty; and supported the Equal Rights Amendment; and opposed the Briggs Initiative which would have banned gays and lesbians from teaching in California public schools. I disagree with many of his positions and actions -- but if he were the Democratic nominee for President this year, I'd vote for him, and I'd do it reasonably happily. His born-again Baptism isn't completely irrelevant to me, but it's obviously only one part of his belief system, and when it comes to the Presidency, the other parts are a lot more relevant.

So maybe we need to modify the principle again. How about this:

"Don't judge people irrelevantly on the basis of their beliefs -- and don't judge them inaccurately on the basis of what you think their beliefs are."

But what if my perception of someone's beliefs is accurate? What if it's based on things they've said -- and done -- and not just on the group they belong to? And what if their beliefs are relevant to the topic at hand, to whatever question it is that I'm deciding on… whether it's who I want to vote for or who I want to marry?

Why on Earth shouldn't I judge them on the basis of their beliefs?

Maybe the problem is with the word "judge." It's something of a harsh word, with strongly negative connotations these days. We're not supposed to be judgmental. It implies, not just the forming of an opinion, but the passing of a sentence.

So okay. Feel free to substitute another word if you like. Instead of "judge," read "assess." "Discern." "Conclude." "Form an opinion." "Evaluate." "Appraise." "Critique." If you don't like the word "judge," any of these will do.

But when Mitt Romney said that "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom... Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone"; when he cited religious scripture to support his opposition to same-sex marriage... then you're effing well right I'm going to judge him on it. Or critique him, or appraise him, or form an opinion of him.

I never cared very much that he's a Mormon. Voting against someone just because they're a Mormon would be just as wrong as voting against someone just because they're an atheist. If Romney were a Mormon in the way that Jimmy Carter is a born-again Baptist, I wouldn't have given two figs about his religion. I don't care about the specific religious group that Romney or Carter, Mike Huckabee or Barack Obama, or any other current or former Presidential candidate, belongs to. But I damn well reserve the right to judge them for the content of their character.

And that includes their beliefs.

Comments

[Susan B.]

Well said!
I ultimately feel that people should be judged on their actions (which includes their words--speaking is an act). My respect for them or lack thereof, and the way I treat them, should have nothing to do with what goes on inside their own heads.
However, when it comes to making a decision, where their beliefs will very much affect the outcome of events, I have every right, as well as responsibility, to use my accurate knowledge of their beliefs to make an informed choice.

[Michael DePaula]

Greta Christina had a great article today on her blog about judging people by their beliefs and the rightness or wrongness of said judgment....

--tracked and commented on MichaelDePaula.com

This is an excellent post and one to which I will soon link back to from my blog. You see, I have been struggling recently with a variant of the question addressed here (i.e., can I reject Christianity as irrational and morally repugnant without necessarily being an anti-Christian bigot?). Your post is quite relevant to this discussion and will be of great value in helping me work out a suitable answer.

When you write about judging someone on the basis of his/her beliefs, I think the key (at least from a multicultural perspective) would be to recognize that many of these beliefs are traditional cultural values with which the individual was likely raised. From this perspective, we'd say that there is a difference between judging someone for some random belief they picked up and judging them for a culturally-sanctioned belief system in which they were raised. This is the distinction with which I will continue to wrestle.

[vjack]

That last comment was from me. Not sure why it left my name off.

[Michael Meadon]

Fantastic post. I've always thought people's beliefs say something important about them.

[gruntled atheist]

That is an excellent explanation of a very difficult topic. Information passes, it seems, far too easily from relevant to irrelevant and back again. Many hide their true beliefs or cloak them in innocuous phrases. I think your article will be very helpful to me.

[snakechic]

Yeah yeah.....its pretty obvious that its impossible to be 'non judgemental' so to speak and in order to operate in the world -people need to 'size up' each other for whatever reason
but...
Using 'beliefs' is a long way around the job, you have to get to know someone to some extent in order to find those things out about them.(at least a couple of sentences in a convo).......or at least reply on second hand judgements and appraisals as per media or this blog ...that's why people (all of us) tend to fall back on the good old Quickie standby of using stereotypes.
This is where it gets a tad tricky...people form a kind of consensus as to what those easily recognisable clues or ques are.
ie. Woman wearing short skirt and smoking a cigarette standing unsteadily on footpath.
How you judge her is more about your value system and your environmental, cultural background. Not hers...

