The expression, righteous indignation, is often used to indentify actions aimed at correcting an injustice of somehow righting a wrong. The expression brings to mind the emotions and actions of the morally and ethically upright person in response to the actions of the morally and ethically inferior. Such a reaction from the righteous man is seen as his moral responsibility and duty. In this vein, to express righteous indignation in word and deed is the mark of good men. Under this principle, no opportunity to condemn the perceived unrighteousness of another can go unmarked without forsaking one’s own identity as a good man. We see this kind of thinking demonstrated in countless ways within our so called Christian society.
Without argument, the ability to judge and condemn another requires a sense of superiority. That sense superiority can be derived in many ways: superior birth, personal wealth, education, or religious affiliation. In any case, that feeling of superiority, with the accompanying ability to judge others, involves personal assumptions about what constitutes an elevated moral status. These personal assumptions form the basis for a self imposed righteousness. In other words, when one assumes moral superiority, it can only be an act of self righteousness.
The idea of a subset of humanity being morally superior to all others is totally unsupported by the teachings of Jesus. Instead of so called righteous indignation being a requirement of every righteous man, such practice is in reality a denial of the message of Jesus to mankind.