AITA for feeling torn between justice for mistreated people, a desire for diversity, but also a dislike for spiritism of any sort albeit Abrahamic or otherwise?
I mean, since you posed the question like that, I respond in kind: yes, YTA.
You’re welcome to disagree with religion. You’re welcome to dislike spirituality. That’s fine and cool and reasonable.
What you should not do is look at an injustice perpetrated on a group of people and think “well, I disagree with those people’s beliefs, and therefore I don’t care if they suffer injustice”. People you disagree with deserve justice. Stupid people deserve justice. Bad people deserve justice. Just treatment is not a privilege you earn by having the right beliefs and views.
Really, justice is as much a duty as it is a right. If you hold power, you have a duty to use that power in a just fashion, to treat others justly, to oppose injustice as it occurs, and to do recompense for past injustice you have done to others. It shouldn’t matter whether the victim of injustice is a sinner or a saint. It is your duty to treat them justly either way.
And when it comes to restoring land to Native American tribes, it doesn’t matter if members of those tribes are good people or bad people, rationalists or superstitious, saints or sinners - it matters that their ancestors were victims of injustice at the hands of the United States government, and we the people have a duty to right that injustice.
So you can hold those beliefs simultaneously: a dislike for spirituality and a desire for justice for mistreated people. But if you are torn by those two beliefs - if you believe a particular group of mistreated people is less worthy of justice because you disagree with their spiritual beliefs - I think your dislike for spirituality is becoming prejudice against spiritual people, and that’s not good at all.
See this is why I like to talk and ask this kind of thing. I agree with you and your perspective. I mentioned it because I really don’t know how I feel on the subject. I speak to my hesitation; not from my actionable stance.
I still struggle with the idea of validating stupidity and the long term implications that will cause in the future. Like monarchy, under the right person and circumstances is great. The problem is that it is impossible to deal with the succession crisis successfully as history has proven. Equality only works when it is kept in balance with a meritocracy to some extent, lest we elect a government full of mental health patients in the name of equality. On the level of nature itself, we are not actually equal. Our relative differences are usually minor, but we are not all leaders in a respective academic field. Are there positive outcomes that result from placing people of dubious capability in charge of such things?
Like ages ago I had a car break down in the middle of New Mexico on an Indian reservation. People were super nice and helpful, but that place was in terrible shape. I can’t help but think they would be far better off if they had much better opportunities that bridged the past and present. Something like free rides in education and tax breaks for employers that hire Native Americans.
I still feel like placing feelings above fundamental logic skills is a path with no future. I don’t believe in giving a flat earther a seat at a science conference. Do you?
I mean, since you posed the question like that, I respond in kind: yes, YTA.
You’re welcome to disagree with religion. You’re welcome to dislike spirituality. That’s fine and cool and reasonable.
What you should not do is look at an injustice perpetrated on a group of people and think “well, I disagree with those people’s beliefs, and therefore I don’t care if they suffer injustice”. People you disagree with deserve justice. Stupid people deserve justice. Bad people deserve justice. Just treatment is not a privilege you earn by having the right beliefs and views.
Really, justice is as much a duty as it is a right. If you hold power, you have a duty to use that power in a just fashion, to treat others justly, to oppose injustice as it occurs, and to do recompense for past injustice you have done to others. It shouldn’t matter whether the victim of injustice is a sinner or a saint. It is your duty to treat them justly either way.
And when it comes to restoring land to Native American tribes, it doesn’t matter if members of those tribes are good people or bad people, rationalists or superstitious, saints or sinners - it matters that their ancestors were victims of injustice at the hands of the United States government, and we the people have a duty to right that injustice.
So you can hold those beliefs simultaneously: a dislike for spirituality and a desire for justice for mistreated people. But if you are torn by those two beliefs - if you believe a particular group of mistreated people is less worthy of justice because you disagree with their spiritual beliefs - I think your dislike for spirituality is becoming prejudice against spiritual people, and that’s not good at all.
See this is why I like to talk and ask this kind of thing. I agree with you and your perspective. I mentioned it because I really don’t know how I feel on the subject. I speak to my hesitation; not from my actionable stance.
I still struggle with the idea of validating stupidity and the long term implications that will cause in the future. Like monarchy, under the right person and circumstances is great. The problem is that it is impossible to deal with the succession crisis successfully as history has proven. Equality only works when it is kept in balance with a meritocracy to some extent, lest we elect a government full of mental health patients in the name of equality. On the level of nature itself, we are not actually equal. Our relative differences are usually minor, but we are not all leaders in a respective academic field. Are there positive outcomes that result from placing people of dubious capability in charge of such things?
Like ages ago I had a car break down in the middle of New Mexico on an Indian reservation. People were super nice and helpful, but that place was in terrible shape. I can’t help but think they would be far better off if they had much better opportunities that bridged the past and present. Something like free rides in education and tax breaks for employers that hire Native Americans.
I still feel like placing feelings above fundamental logic skills is a path with no future. I don’t believe in giving a flat earther a seat at a science conference. Do you?