I'm with Bill Wald on this one. If the UN had formulated a resolution, or a motion of understanding, that would be one thing. But for the UN to establish unenforceable phony treaties is another. Too many assumed powers which like the Kyoto accord, mean very little or nothing at all. The homeschoolers are perhaps putting a finger in the dyke, where international "law" will begin to dictate to individual states, or where various lobby groups begin to use the UN as their "authority" for things such as the rights of the child, in order to push their particular ungodly agendas, and prevent parents from teaching their own children, for example. In this case potentially denying parents to make decisions for their own disabled children. It won't harm anyone not to adopt this if it has no legal force, and it maintains individual responsibility within those nations who are already doing a superior job of caring for the disabled.
Recently, I have been watching some presentations by John Piper, and sermons by Mark Driscoll. They are addressing and evangelizing the youth. They are somewhat entertaining, but mostly engaging. When you have numerous twenty year olds coming back week after week to listen to an hour long sermon, this might give you a clue as to the difference between entertainment and engagement. Or how an "entertaining" speaker can "engage" the audience. There is probably no formula to this, but young people will be engaged when they are directly challenged in a real way about their faith and lifestyle. And this means that some of them might walk out, because the message is indeed life changing, which they will not all want to do.
The validity of UN treaties depends on the intent and impact of the treaties. A treaty that cannot be enforced has little impact. It becomes merely moral suasion. The problem is the influence and power of countries in the UN who do not share christian values. So when a sanction or statement is made against human rights abuses in the USA or Israel it receives UN approval. But when a similar statement is made against human rights abuses in China? or Russia? or Iran? or the PLO? The approval for such sanctions is dependant on the proportion of various values in the UN, as well as economic alliances, possibility of arms sales, etc.
So a "treaty" about care for disabled will be agreed to by those who already care, and by those who feel obligated to agree but have no intentions or ability to make any changes. And a treaty is usually made by different parties in terms of a trade of something. Land for peace, for example. But in this case, what is being exchanged? So it simply becomes a moral statement. But if the moral statement or law includes within it implications that diminish the rights of individual states or individual families to determine the best methods and outcomes for their citizens and family members, then there is the danger of gaining some care for the disabled, while losing freedoms which provided that care in the first place. This is what happened when communism became a moral law, forcing everyone to be equal, but resulting in millions of deaths of ordinary citizens, and the loss of freedoms of belief and speech.
Much better to use moral suasion rather than making moral law an international purview. Education, persuasion, love, caring, all underlined by the Gospel, will have a greater effect than a humanist international "law" or treaty.
Another example of UN interference and lack of sense of perspective, was when a UN envoy came to Canada to evaluate the state of aboriginal reserves and living conditions, etc. Canadian aboriginals on reserves receive a higher financial aid per person compared to any other demographic group in Canada. They also are not required to pay any taxes while on the reserves. They also have access to federal and provincial services, including healthcare and education. The UN envoy could have discovered all of this simply by doing a few google searches. Yet this envoy had the temerity and lack of good sense to waste time investigating Canada's care for the aboriginal population, at the cost of ignoring situations in Kenya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guatemala, Cuba, Haiti, and many other countries. If this is a signal of priorities, you will not be surprised when a UN envoy comes to investigate disabled access at 2850 Grand Rapids, or the education curriculum for the disabled in Seatle, while ignoring or minimizing issues in India, North Korea, Pakistan, Kurdistan, and Nicaragua.
I work a bit in the area of climate change adaptation and mitigation, including offsets. So what I am about to say should be taken in that context. I suspect that people voted against proposition "a" because of its implications primarily, not first of all because the statement is absolutely untrue. The implications are that a near consensus means they must be right, and that if human activity is a cause, then human beings must 'fix" it at almost any cost. Proposition "a" says the same thing as proposition "b". So I think they were voting against adopting it as a statement, regardless whether "true" or false. But probably they also disagreed that human beings are having a significant impact.
