Why I am a Radical Centrist By: Billy Rojas The most compelling reason to be a Radical Centrist is because it is the best political philosophy for anyone who values truth above falsehood, against the many false claims of the parties of either the Left or the Right. This is not the place to analyze the political platforms of Democrats or Republicans or anyone else. Rather, this is a personal statement about the value of various political outlooks. It would certainly be possible to dissect those points-of-view to good effect, to demonstrate their weaknesses and fallacies, plus discussing their strengths, but that is not the objective here. This is written for anyone who already has done something like this, who has become unhappy and dissatisfied with a political party yet knows, deep inside, that the other major party, or any relevant "third party," is just as bad in its characteristic way and is not a political option. Where do you turn? My answer to the question is Radical Centrism. There is no "Radical Centrist Party" but there is a Radical Centrist philosophy of politics and government and this is what makes the most sense to me, and which has done so starting within a few years from the time I discovered "RC" in 1995. Radical Centrism is a political outlook primarily intended for Independent voters although "centrist" Democrats or centrist Republicans may identify with it. Someone who does so overtly is Mark Warner, Democratic senator from Virginia. Someone who fits the description of a Radical Centrist but does not identify with RC is Republican senator Susan Collins of Maine. There are others, including several Independents now in office, but these two examples should give you an idea. However, this is only for purpose of starting a conversation on the subject. There are several kinds of Radical Centrists and the version I identify with is the most radical and the most perplexing for most centrists. This is not a matter of compromise toward a mushy middle. This is not some kind of "moderate" political philosophy although on some issues -"it depends"- we may arrive at a moderate position as the best alternative. Instead RC as I understand it, and as others of my general persuasion understand it, is all about taking uncompromising "hard" stands on issues. Hence we are radical; there is nothing "soft" about the positions taken by a Radical Centrist. It is also all about "putting your money where your mouth is," about having a backbone, and about taking stands on principle. What makes all of this centrist is is balance. Basic to RC is the view, taken as unarguable truth, that the parties of the American Left and the American Right would not exist unless parts of their platforms were good and true. It may be that most of their platforms are unacceptable to any rational human being, that parts are morally reprehensible, nonetheless there is something good to be found and it would be ridiculous not to identify that good for what it actually is. When you do this the only valid course of action is to take a stand for what is right, not to retreat one inch, and to fight for that right if it is necessary. However, it is the viewpoint of Radical Centrists that if we are at all honest' about things there should be something of parity between Left and Right in the issues we champion. While we are seldom formal about it, by and large, out of, say, 10 important issues, we will favor maybe 4 that most people would think of as liberal, another 3 or 4 that most people would think of as conservative, and 2 or 3 as unclassifiable, maybe original with us, maybe original with environmentalists or with constitutionalists, in any case, not identifiable as Democratic or Republican, or as liberal or conservative. However, each issue is held with real conviction, not half-heartedly. This is not about "triangulation" or anything of the sort; it is about taking moral stands as if your life depended on doing so. Just like any "true believer." What is different about RC is that we regard the current mix of issues promoted by Republicans as an absurdity and the current mix of issues supported by Democrats as another absurdity. There is no necessity, none whatsoever, for taking party platforms as "bibles" free of all error, no mistakes in them, nothing questionable, that must be obeyed as if God on High commands people to do so. As far as Radical Centrists are concerned that kind of viewpoint is ridiculous. There is a caveat: Any issue you advocate in public should be researched. You need to know what you are talking about. You need to be well informed on that issue so that others might be persuaded of the truth, or begin to see something good where, until then, the good was invisible to them. "Research" means exactly that, being as objective as it is within you to be, actually reading serious articles in scholarly journals, maybe reading social science or history books, looking up interviews with experts on YouTube or in the C-Span archives. "Research is not simply reading a couple of newspaper articles or watching the evening news, and it certainly is not water cooler conversation or scuttlebutt at the garage where you get your car repaired, or, for women, gossip at the beauty parlor. Research means looking stuff up, it means analyzing points of view critically, and it means willingness to change your mind if the evidence does not support your previous position. The skills necessary to do research are taught in every college or university in the land. However, even if