Never Judge a Book by Its Cover

The well-known phrase, "Never judge a book by its cover" has been variously attributed to George Eliot (in The Mill on the Floss), or to Edwin Rolfe and Lester Fuller's murder mystery, Murder in the Glass Room. The photo below attributes it to the German comic book writer and illustrator, Walter Moers.

However, I don't think it matters who originally wrote it. What matters is its message of not relying on first appearances to form your opinion of anything (or anyone). Judgement is something we all do, constantly, and we are rarely correct (or at least, not at first). 

[I am slightly embarrassed to report that my first reaction to seeing the photo above was judgement. It is one of my pet peeves, when people arrange books on shelves by colour! My librarian's soul rises up in protest. Arrange them by subject, arranged them alphabetically by author (or even by title). But why, oh why arrange them by the colour of the spine?? Books are not simply decorative objects. What matters is what is inside them, and I cannot understand why people would choose to make it harder to find the book they want... End of rant.]

I have blogged several times about how judgement (or at least, judgement without prior consideration) is a Bad Thing. Here, and here, and here, for example. My point being, we are all "unique, precious, children of God" and all have the right to our own lives, our own opinions, without being judged by anyone else. 

Many posts on social media are all about judgement - people are excoriated or praised on their external appearance or obvious behaviour - if you dress  or style your make-up or hair individually, if your skin is a different colour, if you are not heterosexual... most of us find it only too easy to judge others, usually to their detriment. But all that judgement does is demonstrate the judger's closed mind. I repeat again the Quaker phrase, "Each one of us is unique, precious, a child of God."

Perhaps if more of us remembered this, more of the time, the world would be a happier, kinder place... Or am I being judgemental?

Being Welcomed Here

 Kurt Haberstich once wrote, "It is more delightful to step through the open door of a humble house, than to stand before the locked gate of a palace."

I think he meant that it is the quality of welcome we receive that makes the difference. To hear the delight, the warmth, in someone's voice, when they invite us in, whether it is to their home, or their place of worship, gives us the confidence we need to proceed, to walk into a new situation.

Yet, offering a true welcome to strangers can be difficult. We have to remember that each human being is "unique, precious, a child of God," as the Quakers say. It is far too easy for us to retreat into judgement, into "othering", seeing other people as somehow less than we are ourselves. It can lead to all sorts of -isms: sexism, racism, classism, ageism, homophobia.

Ultimately, I believe our welcome should be offered to people as they truly are, rather than pre-judging them by how they identify themselves, or how we identify them - by what they look like, how they dress, the colour of their skin, the number of their piercings or tattoos, their age, their religious faith, their sexual orientation, their gender. Whenever we choose to judge people in that way, we are guilty of being non-inclusive, of putting up that metaphorical drawbridge, which says, "You are not welcome here."

Sadly, this seems to be all too prevalant in UK society today, no matter what we look like or whom we are attracted to. Why do we do this to ourselves, to each other? We are all human beings, each one unique, each one worthy of love and justice and respect, each one with unique gifts to offer the world. As my friend, Yvonne Aburrow, once wrote, "everyone is an unique combination of beauty and diversity, and we should celebrate that. And each form of oppression of that beauty and diversity is different, with its own distinct history, which is different in different places, which is why we need feminism, and LGBT liberation, and Black liberation, and the disability rights campaign, rather than a single, munged-together 'human' campaign."

I believe we need to learn to be aware of ourselves and each other as "unique combinations of beauty and diversity" and to respect and appreciate the struggles that each of us goes through to be recognised as such. And welcome all, regardless of superficial differences.

    

The Mystery that is Humankind

 The 18th century German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, once wrote, "The depths of the human heart are unfathomable."

And that is so true. However well we know someone (or believe we know someone), we cannot *know* for certain what is in their mind, let alone in their heart. 

In the coursebook for the Great Course, Writing Great Fiction, Storytelling Tips and Techniques, Professor James Hynes comments that real people are much more complex than the most complicated fictional character. Because authors can choose to take us inside the heads of their characters. Which is not an option for real people. He writes, "We know the people in our lives by what they look like, what they say, what they do, and what other people tell us about them... Consider the fleeting and digressive nature of your own inner life. Then, consider how impossible it would be to express that inner life to another person. Remember, too, that every other person in the world is experiencing the same kind of inner life, all the time. You quickly realize that each of us is alone in the universe inside our heads, surrounded by many other universes with which we can communicate only indirectly."

