On Equality…
Equality – the state or quality of equivalence; correspondence in quantity, degree, value, rank, or ability.
All things equal (pun intended), I think equality should stand for fairness for everybody.
According to my society, I’d be wrong.
I tend to interpret equality to mean that ALL people are equal. This means they are equal in ALL things, and in ALL of the negative and positive ways.
I have entered many a debate (several within the past couple of days, in fact) with an “-ist” of one type or another. These people are very passionate, I’ll give them that. Unfortunately, they are also too extreme to have any realistic perspective or input on the topic. The reason I frequently end up with people yelling and cursing at me is that I see and point out the ways the proponents of a belief set act exactly like the “oppressors” they are so passionately against.
I do see that this is human nature – to find the behavior of others appalling and then go on a crusade (sometimes literally) to abolish this perceived injustice.
Also a part of human nature: going too far.
Someone once told me, “180 degrees from wrong is still wrong.” At the time, I had no idea what that meant – that statement makes no sense when one is trying to become “better” than what they are.
But, applied to societal structures, I understand the meaning now – extreme opposites may look and sound different, but they are both extreme.
Most people are not extreme in their beliefs or behaviors. To embrace a new set of beliefs does not mean one must completely refuse any aspect of the “old” beliefs. As such, most people end up with morals or beliefs that fit somewhere between the extremes.
A lot of people I know are open to discussing their beliefs in a neutral way and are able to concede that some of their ideas were founded in misinformation or blind zealotry. But, I also see that there are many people who cannot see how their over-exuberant ways injure their cause.
I think what bothers me the most is to see the moderates who have been swayed in a certain direction by zealots become uncomfortable voicing their true feelings on a topic so that the zealot might still think they are ‘acceptable’.
Why can’t everyone be acceptable, even when they disagree with you?
I don’t like the idea that certain belief sets are given more “power” than others – as if anyone who believes these things is somehow special or more knowledgeable or righteous.
I don’t like the idea that people who do not stray from their moderation are ridiculed and prodded and pressured into becoming zealots – and they don’t really even notice because they get swept up in the euphoria of ‘acceptance’.
In extreme cases, where one’s identity becomes inseparable from the belief, we start to see cult-like behavior – no original thought processes are acceptable. Though rare, this does happen, and usually with disastrous results. (This is a real phenomena, I’d urge you to look further into the Heaven’s Gate cult members and their activities prior to and during their cult life. You can find video recordings of these people.)
Usually, though, this just surfaces in a passive-aggressive way – people taking sides in what was intended to be a normal conversation. This escalates the situation to a heated debate, then folks start calling names and it dissolves into an argument that may or may not spill into ‘real life’ by affecting relationships.
I wonder, though, why it causes such fear to be presented with an alternate viewpoint?
I mean, I understand the need to defend one’s own beliefs… But, at the same time, if the belief set is so great, why would one be offended by a challenge to its logic or implementation?
I guess what I am really getting at is – How come it’s unacceptable for opinions to evolve?
I feel like we’re supposed to be stuck into one particular pattern of belief that can be easily defined and addressed. To stray outside of that pattern is to become, essentially, a target for the zealots.
And that just does not feel like the way it’s “supposed to be”. I feel really disturbed when I think about treating someone who thinks a different way than me as a lesser being. I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that it’s Okay to control other humans by preying on their emotions (specifically guilt and fear) to gain allegiance.
Why is it so important that we must assign ourselves to one rigid identity? Why can’t we live with multiple – potentially conflicting – identities that speak to who we truly are and what our spirits truly feel?
I feel like we would all understand one another much better if we learned to understand that we are all in this together. I feel like there is so much that could be learned if people just stopped pressing and pressuring for a few moments and listened to the hearts of other humans.
I don’t even know if that is possible for most people to comprehend or to do, but I still think it would be a great achievement if people could learn to see and listen to other humans as mutually important and equal humans.
That would be heaven.
Perhaps that’s the point?