someone never went past high school these skills can be learned: Maybe from a good friend, maybe from attending lectures by trusted authors and picking up advice about how to write serious prose, in any case it is something that can become part of anyone's mental capabilities. Radical Centrists may hold private informal views about any number of issues that are not researched. Radical Centrists are humans, too. There may not be time to do a good job of researching an issue, or the topic is not all that interesting, but Radical Centrists make a distinction between private opinions and views that are expressed in public. If you are going to speak before a city council to express a viewpoint, if you are going to be interviewed by a local newspaper or on local television, know what you are talking about -or shut up. There is another way to be a Radical Centrist besides balance of outlooks. This is to seek solutions that restructure ideas so that recommended policy -possible legislation or public stands on issues- takes into account the truths of Left and Right and combines them into a new kind of position. Here is one example: Teaching the Bible in public schools. This is something that I personally strongly favor. But NOT in the way that conservative Christians might want and not in the way that liberals might hope for. The objective is neither to assume that the Bible must be the object of one's devotions nor to regard the Judeo-Christian scriptures as so much mythology that deserves to be debunked, My view, BTW, is consistent with decisions by the Supreme Court. The idea is to teach the contributions the Bible has made to American culture and, as part of a course of study, the part it has played in the cultures of various foreign countries. But the emphasis should be upon America. There are different ways to do this, for example a course might start with history, viz, the Bible in American culture from the Puritans to George Washington, then from 1800 to 1900, then the 20th century and the first years of the 21st century. This should include selected criticisms of the Bible along the way so that students understand that even some revered figures in our past were very critical of the book, as was Mark Twain. But this course would also discuss the Bible in literature (including Shakespeare), the Bible in popular music, the Bible in classical music, the Bible in the visual arts, the Bible in movies and television, the Bible in popular humor, the Bible the Law, the Bible in the theater, the Bible in education, the Bible in advertising, the Bible in American politics, the Bible in calligraphy, radio shows about the Bible, and so forth. The class should include some time spent in learning basics of Bible scholarship and also learning about antecedents of the Bible in Mesopotamia and Egypt and Persia, and, conversely, influence upon non-Christians or non-Jews. Students should also learn what people of other faiths may think of the Bible, and should study its place in modern society. If this kind of course isn't valuable, what is? As someone who is a fairly decent scholar of the Bible, I certainly have a stake in this idea, and my personal faith is directly connected to the "holy book," but I also am thankful for honest scholarship of people like Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels and Raphael Patai, and as I see it you cannot understand the Bible unless you are willing to be objective about it -and about the people it has had an impact upon. A course on the Bible surely should include material about one of my all time heroes, Albert Schweitzer, someone who was a world class Bible scholar and capable of some very tough questioning of the book, a text he knew contained any number of errors large and small, yet who dedicated his life to Biblical truths, spending nearly 50 years in the jungles of equatorial Africa providing medical help to impoverished people. Here, then, is a Radical Centrist idea for teaching the Bible in the schools. It is not what most Evangelicals would prefer, it is not what most Left-wingers would desire, but the overall plan speaks to what seem to me to be undeniable truths and ideas that have real value- real world value. Radical Centrism is not about popularity even if, you don't need to guess, we would like to see RC become a popular movement that changes American politics for the better. But it is not popularity driven. If popularity is your objective instead of honesty and truth, then it would be just about pointless to read this essay any further. This is not about popularity contests; it is not about polling results, it is not about shifts in cultural preferences, it is not about who might win the next election, nor about current trends in public opinion. Quite the opposite is the case. While popular culture can matter in some contexts, in others it is garbage that is unfit for human consumption. As things are in the real world in 2018 the Democratic Party is the garbage party, the Republican Party is also the garbage party although not the same kind of garbage, and most third parties are clinically insane or no better than semi-rational. Essentially I am disgusted at the condition of America's two major parties and unimpressed at the third party alternatives we have been presented with. One third party deserves special opprobrium, although its philosophy often can best be found in individuals who have no formal political affiliation, the Libertarian Party. It isn't that "libertarianism" is 100% folly or