"Each of us is alone in the universe inside our heads." That is quite a sobering thought. Aside from the few people who have the power of telepathy, it is not possible for the vast majority of us to know what another person is thinking, let alone what they are feeling.

But, by using our powers of empathy and compassion, by truly listening to the other person, by observing their body language (that great non-verbal aspect of communication), we can make an educated guess. It is up to us to do this hard work, to not judge others purely by "what they look like, what they say, what they do, and what other people tell us about them." Because this will inevitably be a superficial judgement. It is only when we listen to others with compassion in our hearts, that we might begin to fathom the mystery that is at the heart of every other person in the world.

Look, But Do Not Judge

 The fourth century theologian and philosopher, Augustine of Hippo once wrote, "The gaze of the eyes can only reproduce what it sees, but by no means judge."

I'm not entirely sure what he meant by it... the use of the word 'can' rather than 'should', renders his meaning a little opaque, or at least to me. Because in my experience, most of us constantly make judgements about what we see. Even when it would be wiser to discover more before passing judgement.

I can remember a television advert for The Guardian, many years ago, which made a deep impression on me. First the viewer sees a picture of a little old lady walking down a city street. Then the camera cuts to a young man running along the same street. And the mind instantly jumps to the conclusion that the young man is up to no good - perhaps he is planning to attack the old lady... Then we see him jump at her, grabbing her. An instant later, the viewer realises that the young man has saved her from serious injury, if not death, as a piece of falling masonry lands where she was standing.

The moral of the "story" was that we should not judge by appearances, but investigate what is happening more carefully, by reading The Guardian. And I have never forgotten it. I cannot remember what the slogan was, but I do remember the feeling of revelation - that we should never judge on first sight.

Perhaps we need to bring all of ourselves to the matter of judgement - not only our physical senses, but also our intuition, our intellect and our compassion. So that we do not judge by appearance only.

The Larger View

The title of this post is taken from a hymn in the Unitarian hymnbook, Hymns for Living. The words are by John Andrew Storey, one of our best modern hymn writers, and they urge us to listen to, be open to, the wisdom of other faiths.

This week's quote has a similar message, I believe. The words of Richard Wagner "Der Blick über die Welt hinaus ist der einzige, der die Welt versteht." Which may be translated "The view beyond the world is the only one who understands the world."

Only the Divine can see the whole picture - we as imperfect mortals can only have a partial view. But, we can at least try to see, to understand, the point of view of the other, rather than becoming entrenched behind our own viewpoints, which can easily turn into prejudice, fear, distrust, and even hatred.

And this applies not only to people of other countries, other faiths, but also to our neighbours, the members of our local community. Whose views may often be very different from our own. Who are we to say that their views are invalid, wrong? Who are we to say that we have the only correct view?

I guess I'm saying that we ought to at least try to listen to the views of other people, before instantly leaping to judgement. Because if we had their life experiences, our views also might be different.

Or perhaps to realise that even people whose views are different from our own are still "unique, precious, children of God", as the Quakers have it.

I'm not saying that we should not stand up for our own beliefs, our own principles, nor that we should not defend the right of others to live in freedom and peace. Of course we should. But I also believe that at least attempting to understand the other point of view is better than instant condemnation.

Don't Judge a Book by its Cover

This week's post is about with-holding judgement. And it applies as much to self-judgement as to judging others. The quotation, by Jeanne Moreau, says: "It's not the facade that matters, but the treasures inside."

There are some words by St Francis de Sales, which I love: "When it comes to being gentle, start with yourself. Don't get upset with your imperfections ... It's a great mistake - because it leads nowhere - to get angry because you are angry, upset at being upset, disappointed because you are disappointed ... You cannot correct a mistake by repeating it."

"You cannot correct a mistake by repeating it." Oh. How often do we pile anger on top of anger, upset on top of upset, and disappointment on top of disappointment, rather than trying to gently, rationally explore how not to repeat our mistakes? I know I do ...

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus bids us to be wary of judging others if our own copybook is less than spotless: "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour 'Let me take the speck out of your eye' while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour's eye."

It is only too easy for us to judge others without really knowing them. To judge them by how they look, what they say, how they act. Without knowing what is in their hearts, what their motivations are, what their life experience has been, which has led them to this point in their lives.

