Which is better?

I am always intrigued by people's ideas of what constitutes right or wrong behaviors. Some folks vehemently outline what is acceptable moral behavior using language and sentiments that negates all the goodness of their intentions. Others allow anything but are critical of anyone who behaves in different ways than they do. Still others call on the authority of God to drive home their conceptions of what is right and wrong. Dyed hair--God doesn't like it. That kind of music? God is offended by it. Wierd dress? God thinks it is dishonorable. In fact, God has, in the Bible, said very little about a number of issues that people become combative about. There are only inferences about some issues, and one has to apply principles of godly conduct to them graciously. So many grey areas, so little direct communication about them.
Or, Bible readers select a clear directive--"Thou shalt not kill"--and ignore equally clear, more frequent injunctions in scripture: "Be slow to speak and slow to anger, for you are on earth and God is in heaven."
It is therefore not surprising that every person has his or her notion of what they will allow for themselves and others. No, not allow--privilege. While one may go after another person for using foul language, that same individual might speak in a caustic manner, or behave as though they are without a shred of redemptive feelings toward the offender. Which is better? Who is superior in the final analysis?

One morning, I had breakfast with friends. As Marge poured a cup of coffee for herself, Johnnie, her husband turned to me and said, "I was raised in a household that never drank coffee. It's really bad for your vascular system. I don't like it when Marge drinks it."
Marge looked straight ahead and brought her coffee cup to her lips. "Mmmm. That's good" she murmured.
Johnnie sighed and turned to me again. "You see, I don't force Marge to stop drinking it, but she knows how I feel about it."
Marge looked at me and rolled her eyes. "He doesn't let me forget how he feels about coffee!" she laughed.
Johnnie fell silent, eating his scrambled eggs.
"If this is the worst thing I do, then I'm doin' pretty well, right?" she asked us both.
I understand this concern. Sam drinks coffee and I don't. But then, I eat lots of sugar and Sam doesn't. Which is better?
I should not have been shocked later in the day, when Johnnie and Marge drove off to a winery for wine tasting. I did not approve of that, but then, I'm overweight and eat too much. Which is better? Would it be better for me to have a glass of wine once in awhile and eat more sensibly? How can I point at these friends when I make decisions that are equally as unhelpful to myself or others?
It seems that when we forget that we are uneven in our application of principles, or that we may unwittingly engage in hurtful behavior defending our right to think, feel, or behave in the ways that we privilege, something vital is negated.

On the way to work each week, I pass an abortion clinic. Parked outside is a van with placards of disemboweled babies and fetal fragments--all in disturbing, bloodstained color. One underdeveloped baby's facial expression is burned into my memory. There is usually one or two senior citizens kneeling on the sidewalk in prayer outside of the clinic, whilst girls and their significant others try to walk around them and in the front door.
I am deeply disturbed by this. The clinic in question is what may correctly be called an abortion mill. From reports I have heard, the practitioners do a poor job of offering counseling or alternative services to their patients. But this is not a post about whether or not abortion is a good thing or not. It is of note, that the individuals who are kneeling outside the abortion clinic have partisan slogans and decals written all over their vehicle under the placards. The party they support has cut the vast majority of funding for drug treatment services for women with children. And of course, if women don't have money for drugs, they prostitute themselves, get pregnant and need abortions. If poor women are in need of food and there is a no-gooder who will at least feed her and her children, of course sex enters the mix. So do unwanted pregnancies.
This is not to say that women can't or shouldn't get free birth control at the local public health clinic. They could do that, but don't, for whatever reason.
My point is this: is it better to make a spectacle outside of an abortion clinic, or to do something proactive to actually offer help to the women who come in and out of the doors? Is it better to accuse self-righteously on the one hand, while with the other hand, money is being voted out of programs that could assist these women? And another issue: if these protesters are as pro-life as they state they are, why aren't they doing something about all the living children whose lives are threatened every single day by abuse, poverty, gangs? Why aren't they in East Los Angeles in the barrios? What about pro-life child abuse warriors? What about pro-life elder abuse preventers? What are these people doing to improve life that already exists? Isn't there something that these protesters could do that would be more gracious in some way? I understand shock techniques, but these seldom work to secure longterm changes in people.

Which is better? For me to disdain such praying protesters, to avert my eyes as I drive past their hideous placards, to say nothing, do nothing, have nothing to show for my strong feelings? Or is it better to try to make a difference by impacting families and children in trouble? Is there a better? Who decides?

Hard questions, all.