They might also be disagreeing with statement "b", because while human induced climate change, if real, might be considered to have implications for humans interacting with each other, statement "b" appears to be directed towards the objectives of society and certain environmental extremists and activists. To say that it is religious is to imply that if someone disagrees or does not react, that they are not religious or ethical or just. They would disagree with this assertion. Particularly they would disagree with the proposition that it is a religious issue. Perhaps I could make the analogy that if it is a religious issue, then so was the construction and piloting of the Titanic a religious issue, and so is the construction of the overpass on the nearby highway also a religious issue. It is to say that there is nothing that is not religious, but in the context, what does this mean?...
Finally, I would like to add a side comment that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful, in my opinion. . " "
I would like to repeat that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. In my mind, it is a personal attack on those who differ. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful and a personal attack, in my opinion, and should not be permitted particularly on a blog post.
It is also important to point out that our idea of creation care is primarily based on its impact on human beings or perception by humans. For that reason, we swat mosquitoes and trap mice and rats and plant fields without compunction. When we highlight the presumed impact of climate change on the poor coastal people who might be displaced by rising sea levels, or those living in warmer tropical zones who might suffer from higher temperatures, droughts, and famine, we also ought to realize the irony of lifting a host of poor people in some countries out of relative poverty into a working middle class or working lower class who now have triple the income and conveniences that they used to have. The “lifting out” from poverty has included increased industrialization, more cars, larger homes, more airconditioning, more processed food, increased meat consumption, and other things that inevitably lead to increased ghg (greenhouse gases).
And as a result, China has now increased its ghg emissions by 9% just last year; India has done much the same.
In wanting to have our cake and eat it too, we ought to have more humility and not to disrespect the opinions of those who disagree with some of the main premises of the debate.
I love the way you always manage to find new topics Mark, in your perpetual quest for more understanding of those needing a little extra help. The last sentence in your post made me wonder,... why is "handicapped" less acceptable than "disabled". It would seem that having a limit or "cap" on our handiness, might be less demeaning than being "dis" or "un" abled. Perhaps it is not good to get too hung up on it. But I am curious why one and not the other. Will disabled eventually receive some of the same undesireable connotations, and will we have to change that term in the future? Maybe the best term is wheelchair access. This would be good for anyone who needs a smooth gradual surface. Anyway, I appreciate your concerns. Having had some recent surgery, I had problems and great discomfort with steps for a couple days. For a few days I was looking for elevators, even though normally I don't use them unless forced, or more than three floors. Now I'm not allowed to lift much weight for the next few weeks. So there was, and still is a cap on my handiness.
James, I don't think you are listening very well. The point is not just about your comments to specific people whom I don't know (I have not checked who the objectors are). The point is that you feel justified in calling those people unreasonable, mulish, and unreasonably stubborn, who might object to proposition a and b. This displays no charity on your part in attempting to understand why some might object. It becomes a form of character assassination, and pressure with epithets. You would not appreciate if I or others began to use such language in reverse. These are not private conversations, and more importantly, believing that people are merely unreasonable stubborn mules, even if you don't say so, reduces your ability to understand where they are coming from.
I'm quite sure that I have been involved in creation care of much more significance, quantity and quality, both individually, and in leadership, than yourself, and yet I prefer to be more charitable to those who oppose these propositions. Furthermore, for those who believe that the church is trying to dictate methods, or follow environmental trends, outside of its competence, and outside of its sphere, voting against these propositions may be the only way of doing so at the moment. After all, they are essentially voting against the church adopting the statements, and they might vote against even if they agree with the statements themselves. Yes, your tone was inappropriate, but you don't give me the impression that you truly understand its arrogance, including the implications for others who object but have not registered their objections, nor attended or voted at synod.
Getting past the "tone", I have in the past found it ironic that there have been a number of predictions made that our world cannot sustain certain levels of population ( think Malthus), or that we have a supply of oil that will run out in 1980 (oops, our recoverable energy supplies seem to be increasing) and yet, here we are, producing energy in ways we didn't previously understand, and producing food for a population that is five times as great as Malthus estimated could be sustained. Yes, ghg are an issue, but I suspect we do not understand it completely. Global circulation models do not seem to predict future precipitation trends with any degree of certainty, and only take comfort in greater variability and extreme events.
