The word "Radical" comes from the Latin word for "roots." A "radical" is a person who:
- holds or follows strong convictions or extreme principles; extremist.
- advocates fundamental political, economic, and social reforms by direct and often uncompromising methods.
What are the "roots" to which a "radical" seeks to return? The Constitution? The Articles of Confederation? British monarchy? The Lex Mercatoria? Unalienable rights in a "state of nature?"
"Radical" is also "pejorative," meaning it is usually used by one's opponent to cast aspersions on one's position.
I am proud to be a "radical," a "fundamentalist," an "extremist," and even a "bigot."
¿Who is more radical:
• A person who wants to "restore the Constitution" or
• A person who wants to abolish the Constitution altogether.
Consider:
Imagine today is March 5, 1789. Yesterday the new government under the Constitution went into effect. As an anarchist, I would call for the complete abolition of this new government and repeal of the entire Constitution. Wow! Is that "radical" or what? That would entail the firing of over 900 people, and cutting several thousand dollars in government spending. ( Patrick Henry and George Mason would already be on board! )
In 2007, there are people calling for "the restoration of Constitutional government." They do not call for abolishing the Constitution; they support the Constitution and want all unconstitutional government repealed. Imagine the change! "Restoring Constitutional government" today would involve firing tens of millions of people and cutting trillions of dollars!! This would require more education, more conversions, more regenerated hearts, more transformed worldviews, and a whole lot more footwork than convincing every American in 1789 to abolish entirely the federal government as it then existed.
But these people are called "conservatives" and I am considered the "radical" because I'm an "anarchist."
2 comments:
Kevin said,
Followers of Kali thuggism, Joseph Smith polygamy, or Huitzilopochtli human sacrifice, were all denied their "religious freedom" because, the Court said, this is a "Christian nation."
I am not sure how "Joseph Smith polygamy" differs from normal polygamy, but I don't see how that should deny one of a religious freedom. Unless I am understanding Scripture wrong, polygamy isn't a sin. It might preclude one from being an elder or deacon in the church, but surely not a member of society.
Thanks for the comment, Kaleb.
For any reader who might be confused, your quote came from my post "Hindu Prayers in the Senate." My point in that post was that the modern doctrine of "separation of church and state" really means "separation of God and govenrment," which is completely contrary to the core beliefs of every single Signer of the Constitution. They all believed our government had to be "under God," not separate from God.
"Joseph Smith polygamy" differs from normal ("secular," or "atheistic") polygamy in that practitioners of "Joseph Smith polygamy" claim that their polygamy is a required part of their religion. Since it's part of their religion, they wanted the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn laws in the Utah Territory which were against polygamy. Perhaps there should not have been such laws, but most Christians in those days believed there should be such laws. The Supreme Court said that America is a Christian nation, and Christian nations have always made polygamy a crime.
The Court also mentioned "thuggism" as practiced by worshippers of Kali. Atheistic thugs don't claim that robbing people is a religious obligation. Kali worshippers do. But they don't get religious freedom to observe the "sacraments" of their "religion" in the U.S. because this is a Christian nation.
Notice that the Court said Christians get to impose their morality on other religions. There was no such thing as "separation of church and state" as we know it today.
Surely you don't believe that followers of Kali should be allowed to mug people, or that followers of Huitzilopochtli should be allowed to practice human sacrifice, or other anti-Christian religions should have "religious freedom." -?
Finally, what is a "member of society?" First, we should distinguish between "society" and "the State," as Wendy McElory does. You can have an ordered "society" without a "State." Second, a person can enjoy the benefits of "society" without being a "citizen." In Puritan days, citizenship was reserved only for male property owners who knew the Westminster Catechism. Other Americans were still part of the "society." Finally, a Kali worshipper who is convicted of robbery during the practice of his religion might be sentenced by the judge in his case to make restitution to the victim, and have a criminal record for the rest of his life, affecting his chances for employment, etc., but he's still a "member of society."
And if he lives in a Christian society, he's better off than if he lived in a Hindu society.
And I do agree with you that if I discover that my neighbor has fathered ten children with 2 or more wives, the dumbest thing I can do separate him from his children by locking him up in my basement for a few years. I have no right to do this, therefore I cannot delegate this authority to "the State," and ask "the State" to lock my neighbor up in the State's basement.
Post a Comment