wrong-headedness, but that some very important (to libertarians) ideas and values are absurdities that are as dysfunctional as political views can possibly get. In short, it is ridiculous to claim that all of America's problems, certainly most of these problems, are the result of too little freedom. Not because freedom isn't a "good," it surely is important in any political calculus, but because liberty isn't sufficient. In other words, freedom is a necessary factor in any political system that can be found in a democratic republic like the United States, but it isn't a sufficient factor. By itself, which is how most libertarians interpret the doctrine of freedom, liberty is all you need and if you have that everything else will take care of itself. Actually it won't do any such thing and absolutizing freedom is no different than granting permission to "do their thing" to every sexual deviant you can think of, to every greedy capitalist like Charles Ichann, to every sociopath in the city, to every jihadist in the country, to anti-Semites, to anti-black white bigots, to anti-white black bigots like Al Sharpton, to the most brain damaged hedonists you have ever known, to complete nihilists, to violent Anarchists, and you name it, because, you see, "anything goes" and there is no objective right or wrong and everything is relative and ultimately subjective. But about such views, libertarians are not alone. Concerning such matters the values of today's Cultural Marxists of the Herbert Marcuse persuasion are about the same as those of "card carrying" libertarians who habitually vote Republican. We are talking about people who seem to lack any kind of functioning conscience. Life reduces to "whatever turns you on, baby," a principle that must never be challenged. And among Cultural Marxists, existing as a sort of subset, are today's gender feminists -whose ideal of womanhood is the late 350 pound blob of ugly fat, Andrea Dworkin. A look alike stand-in for Ms Dworkin appeared on C-Span television recently expounding feminist claptrap. It isn't mysterious in the least that most libertarians are anti-Christian. And while maybe a percentage of libertarians are favorable to Christianity or religion more generally, it simply cannot be denied that by-and-large they are the enemies of religious faith. As a consequence they are my enemies and one of my political objectives is to destroy the credibility of libertarianism. But do keep in mind that I have borrowed two important ideas from libertarianism, namely, the value of contrarian thinking, and the value of free speech as absolutely essential in a democracy. I give libertarians full credit for these values and must admit that "good libertarians" can certainly be funny as hell and people to learn from. This refers to HL Mencken, long deceased, who was notable as a "talent scout" who sought to give breaks to talented American writers, and to Dave Berry and PJ O'Rourke, fortunately for all of us, alive and kicking. Libertarians aren't all bad. But some stink to high heaven and about them I have nothing but harsh criticisms to make. What is all boils down to is the insufficiency of freedom as the be-all and end-all of cultural values and political thought. Here is how the Apostle Paul characterized the issue; this is from I Corinthians 6: 12 - 'I am free to do anything,' you say. Yes, but not everything is for my good..." In other words, the issue isn't freedom but the nature of "the good." We should focus on doing what is good, on thinking what is good, and upon being good. While it may be that about some matters "good" is subjective, not everyone likes the same foods, not everyone likes the same kinds of music, and so forth, what this is all about is the moral good. To assume, as libertarians do, that there is no moral right or wrong, or at a minimum that there is the greatest possible latitude on the subject, is a formula for social upheaval and for individual disaster. We are social animals and psychological animals and there is such a thing as social health and personal mental well being. "Anything goes" is a recipe for chaos. Which is where we find ourselves in contemporary America, with Evangelicals increasingly persuaded of the views of the political Left -except for abortion. About almost everything else they are showing themselves to be every bit as much herd animals as anyone gets., This does not say that all expedients are out-of-bounds even in extreme circumstances. Sometimes it is vital to fight fire with fire, so to speak, with respect to the equivalent of psychological warfare or in defense of one's core values against overwhelming power, including the power of the mass media, but it should not be all that much of a problem to understand this elementary principle. Otherwise the wisdom in I Corinthians should be normative across the board. Not because this is recommended by the Apostle Paul, this is not argument from authority, but because his counsel makes perfect sense. Unless we follow his advice we are asking for trouble -whether you are Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, or anything else. To put it a little differently, here is what Paul said in Philippians 4: 8 - "And now, my friends, all that is true, all that is noble, all that is just and pure, all that is lovable and gracious, whatever is excellent and admirable- fill all your thoughts with these things." And in the next verse he went on to add that we should practice what we preach and do what is excellent and what