Environmentalists often worship the environment, as if it was static, or as if it had a soul of its own. The environment (whatever that is) does not care if it gets warmer or colder, or drier or wetter. If there was a glacier covering the Sahara, it would not matter, and if Greenland became a desert, it would not matter to the environment. It has been warmer and colder and drier and wetter in the past. The environment doesn't care if it changes. The environment just is whatever it is. It only matters to people. When we talk about Creation Care, we are really talking about a creation in which we can comfortably live. For that reason, all of creation is important to us, including our ability to drive, to vacation, to use the internet, to take a bath, to pick raspberries, or to eat interesting food that is produced by someone else far away.
We can talk about reducing, sure, within our context. We can reduce 20% of what we expanded last week. But you can't reduce what you don't already have. And if you reduce it completely, then you don't have it at all. Chinese and East Indian and African want to have something first, so then they can have something to reduce as well.
The biggest recent cause of ghg reductions was the recent recession. Are we happy to live in a constant recession economy?
Yes, we can look for ways to reduce energy use, and ghg emissions. We should and we will. But underestimating the costs of doing so is not smart. And overestimating man's role is not smart. Malthus seemed to forget that God created this universe; man didn't create it.
(I hope you don't read this response until Monday...so you can do your Sunday stuff. )
Just a little spiritual thought. Do you realize, that when it comes to entering heaven, to being with Christ, every single one of us is "disabled"? For everyone of us, the step is too high, the doors are too heavy, the doors open the wrong way, and we need help, the help of Jesus, to open the door, make the crooked path straight. When it comes to that, everyone single one of us is handicapped and disabled. Praise the Lord for his Love!!
The government cannot, and probably should not, try to "fix" everything. It is possible for people in some communities to purchase an older mobile home for five thousand dollars, fix it up, and live in it. I personally know non-aboriginal people who have done that. Even upgraded the roof for a cost of about $3000. It's small, and not fancy, but functional. If the only way to solve the housing problem is to build $100,000 or $200,000 homes, which then are not maintained, that's a problem. The point is that some reserves have plenty of money to build and maintain homes, but spend it on the wrong things. In one case, they built an arena and supported an aboriginal hockey team, while a damaged school building remained unrepaired and unused. Some of these reserves have an average income of more than $50,000 per man, woman, child. Certainly government might have some impact on how that money is used, but only by taking more control of finances and management, which is not what the aboriginals want, especially not the chiefs, many of whom have larger salaries than big city mayors, while the average citizen lives in poverty.
The point is that Canada is already aware of all this, and doesn't need the UN to tell them. Nor will the UN provide the reserves with any additional funding or constructive advice. It would be greater benefit if the UN would advise the problem reserves to change their attitudes and priorities; most of the poverty would disappear quickly if this was the case.
But, in general, the poverty in many third world nations makes our reserves look positively wealthy by comparison.
Many people suggest that we should never judge anyone, for only God can judge. And it is true we cannot really be the ultimate judge of the heart. But Jesus said to enter by the narrow gate that leads to life, not the broad gate that leads to destruction. God is judging and will judge. When we bring that to the attention of people, including when others bring that to our attention, we should not be hindering our spiritual admonition and encouragement by using the verse "do not judge" as a weapon to avoid responsibility or admonition.
Scripture itself says that thieves and liars and adulterers and fornicators will not enter the kingdom of heaven. For us to ignore the warnings of scripture under the guise of grace and tolerance, is to prefer the broad gate that leads to destruction. God is an amazingly gracious and loving God. Jesus died for us! Gave His Life! To treat that lightly is to fall into the trap of a dead faith. As the book of James indicates, faith without works is dead, useless. That word "works" includes how we live our life, how we acknowledge God's lordship over our life, including our words, deeds, property, family relationships, sexual activities, and our priorities of how we spend our time and our money.
It is more important to be a "moral police" within the church with those who confess Christ with their mouths, than to attempt to be a moral police for those who deny Christ.
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
I'm with Bill Wald on this one. If the UN had formulated a resolution, or a motion of understanding, that would be one thing. But for the UN to establish unenforceable phony treaties is another. Too many assumed powers which like the Kyoto accord, mean very little or nothing at all. The homeschoolers are perhaps putting a finger in the dyke, where international "law" will begin to dictate to individual states, or where various lobby groups begin to use the UN as their "authority" for things such as the rights of the child, in order to push their particular ungodly agendas, and prevent parents from teaching their own children, for example. In this case potentially denying parents to make decisions for their own disabled children. It won't harm anyone not to adopt this if it has no legal force, and it maintains individual responsibility within those nations who are already doing a superior job of caring for the disabled.
