Misinformation, Disinformation, and The Truth

We are increasingly becoming a society intolerant of dissent. Ironically, this is a result of what some have celebrated as ‘casting off the shackles’ of that apparently intolerant faith of Christianity. People who criticise the exclusivity of Christ’s claim to be the way the truth and the life are quite happy to claim exclusive truth themselves. Instead of Christ being the way the truth and the life and bringing individual freedom, we now have a State controlled by ‘experts’ who dictate from their daily podium of truth the way the truth and the life for us plebs.

Take the COVID-19 vaccine. Before anyone accuses me of being an anti-vaxxer, I am not. I have had vaccines and will continue to do so. However, question the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine as a layperson, or wonder whether that in the unholy rush of getting it to the public it is as safe as other vaccines, and dare to post such a sentiment on Facebook and the unbiased arbiters of truth will post little notes under your post giving everyone the ‘facts’. All impartial and neutral of course.

It’s worse if you are a doctor and you object to the vaccine. Speak out against it because you feel it might not be the best thing for some of your patients and you could lose your job.

Case 1: Dr Matthew Shelton

A recent case is Dr Matthew Shelton who texted his patients about the vaccine. His text read

“Hi —, your GP Dr Matt here. I cannot in conscience support of Covid vaccination of particularly, children, and pregnant and fertile women, from my assessment of current risks and benefits.”

And later on:

“All to make their best own decision. I apologise for any distress. My views are my own, not the consensus. PMC will continue with roll-out invites”

This has landed him in hot water after a few of his patients objected to the text. He has now had his contract terminated and is under investigation by the Medical Council. The media reports on it were barely veiled propaganda. We were informed that one of his patients thought he was a bit odd. We are told that he has no evidence to back up his claims. This is rubbish. He belongs to New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science, a group of New Zealand doctors and dentists who are concerned about the vaccine rollout in New Zealand. This group has clear reasons and evidence to back up their concerns. We have the Health and Disabilities Commissioner claiming there is no place for ‘ inadequate or non-evidence-based information in professional health practice’ and that doctors ought to give ‘full and accurate information.” All a shoddy and pathetic attempt to blacken this doctor’s name. It’s his interpretation of the evidence that has led Shelton to send the text in question.

Case 2: Former Taranaki radiologist Peter Canaday

Next we have Peter Canaday who had the temerity to give public talks on Covid-19 and continued with an online video during the lockdown. Our ever compliant and government whore media helpfully told us what to think about this. Without allowing us to see the claims of the video, (although another media source had a point by point rebuttal of the video here) we are told that the scientists (you know people with white coats who know everything) they spoke to said the “claims were either completely false, not backed up with strong evidence or impossible to verify.“ Isn’t it strange they couldn’t find anyone to express an alternative opinion? Scientists all completely agree though, so nothing to see here, move on.

The Medical Council of New Zealand is reported as saying regarding this case, “There is no place for anti-vaccination messages in professional practice, nor any promotion of anti-vaccination claims including on social media and advertising by health practitioners.” Then we have prominent ‘experts’ warning that those spreading ‘misinformation’ (presumably anything that differs from the mainstream narrative) should be sacked. This seems to effectively mean that no doctor can question this vaccine. How is that scientific? How is that protecting the public? And people complain about the church shutting down Galileo! What if these guys have a point? Shouldn’t it be able to be discussed and debated without the threat of lost livelihoods?

Summary

Now whether Shelton and others at NZDSOS are right or not, I don’t know. I am no doctor. They may be exactly what they are presented as – eccentric kooks. What concerns me is that there can only be one truth and anyone who disagrees with that state-endorsed truth will be threatened with public vilification and losing their job.

Without underplaying the significance of deaths from this virus, what should we be more afraid of? A virus that has killed 0.7% of New Zealanders who have been confirmed to have the virus (and these mainly the very elderly and the very sick), or a virus that requires complete submission and unity of thought and paves the way for totalitarianism. I know which I’d rather risk.

Blasphemy and the New god Tolerance

Cancel culture. Outrage. Twitter mob. Disinvited. Doxing. This is the world we now live in. One false move and you could be history. The mob could be unleashed and your family and workplace targeted. So what do you do? You shut up and make sure to the best of your ability you don’t say certain things out loud, or at least not outside of certain ‘safe’ acquaintances.

Image by Robin Higgins from Pixabay 

Blasphemy is not a common word these days. But amongst religious people, some knowledge of the concept still exists. When I was growing up, I was taught never to say, “Oh my God!” as an exclamation, and “Jesus Christ!” would have certainly been frowned upon. Not so much today.

What you can or can’t say tells you a lot about the faith of a people. Refusal to say God’s name in an irreverent manner, or to use Jesus as a swear word, indicates an acknowledgement of the worth and value of God and his Son Christ. It is to acknowledge that God exists and that He is special and deserving of reverence and awe. Further, it is an acknowledgement that God rules through his Son Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords, and that that Son will judge every human being for every idle word they have spoken.

Despite the word blasphemy having fallen from common use, we still have the concept in our modern world. We now use the term ‘hate speech’. This is speech that offends our modern sensibilities. What counts as blasphemy indicates the object of a society’s worship. Yes, modern though we be, our society still worships. So what do the new blasphemies tell us? They tell us we have replaced the Lord of all with a new false god whose name is Tolerance.

