I recently attended a medical conference hosted by the Christian Medical Fellowship of New Zealand. As the name suggests, it’s a conference of medical and health professionals who come together to discuss health matters, primarily from a Christian perspective. So think lots of doctors, nurses, carers, bioethicists, chaplains, medical students, and many more.
It was quite humbling to attend and engage. I was primarily there with my bioethics hat on, as well as my interest in conscience rights and free speech. It was sitting down in small groups with doctors and nurses, listening to their frontline experiences, that was most profound. These are people with deep compassion and care, huge experience and knowledge, as well as deeply held convictions. The interplay between these are not always easy, for example a single doctor practice in a rural area being asked to go against their conscience on particular issues, and how they grapple and manage this for both the care of their patient and self.
What struck me most though was how they approached the various issues - with careful consideration, much angst, an appreciation of nuance, varying responsibilities, and more.
In contrast, there are many in society who only see issues in black and white, who love cheap slogans, and tolerate no dissent from their views. They are the cancel culture crowd, the protestors who physically act to stop others speaking, the activists who decry and scream rather than debate and consider. They are zealots and revolutionaries.
What struck me most though was how they approached the various issues - with careful consideration, much angst, an appreciation of nuance, varying responsibilities, and more.
In contrast, there are many in society who only see issues in black and white, who love cheap slogans, and tolerate no dissent from their views. They are the cancel culture crowd, the protestors who physically act to stop others speaking, the activists who decry and scream rather than debate and consider. They are zealots and revolutionaries.
Paradoxically, we tolerate these zealots while they do not tolerate us. I might hold strong views on issues, but I am always willing to engage and enquire further. The zealot never does - they require 120% agreement or else you are to be ignored, cancelled, or derided.
Yet what we also observe is a society that leans more into the sloganeering of zealots than the nuanced musings of the more considered in society. The doctor or ethicist considering the nuances of conscience rights is ignored in favour of the zealous patient yelling into media ‘give me what I want, now’.
How might we respond to this? In asking the question, I must admit I do not have an answer. Meeting zealotry with zealotry is a recipe for disaster. This is not just speculative for we have history to look back on. As I noted to a number of doctors, bioethicists, and the historically and philosophically minded over the weekend - the Western world went through an extraordinarily violent time during the Late Middle Ages and through the Reformation, where zealots on each side fought to a bloody standstill. In fact, the fighting over matters of faith and politics only ended when both sides recognised there was no victory, just ongoing violence. It’s a lesson that many in the Middle East could learn from.
Yet on the other hand, how long can the considered approach tolerate loses to the sloganeering zealots? We have all seen (as certainly I did in politics) how emotive statements appear to trump reasoned viewpoints; how feelings appear more important than logic. Even today, questions around the likes of pay equity, co-governance, and gender issues are reduced to emotive reactions and rarely considered reason.
I take hope though. I remain a great believer that there is truth and that we can work towards a deeper understanding of what this is - never fully grasping it, but slowly developing our understanding of what is right and wrong. Like the doctors and nurses I spoke to who were grappling with nuances of their work, I think we remain best served by seeking what is right even if we are assailed by many questions and doubts.
This may appear fragile in the face of zealotry, but it is strength in the long run.
Simon O'Connor a former National MP graduated from the University of Auckland with a Bachelor of Arts in Geography and Political Studies . Simon blogs at On Point - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people people so full of doubts". Bertrand Russell, 20th century philosopher. Take note, all those who scream, shout and wave placards.
The same explanations apply to Maori protesters.
They, like many other protest individuals, follow the crowd while having little or no knowledge or understanding of what they protest.
They are easily manipulated to do the bidding of those less inclined to front the protest.
It may be worth pondering that today’s political systems seem to be specifically designed to eliminate thoughtful, broad, objective consideration. The core problem seems to be the establishment and progressive worsening behaviour of political parties. Conflict is eye-catching, shouting is more entertaining to the mob than reasoned debate. Political parties are the poison flowing in our national arteries. We are in dire need of a suitable alternative.
Post a Comment