Let us try to look beyond the outward facade, and see the treasures within.

Living With Imperfection

For much of my life, I have been a very judgemental person, summing up people and situations almost instantly. I admit it, I have very often been wrong. And one of the people I have been most wrong about (because most harsh and judgemental about) is myself.

I love the words of Francis de Sales: "When it comes to being gentle, start with yourself. Don't get upset with your imperfections ... It's a great mistake - because it leads nowhere - to get angry because you are angry, upset at being upset, disappointed because you are disappointed. ... You cannot correct a mistake by repeating it."

"It is a great mistake, because it leads nowhere. ... You cannot correct a mistake by repeating it." Oh.

The first time I read those words, a few months ago, I was working through a period of fierce self-hatred. There were issues in my life that I wasn't happy with - which have since, I am glad to say, been largely resolved - and I hated myself for how I was reacting to the situation.

So I read those words of Francis de Sales, and realised that all I was doing was to pile up anger on top of anger, upset on top of upset, and disappointment on top of disappointment, rather than trying to gently, rationally, explore how *not to* repeat my mistakes. And learning how, instead, to move on, and heal, and heal others.

I also came across a quote by the Buddha the other day, which illustrates this very nicely: "Holding on to anger is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die." Just roll that around in your mind for a moment, and consider the implications of it. It means that when we feel negative emotions and let them eat us up inside (because this is not only true of anger) it is WE who are suffering, not the person against whom they are directed.

So I am practicing accepting negative stuff as part of life, and trying to just move on, sailing down the river of Life like a serene swan, unflurried by the occasional ripple. It isn't easy, but golly, it's a lot more peaceful, and I feel a lot better inside myself.

Trying to Make Sense Of It All

Recent events, such as the attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris, which was orchestrated by Al Qaeda, and the Boko Haram massacre in Nigeria, have made me feel a profound need to try to make sense of it all.

The thing that started me thinking was my perception of the widely different reactions of the Western media to these events. We were swamped with coverage of the Charlie Hebdo story when it broke on 7th January, and the subsequent Je Suis Charlie campaign. It was only too easy to be swept up in the media storm, and I too shared some cartoons on Facebook on the Je Suis Charlie theme. Freedom of belief? Freedom of speech? Of course they're important! As are the untimely deaths of seventeen people.

A few short days later, while the media were still obsessing over every tiny detail of the Charlie Hebdo story and its aftermath, more than two thousand people were massacred in the North East of Nigeria, in and around the city of Baga. They were murdered by the militant Islamist group Boko Haram. Most of the dead were women, children and the elderly, who could not flee in time. It made the news alright, but the sense of outrage just wasn't there.

And I was shocked. So what I want to muse about today are the issues of how far freedom of speech should be paramount, and how dualistic our Western world vision is. You may not agree with me, and that itself is a cherished freedom, not available to all.

Let's start with Charlie Hebdo. It is a French satirical weekly magazine, featuring cartoons, reports, polemics, and jokes. According to Wikipaedia, it is "Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, [and] describes itself as strongly anti-racist and left wing, publishing articles on the extreme right, religion (Catholicism, Islam, Judaism), politics, culture, etc." A bit like our own Private Eye, in fact.

There is no doubt that satire is a useful political and sociological tool, pointing out injustices and hypocrisies in our societies. The question is: where should the line be drawn, between what is 'fair game' for the satirist's pen, and what is vicious and harmful and inciting hatred? For example, I personally found the comedian Dave Allen to be very funny, but he regularly received death threats from the IRA for his sketches mocking the Roman Catholic Church. And I find most political cartoons funny, although I think that some sometimes cross that line. I think that very few people would find cartoons about certain subjects, such as the Holocaust, or slavery, funny. My other point is that, particularly since 9/11, Muslims have been in danger of becoming the West's go-to scapegoats, as the Jews were in 1930s Germany. 

Just saying.

Each of us has a duty to think this stuff through, and to decide where our own line should be drawn. I also believe that while freedom of speech is very important, respecting others' beliefs is also very important. Think of the Golden Rule: do not do unto others what you would not like done unto you. I wonder how being satirical and disrespectful about the dearly-held beliefs of others fits into this. And whether, ultimately, the world is a better place because of satire? OK, it has an important role in highlighting injustices. But I believe we need to be careful that we aren't making judgements from a position of Western non-understanding and privilege. There are at least two sides to most issues, and it is very easy only to see one, because that is the only one portrayed in the Western media.