Posted in: Running Together With Our Forefathers
Recently, I have been watching some presentations by John Piper, and sermons by Mark Driscoll. They are addressing and evangelizing the youth. They are somewhat entertaining, but mostly engaging. When you have numerous twenty year olds coming back week after week to listen to an hour long sermon, this might give you a clue as to the difference between entertainment and engagement. Or how an "entertaining" speaker can "engage" the audience. There is probably no formula to this, but young people will be engaged when they are directly challenged in a real way about their faith and lifestyle. And this means that some of them might walk out, because the message is indeed life changing, which they will not all want to do.
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
The validity of UN treaties depends on the intent and impact of the treaties. A treaty that cannot be enforced has little impact. It becomes merely moral suasion. The problem is the influence and power of countries in the UN who do not share christian values. So when a sanction or statement is made against human rights abuses in the USA or Israel it receives UN approval. But when a similar statement is made against human rights abuses in China? or Russia? or Iran? or the PLO? The approval for such sanctions is dependant on the proportion of various values in the UN, as well as economic alliances, possibility of arms sales, etc.
So a "treaty" about care for disabled will be agreed to by those who already care, and by those who feel obligated to agree but have no intentions or ability to make any changes. And a treaty is usually made by different parties in terms of a trade of something. Land for peace, for example. But in this case, what is being exchanged? So it simply becomes a moral statement. But if the moral statement or law includes within it implications that diminish the rights of individual states or individual families to determine the best methods and outcomes for their citizens and family members, then there is the danger of gaining some care for the disabled, while losing freedoms which provided that care in the first place. This is what happened when communism became a moral law, forcing everyone to be equal, but resulting in millions of deaths of ordinary citizens, and the loss of freedoms of belief and speech.
Much better to use moral suasion rather than making moral law an international purview. Education, persuasion, love, caring, all underlined by the Gospel, will have a greater effect than a humanist international "law" or treaty.
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
Another example of UN interference and lack of sense of perspective, was when a UN envoy came to Canada to evaluate the state of aboriginal reserves and living conditions, etc. Canadian aboriginals on reserves receive a higher financial aid per person compared to any other demographic group in Canada. They also are not required to pay any taxes while on the reserves. They also have access to federal and provincial services, including healthcare and education. The UN envoy could have discovered all of this simply by doing a few google searches. Yet this envoy had the temerity and lack of good sense to waste time investigating Canada's care for the aboriginal population, at the cost of ignoring situations in Kenya, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Guatemala, Cuba, Haiti, and many other countries. If this is a signal of priorities, you will not be surprised when a UN envoy comes to investigate disabled access at 2850 Grand Rapids, or the education curriculum for the disabled in Seatle, while ignoring or minimizing issues in India, North Korea, Pakistan, Kurdistan, and Nicaragua.
Posted in: Puzzling about Creation Care--Part 1
I work a bit in the area of climate change adaptation and mitigation, including offsets. So what I am about to say should be taken in that context. I suspect that people voted against proposition "a" because of its implications primarily, not first of all because the statement is absolutely untrue. The implications are that a near consensus means they must be right, and that if human activity is a cause, then human beings must 'fix" it at almost any cost. Proposition "a" says the same thing as proposition "b". So I think they were voting against adopting it as a statement, regardless whether "true" or false. But probably they also disagreed that human beings are having a significant impact.
They might also be disagreeing with statement "b", because while human induced climate change, if real, might be considered to have implications for humans interacting with each other, statement "b" appears to be directed towards the objectives of society and certain environmental extremists and activists. To say that it is religious is to imply that if someone disagrees or does not react, that they are not religious or ethical or just. They would disagree with this assertion. Particularly they would disagree with the proposition that it is a religious issue. Perhaps I could make the analogy that if it is a religious issue, then so was the construction and piloting of the Titanic a religious issue, and so is the construction of the overpass on the nearby highway also a religious issue. It is to say that there is nothing that is not religious, but in the context, what does this mean?...
