The Justice Of Harshness

The subjective offensiveness of some displays of harshness should not be taken as confirmation that the harshness in question is demeaning or unjustified.  Harshness not equate to injustice or oppression by default, although theological conservatives and liberals alike only affirm this selectively at best.  It is far easier to simply condone whatever harshness subjectively strikes oneself as legitimate and demonize the rest than it is to critically investigate the subject.

Although they make some people uncomfortable or offend their subjective emotions, harsh words and harsh actions are not automatically immoral; they are only immoral if they are unjust by means of either being unmerited (i.e. undeserved) or being harsher than a situation calls for (again, this would make the specific instance of harshness unjust).  Harshness itself is not Biblically immoral, and the fact that people have to appeal to a misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings in order to argue the opposite reveals their inability to prove their stance.

Ironically, the Jesus of the New Testament has no objections to irately overturning the tables of corrupt sellers, fiercely condemning legalists with his words, and slaughtering the wicked upon his return.  Jesus does perform acts of kindness, yes, but they are not the only acts ascribed to him in the gospels and in Revelation.  To say that we should imitate the situational, supererogatory kindness of Jesus and intentionally not imitate his harshness is to forsake one aspect of Christ's behaviors while elevating another to a place it does not hold.

Kindness is not the arbiter of morality, for that role can be fulfilled by justice alone.  One is Biblically obligated to defend the oppressed not because doing so is kind, but because it is just, because the status of bearing God's image entails having certain human rights (outlined in Mosaic Law).  The kindness of the act is a secondary benefit at most.  Indeed, the kindness of the act is irrelevant in one sense--even if doing what is just turned out to require that one do that which is unkind, an obligation to be just would not vanish.

It is thus a sign of intellectual incompetence when a person thinks that anyone who is the recipient of harshness is being wronged.  The situation, motives of the one inflicting the harshness, and type of harshness being inflicted determine if someone is being mistreated.  It is not as if everyone who receives harsh treatment is the victim of injustice, no matter how offended some observers might be.  Rather, harshness can be a legitimate indicator of righteous anger and a just response.

Logic, people.  It is very fucking helpful.