Which brings me on to the second issue which is troubling me - the privileged viewpoint of the Western media. It is only too easy to take it for granted that the view of the white, Christian, straight majority is the right one. But it ain't necessarily so. The satirical stories and cartoons printed in magazines such as Charlie Hebdo and Private Eye can be very amusing if you are a member of the privileged class / race / gender. Perhaps not so much otherwise. It's worth thinking about.

In the few days after the Charlie Hebdo killings, there were fifteen attacks on Muslim communities all around France. And after the death of Private Lee Rigby in this country, innocent Muslims were attacked, just for being Muslim. And I think the comparative lack of reaction to the more than 2000 deaths of innocent women, elders and children in Nigeria is another symptom - "after all, that's just what happens in Africa." It's "over there" and hence not our problem.

But we are all human beings. We were all made in God's image. Whether we are Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, Atheist, or even Unitarian. I totally condemn the murders in France. I totally condemn the murders in Nigeria. I totally condemn every killing of one human being by another. And I totally condemn the evil people who have chosen to turn their backs on God, and to preach hatred and put weapons into the hands of young men who know no better, or no different. 

We each only have one precious life, which we should be allowed to live, in peace.

In trying to make sense of it all, I have to reluctantly conclude that I cannot support absolute freedom of speech in all circumstances, especially if its purpose is solely to mock and satirise the dearly-held beliefs of others. Respect for others is also important. I have to prioritise the values of the Charter for Compassion, which asks us to walk a mile in the other person's shoes, before commenting on their actions. And to avoid deliberately causing pain to another, at all costs.

I do not condone unnecessary deaths, but neither to I condone stirring up hatred and intolerance, through the publication of articles or cartoons, on the one hand, or through indoctrination and radicalisation, on the other. We are all unique, precious, sons and daughters of God, and we need to respect that of God in each other. And I believe what I was taught as a child, that two wrongs do not make a right, and that revenge killings and attacks just make matters worse.

In the words of Gandhi: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." Amen

Taking the Longer View

A few days ago, the first public meeting of a newish (they were founded in September 2013) Unitarian group, the Fellowship of Non-Subscribing Christians, was announced. The meeting will be held at Stalybridge Unitarian Church in a couple of weeks' time.

Some Unitarians (sadly) have rushed to condemn this new group, fearing that its influence on our General Assembly of Unitarian and Free Christian Churches will be divisive. This knee-jerk reaction, condemning the new group 'sight unseen', worries me. It does not seem very Unitarian to me, that we should not be more like the Quakers "open to new Light, from whatever source it may come." Surely it is this openness to new ideas that is the hallmark of our much-vaunted Unitarian tolerance?

Or it should be. As I have written elsewhere: " This openness to a process of continuous and continuing revelation is what has kept Unitarianism green and growing down the centuries."

In J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, when Frodo first learns that through Gollum, Sauron has discovered that the Ring is now in the Shire, he exclaims: "What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature when he had a chance!" Gandalf responds: "Pity? It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need." Frodo retorts that he does not feel any pity for Gollum, and Gandalf again advocates a more compassionate view: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."

There is so much truth and wisdom in this advice. He is saying that we shouldn't judge new things too quickly, because they might just turn out to be a force for good. So I agree with a colleague who is counselling a more charitable, open, considered approach, and who suggests that we simply wait and see what happens.

Thinking Space

Today I received an e-mail which annoyed me. Something that I had counted on was cancelled at short notice, and I was really cross.

My first reaction was to fire off an instant reply, venting my annoyance and disappointment. Fortunately, when my mouse was hovering over the Send button, my guardian angel stepped in and said: "Stop right there! Think about this. You are more than a reflex reaction." I also remembered the wise words of fantasy and science-fiction author Anne McCaffrey, who once caused one of her characters to say: "Make no judgements where you have no compassion."

"Make no judgements where you have no compassion."

 

In other words, walk a while in the shoes of the person who has irritated you, and understand why they acted the way they did, and then think about whether you can find any parallels in your own life. Don't be so godd*mn self-righteous!

 

And of course, when I thought about it, there had been a time, fairly recently, when I had acted in a similar way, for reasons which seemed good to me.

 

So I am glad that I didn't fire off that hasty e-mail. And glad that my guardian angel dictated some thinking space, to make room and time for some compassion.