Finally, I would like to add a side comment that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful, in my opinion. . " "
Posted in: Puzzling about Creation Care--Part 1
I would like to repeat that I find the language used in this post rather insensitive, disrespectful, and unloving. In my mind, it is a personal attack on those who differ. We have had a couple other posters requested to stop posting for their manner of posting. I would suggest the same standard be applied to James Dekker, and that he be asked to stop posting for awhile on this and similar issues, unless and until he discovers the ability to refrain from using such phrases and terms as: "All I can think to say about that is “YIKES.” And pray for reasonableness and something other than mulishness. " and ..."despite unreasoned stubbornness " His phraseology is manipulative and disgraceful and a personal attack, in my opinion, and should not be permitted particularly on a blog post.
It is also important to point out that our idea of creation care is primarily based on its impact on human beings or perception by humans. For that reason, we swat mosquitoes and trap mice and rats and plant fields without compunction. When we highlight the presumed impact of climate change on the poor coastal people who might be displaced by rising sea levels, or those living in warmer tropical zones who might suffer from higher temperatures, droughts, and famine, we also ought to realize the irony of lifting a host of poor people in some countries out of relative poverty into a working middle class or working lower class who now have triple the income and conveniences that they used to have. The “lifting out” from poverty has included increased industrialization, more cars, larger homes, more airconditioning, more processed food, increased meat consumption, and other things that inevitably lead to increased ghg (greenhouse gases).
And as a result, China has now increased its ghg emissions by 9% just last year; India has done much the same.
In wanting to have our cake and eat it too, we ought to have more humility and not to disrespect the opinions of those who disagree with some of the main premises of the debate.
Posted in: Rolling Out a New Perception in the Parking Lot
I love the way you always manage to find new topics Mark, in your perpetual quest for more understanding of those needing a little extra help. The last sentence in your post made me wonder,... why is "handicapped" less acceptable than "disabled". It would seem that having a limit or "cap" on our handiness, might be less demeaning than being "dis" or "un" abled. Perhaps it is not good to get too hung up on it. But I am curious why one and not the other. Will disabled eventually receive some of the same undesireable connotations, and will we have to change that term in the future? Maybe the best term is wheelchair access. This would be good for anyone who needs a smooth gradual surface. Anyway, I appreciate your concerns. Having had some recent surgery, I had problems and great discomfort with steps for a couple days. For a few days I was looking for elevators, even though normally I don't use them unless forced, or more than three floors. Now I'm not allowed to lift much weight for the next few weeks. So there was, and still is a cap on my handiness.
Posted in: Puzzling about Creation Care--Part 1
James, I don't think you are listening very well. The point is not just about your comments to specific people whom I don't know (I have not checked who the objectors are). The point is that you feel justified in calling those people unreasonable, mulish, and unreasonably stubborn, who might object to proposition a and b. This displays no charity on your part in attempting to understand why some might object. It becomes a form of character assassination, and pressure with epithets. You would not appreciate if I or others began to use such language in reverse. These are not private conversations, and more importantly, believing that people are merely unreasonable stubborn mules, even if you don't say so, reduces your ability to understand where they are coming from.
I'm quite sure that I have been involved in creation care of much more significance, quantity and quality, both individually, and in leadership, than yourself, and yet I prefer to be more charitable to those who oppose these propositions. Furthermore, for those who believe that the church is trying to dictate methods, or follow environmental trends, outside of its competence, and outside of its sphere, voting against these propositions may be the only way of doing so at the moment. After all, they are essentially voting against the church adopting the statements, and they might vote against even if they agree with the statements themselves. Yes, your tone was inappropriate, but you don't give me the impression that you truly understand its arrogance, including the implications for others who object but have not registered their objections, nor attended or voted at synod.
Getting past the "tone", I have in the past found it ironic that there have been a number of predictions made that our world cannot sustain certain levels of population ( think Malthus), or that we have a supply of oil that will run out in 1980 (oops, our recoverable energy supplies seem to be increasing) and yet, here we are, producing energy in ways we didn't previously understand, and producing food for a population that is five times as great as Malthus estimated could be sustained. Yes, ghg are an issue, but I suspect we do not understand it completely. Global circulation models do not seem to predict future precipitation trends with any degree of certainty, and only take comfort in greater variability and extreme events.
