Radicalism sucks.
With each passing year, the gap widens between varying mindsets. Politics and religion are just a few of the topics we're willing to embrace martyrdom for. Complete devotion has become the only acceptable way to participate in society, forcing everyone into extremist camps to avoid being branded as “disconnected,” “unsympathetic" or “indifferent.”
Context aside, the rules remain unchanged: you either fight for a side or you forfeit your voice.
Group Polarization, a cancer that slowly infests.
In order to create change, we must be revolutionaries - rebels with a cause. But, must revolutionaries abandon balance in the process? When did we decide that true advocacy can't take middle ground?
To be fair, tolerance is a slippery slope. If we're not careful, we'll ebb and flow with the changing tides. Tides are extremely inconsistent, constantly adapting based on environmental stressors: typography, gravitational forces, Earth's rotation, depth of water, etc. We don't want to emulate this instability; instead, we should be consistent and unwavering in our dedication to compromise.
Compromise requires a keen understanding of shortcomings on both sides and a thoughtful recognition of where consensus can be found. It's living in the tension of both public advocacy and private morality.
This tension demands sacrifice. Yet, when opposing forces meet, their union can yield something far greater, like converging waves forming a surge of twice their original strength.
Because political and moral aggression are often driven by a subjective and inconsistent conviction of “what’s right,” hypocrisy becomes the inevitable means to justify the end - a destabilizing effort, much like the erratic flow of water.
As a result, quality of life begins to suffer, people die, power-hungry moguls gain more power and become more hungry. We save the babies and turn a blind eye to the orphans. We fight for women's equality and ignore racial injustice. We send money to Africa and forget war-torn Syria.
What a twisted sense of justice.
If religious motivation hinges on the question, “What Would Jesus Do?” we must first ask: which version of Jesus are we invoking?
Candidly speaking, Jesus was the antithesis of a tyrant. He wasn’t driven by a thirst for political power or the dismantling of regimes. Instead, he was deeply personal, an individualist who cared profoundly about the overlooked and marginalized. He focused on a woman drawing water at a well, shunned by her community, or those burdened by incurable illnesses, living lives of quiet desperation. In these intimate, transformative encounters, people were changed.
It wasn't about the processes. It wasn't about the agendas or the notoriety.
Similarly, Mother Teresa, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1979, dedicated her life to this same mission. She eschewed extremism, choosing instead to love with unwavering objectivity and compassion.
Not much is gained from the lonely road of radicalism. It's a stark and empty place.
Conflict creates divide that is impassable. Hate drives anger that is unavoidable. Pride destroys humility that was once teachable.
Even the most remarkable achievements in humanitarian history have been accomplished through unity. Whether it was unity in opposition to oppressive constructs or unity in pursuit of a shared vision, the power of coming together has always been the cornerstone of progress.
Progress is the attraction that moves humanity. - Marcus Garvey