Its funny not haha..that the 'terrorist' is muslim these days...handy isn't it. *groans*

For me....judgements of people using "beliefs" as the term is used here, is probably not the most accurate or efficient. In terms of 'religious' or moral types of belief systems - those things about the individual can be brought and sold like bits of costume jewelry...something to wear so people don't poke around too much to find out who you really are.

Watch out for those BIG hair evangelists...hahaha

[snakechic]

Oh..and Um..Identifying the 'values & beliefs" within any documented Political Policy is very useful to establish its usefulness. Its one of the first things to look for...
The general public don't often get hold of that paperwork...but it is possible to find out inconsistencies and whats going on in the background in other ways.

For example:- Obama struts his stuff and 'preaches' the 'we' gospel to unite the US etc etc.... has come up with various political catch phrases 'Yes we can' but his proposed health plan for America is NOT universal.(as far as I know)
In other words...is he acting like a stereotypical politician or a "Mormon" & depends on whatever you make of that. ? & How well you are able to question authority comes into play and whether or not that is one of the individuals primary values.

anyway..Its good to become conscious of how to 'judge' people etc and not buy into the common ol' social niceties that come to stand in the way of that.
fuck the rules! Of course you have the 'right'..to think for yourself!

[efrique]

Obviously when choosing to vote for someone, you must form an opinion as to their likely actions while in office.

Romney invited people to consider his beliefs, and made it quite clear the way in which his beliefs would influence his actions. He wanted religious conservatives to judge him on the message of those conservative beliefs.

He made an issue of his conservative beliefs. For example, he made some statements about the relationship between belief and freedom. He did it, presumably, to win the favour of a particular group - that is, he asked a group of people to vote based on his elucidation of his beliefs. He cannot them complain that other people also judge him on the same basis!

I don't particularly care that he's a Mormon any more that I care that Kennedy was Catholic or Carter a Baptist; in each case those are part of who they are, but alone it isn't a particularly clear indication of their actions.

What does matter is how he described the effect his beliefs. He invited judgement on that. He got it.

[simple z]

Nice post. I don't really know on what grounds i judge people. Character is a good word for it, quite abstract.
Deeds, actions, beliefs....

But i think, sadly, for us people,
our instinct probably goes by their looks. The appearance and voice.
Why else would most of us prefer to listen to a guy before listening to a woman (biological instinct)?
It's probably because of the wider shoulders and the non-wining voice.

very few men have a woman as role model.
But many women want to become like a certain man.

[Felicia Gilljam]

This highlights the need for secularism in the US. In Sweden, politicians don't talk about religion, especially not their own. It might come up in a personal interview at some point but they'd never bring it up in a public speech. Of course, there's a bit of a difference in that we mostly vote for parties rather than individuals, but since the leader of the winning party will become the prime minister, and the party leaders are used as poster children for their parties, so it's at least comparable. And none of them ever talk about their religion - not even the leader of the Christian Democrats! If their opinions and policies are informed by their private beliefs, they at least have the decency not to say this, but defend themselves with reality-based arguments.

[Nattie]

Sometimes your blog is eerie; there's this one friend I'm always having conversations with, and then the same day or a day later, you'll post exactly what we were saying, haha. Or I won't have read this blog for a couple days, then I'll have a conversation with him, check back, and you'll have posted the same thing before we had it. Then one day I posted a review of Mistakes Were Made to my personal blog, and you posted yours like an hour later! It's the same thing with this topic. (Needless to say, I agree.)

There's clearly some cosmic stuff going on here.

I'm joking, of course; we just end up talking about a lot of the same things based on news reports, or religion or sex because he's gay and I'm bi. But I have to admit I was thrilled when I read your older posts and I finally found someone who liked Harry Potter more than Lord of the Rings for the same reason I did. And it's also great to see another woman who doesn't particularly want kids and is annoyed by people who are militant about it.

Anyway, I really love your blog. I hadn't given it much focused thought before coming here, but thanks to you I realized that I'm an atheist and I should just call myself one, and I've done more reading up on it.

Keep up the good work.

[Christian Bachmann]

Good post, but I think you are more on the actions side than on the beliefs side when it comes to judging. Both Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush are re-born Christians. What makes the difference is actions such as decisions about death penalty, other law issues, war in Iraq and other important things. The answer whether beliefs are relevant or irrelevant for my judgment must, and can only rely, on actions.

[Paco]

I like the "content of their character" notion. You can't really be sure of someone's beliefs. But you can listen to what they say, watch what they do, and make your best prediction on how they'll treat other people -- especially someone who doesn't agree with them.

It's not really the list of beliefs, but the relative priorities -- where respect for others ranks on the list.