Environmentalists often worship the environment, as if it was static, or as if it had a soul of its own. The environment (whatever that is) does not care if it gets warmer or colder, or drier or wetter. If there was a glacier covering the Sahara, it would not matter, and if Greenland became a desert, it would not matter to the environment. It has been warmer and colder and drier and wetter in the past. The environment doesn't care if it changes. The environment just is whatever it is. It only matters to people. When we talk about Creation Care, we are really talking about a creation in which we can comfortably live. For that reason, all of creation is important to us, including our ability to drive, to vacation, to use the internet, to take a bath, to pick raspberries, or to eat interesting food that is produced by someone else far away.
We can talk about reducing, sure, within our context. We can reduce 20% of what we expanded last week. But you can't reduce what you don't already have. And if you reduce it completely, then you don't have it at all. Chinese and East Indian and African want to have something first, so then they can have something to reduce as well.
The biggest recent cause of ghg reductions was the recent recession. Are we happy to live in a constant recession economy?
Yes, we can look for ways to reduce energy use, and ghg emissions. We should and we will. But underestimating the costs of doing so is not smart. And overestimating man's role is not smart. Malthus seemed to forget that God created this universe; man didn't create it.
(I hope you don't read this response until Monday...so you can do your Sunday stuff. )
Posted in: Rolling Out a New Perception in the Parking Lot
Just a little spiritual thought. Do you realize, that when it comes to entering heaven, to being with Christ, every single one of us is "disabled"? For everyone of us, the step is too high, the doors are too heavy, the doors open the wrong way, and we need help, the help of Jesus, to open the door, make the crooked path straight. When it comes to that, everyone single one of us is handicapped and disabled. Praise the Lord for his Love!!
Posted in: A Sad Day for People with Disabilities
The government cannot, and probably should not, try to "fix" everything. It is possible for people in some communities to purchase an older mobile home for five thousand dollars, fix it up, and live in it. I personally know non-aboriginal people who have done that. Even upgraded the roof for a cost of about $3000. It's small, and not fancy, but functional. If the only way to solve the housing problem is to build $100,000 or $200,000 homes, which then are not maintained, that's a problem. The point is that some reserves have plenty of money to build and maintain homes, but spend it on the wrong things. In one case, they built an arena and supported an aboriginal hockey team, while a damaged school building remained unrepaired and unused. Some of these reserves have an average income of more than $50,000 per man, woman, child. Certainly government might have some impact on how that money is used, but only by taking more control of finances and management, which is not what the aboriginals want, especially not the chiefs, many of whom have larger salaries than big city mayors, while the average citizen lives in poverty.
The point is that Canada is already aware of all this, and doesn't need the UN to tell them. Nor will the UN provide the reserves with any additional funding or constructive advice. It would be greater benefit if the UN would advise the problem reserves to change their attitudes and priorities; most of the poverty would disappear quickly if this was the case.
But, in general, the poverty in many third world nations makes our reserves look positively wealthy by comparison.
Posted in: God's Referee?
George McGuire, I judge that you have written a well thought out article. Without judgement, there can also be no grace.
Posted in: God's Referee?
Many people suggest that we should never judge anyone, for only God can judge. And it is true we cannot really be the ultimate judge of the heart. But Jesus said to enter by the narrow gate that leads to life, not the broad gate that leads to destruction. God is judging and will judge. When we bring that to the attention of people, including when others bring that to our attention, we should not be hindering our spiritual admonition and encouragement by using the verse "do not judge" as a weapon to avoid responsibility or admonition.
Scripture itself says that thieves and liars and adulterers and fornicators will not enter the kingdom of heaven. For us to ignore the warnings of scripture under the guise of grace and tolerance, is to prefer the broad gate that leads to destruction. God is an amazingly gracious and loving God. Jesus died for us! Gave His Life! To treat that lightly is to fall into the trap of a dead faith. As the book of James indicates, faith without works is dead, useless. That word "works" includes how we live our life, how we acknowledge God's lordship over our life, including our words, deeds, property, family relationships, sexual activities, and our priorities of how we spend our time and our money.
It is more important to be a "moral police" within the church with those who confess Christ with their mouths, than to attempt to be a moral police for those who deny Christ.