And the strange thing about this new god is that unlike the LORD God, Tolerance’s rules are endless and onerous. One thing we can no longer safely say is “men aren’t women“! This is modern blasphemy. Thou shalt not deny that gender is a social construct, for Tolerance thy god shall not hold him/her/zir/xer guiltless who denies this.

But Tolerance is a difficult god to serve. One can know where one stands with the LORD God. He at least is the same yesterday, today and forever. Tolerance, on the other hand, is fickle. Fifteen years ago, it was permissible, and even redundant to state ‘men aren’t women’. Today it is evil. And unfortunately for his/her/zirs/xyrs servants, Tolerance’s changes in morality are retroactively applied. Woe betide any servant of Tolerance whose past behaviour, despite being morally acceptable at the time, is found in the future to be sinful. They shall never enter his/her/zirs/xyrs rest. One cannot go to Tolerance’s throne of grace and apply for mercy because there is no throne of grace, only judgment in our time of need.

It’s a strange thing that our god Tolerance is not very patient with our failures. In fact, he/she/xe/ze seems rather intolerant.

The Rise of a ‘New Tolerance’

The Rise of a ‘New Tolerance’ – your beliefs and my beliefs are equal and all truth is relative, however there are some exceptions!

The ‘New Tolerance’ movement, aka diversity and inclusiveness, has a religious fervour all of its own. There is a creed and those who refuse to worship at its altar are branded as intolerant, fanatical, bigoted people who are a danger to society. This new age tolerance goes far beyond the traditional definition and use of the word. The dictionary defines the word tolerate as ‘recognising and respecting others’ beliefs, practices etc. without necessarily sharing or agreeing with them. Another definition describes tolerate as ‘to allow something, even if it is not your practice or something you like’. Traditional tolerance involves respecting and protecting legitimate rights of others even those with whom you disagree and those who are different from you.

Today, however, ‘new tolerance’ teaches that all beliefs, values, lifestyles and truth claims are equal. Apparently it is now not enough to uphold another person’s right to believe or say what he thinks is true. It is not enough just to allow another person to disagree with what you believe or do. The new creed of tolerance demands that you must agree that another person’s beliefs are just as valid as your own.

According to this new doctrine, in order to be truly tolerant you must give your approval, your endorsement, your sincere support to their beliefs and behaviour. (Of course some people’s convictions don’t count, for example one particular rugby player’s views.) The agenda behind making all behaviours equally valid and praiseworthy stems from today’s current multicultural mindset. Today it is all about diversity and inclusiveness. The argument goes that there are a lot of people on the margins of society because of their ethnicity, class, gender or sexual orientation and therefore we must validate their experiences. This may mean endorsing homosexuality, abortion, misogyny, or other behaviours that might be abhorrent to you. Not to do so (particularly if you are a Christian) is to risk being labelled a narrow minded bigot, an extremist and hatemonger. Do you see the irony here? These adherents of the ‘new tolerance’ doctrine want us to accept that all beliefs and behaviours are equal; unless of course your beliefs and values are not part of today’s popular politically correct culture!

The ‘new tolerance’ has created an environment in which people can no longer express disagreement with others’ beliefs, for fear of being branded intolerant and promoting so called ‘hate speech’. We need to be clear about this: that there is an agenda, and it is important in a so called free society, to remove the veil that shrouds this dangerous cultural ‘new tolerance’ movement.

The real problem with ‘new tolerance’ is that it makes no distinction between who a person is and what a person does. Therefore ‘who I am’ is inseparable from ‘what I do, think and believe’. It is my identity, and if anybody expresses disagreement with my beliefs, they are judging me, criticizing me and disparaging me. They are criticizing my very identity, the core and essence of my being and who I am as a person. A classic example of this is the relatively recent dispute involving a Christian cake shop owner and a homosexual couple wanting a wedding cake for their upcoming ‘marriage’. Masterpiece Cake shop owner, Jack Phillips, refused to make a wedding cake saying “Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same sex weddings”. A lengthy on-going legal battle followed.

There are ominous implications that come with this ‘new age tolerance’. The first casualty is truth itself. We often hear, in today’s debates, such statements as; – “No one has the right to tell me what is right and what is wrong”, “It is wrong to impose your morals on someone else”, “Look … that is just your opinion”. Under this new regime all truth claims have equal merit; they are just relative and subjective. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ differ from person to person and from culture to culture.

‘New tolerance’ means we are witnessing the diminishing value of virtue. Such things as honour and integrity, respect, humility and compassion have become less important and without meaning in a culture dominated by individualism and the new creed of tolerance. If all truth claims are equal, who can say that humility is more acceptable than arrogance and that honesty is better than a lie?

‘New tolerance’ also leads to a lack of conviction. If you accept the mantra that everyone’s beliefs and truth claims are equal, that there is no truth more ‘true’ than any other truth, then you are just left shrugging your shoulders rather than standing up for your convictions. This is a sad state of affairs for New Zealand as a democratic nation, where we are supposed to value and protect the freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

I am like many New Zealanders; I have strong beliefs and convictions about right and wrong, truth and error. You see, I am a Christian and, like many Bible believing Christians, I feel marginalized under this ‘new tolerance’ creed. What am I to do? Well I am called to be ‘an ambassador for Christ’, sharing the truth of God’s love and forgiveness in Christ for mankind. I am called as a follower of Christ to imitate his example. Traditional biblical tolerance demonstrates a loving acceptance of people as individuals, while not necessarily accepting their beliefs or behaviour.

At the heart of the gospel message is God’s love and grace toward His creation and His call to repentance and faith for all people and all nations.