is admirable and what is just and so forth. All of which is a far cry from the libertarian principle, "let it all hang out, all the time." At least as I understand the concept, Radical Centrism is predicated on the imperative to identify the good and excellent and then do what is good and excellent. For this we certainly need freedom, but we need far more than that because sometimes freedom results in catastrophe. We should not allow wild animals out of their cages free to roam the streets of our cities, to use this metaphor, nor should we justify sociopathological conduct by an appeal to liberty -which is exactly what libertarians (and Cultural Marxists) habitually do as a matter or routine. After all, why not? They recognize no higher authority than the principle of "freedom." This reduces to "do what you want as long as you don't harm anybody." Except, who defines "harm"? You get very different views if you are discussing the issue with gender feminists or with anarchists or with people like Gordon Gekko of the movie, Wall Street, than you do in a conversation with a Christian or a sincere Buddhist. We need objective standards of good vs evil, or wrong vs right, and the best way that I know of to bring this about is by means of the philosophy of Radical Centrism. It can be observed that the nomenclature "Radical Centrism" was more-or-less popular for about a decade, roughly from 2000 to 2010. Now the political crowd has moved on to other concepts. Therefore, what? Drop the terminology of Radical Centrism? Then what? You can see what has happened at The Atlantic. The magazine is still more-or-less Radical Centrist in character. But it seldom uses the phrase Radical Centrism, or Radical Center, or anything similar. As a result the nomenclature is undefended and can be used by just about anyone to mean just about anything. Sometimes the phrase is applied in absurd ways, to designate the views of Barack Obama, for instance, a committed Leftist who has nothing in common with Radical Centrism at all. It has been applied to the views of still others, also incongruously. It has been poorly defined by all kinds of people, as well, such as Jesse Ventura, who says that RC amounts to a blend of fiscal conservatism plus social liberalism. Actually it is no such thing. RC is always case-by-case, such that Radical Centrist views defy any kind of conventional categorization. That is, economically it is partly conservative, partly liberal, and partly "other." There are elements in it of free trade and elements of protectionism, elements of creative destruction and of selective preservation, and so forth. On social issues RC is similarly eclectic. About some social issues Radical Centrism is conservative, on others it is liberal, and on still others it cannot be classified according to any normative system of politics. The Atlantic, like no other publication, has the ability to set the conversational agenda for political speech. But it has chosen to abdicate its responsibility and let whatever happens, happen. This is ridiculous and completely unjustifiable. My best guess is that this has taken place because The Atlantic is more concerned with popularity than with substance. As if, at a hypothetical meeting of the editorial board, consensus was reached to the effect that "inasmuch as the terminology 'Radical Centrist' has lost some of its luster, therefore, let's downplay the concept and never mention it at all. For all practical purposes, let's abandon Radical Centrism." I sure in hell will do no such thing. That would be foolhardy -on principle and also as a practical matter. What political philosophy would you replace it with? RC may not be perfect but it sure in hell is better than anything else "out there." And what about one's investment in the phrase "Radical Centrism"? The minute someone abandons the nomenclature he also forfeits his claim to everything he has said previously about Radical Centrism or about politics more generally during his "RC years." Uhhh, I choose not to do any such thing. I take pride in what I have said about Radical Centrism and take pride in my political views during all the time I have self identified as a Radical Centrist. I have written extensively on the subject and continue to do so. The number of intellectual discoveries I have made through means of Radical Centrist thought mean a great deal to me and, clearly, RC principles can be applied to many interests outside of politics. It is a treasure of great value. Also to the point, I have never had the opportunity to defend my views in a consequential public forum. I have never had the chance to defend Radical Centrism before the public, in the media or in any open political forum. And I fully intend to champion RC as soon as the opportunity presents itself. If others want to abandon the phrase Radical Centrism they are free to do so, but, as I see it, that would be their irredeemable loss, sort of like a divorce from which you never fully recover. This metaphor has its limits. Sometimes a divorce is just what the doctor ordered. Sometimes you need a complete break with the past in order to move to something new and far better. From, say, a wife who did everything she could to make your life miserable to a new wife who, at least for a while, did everything she could to make your life more fulfilling and good. This should be self evidently true. I sure in blazes do not see Radical Centrism as something to abandon as dispensable and no longer needed. The opposite is the truth: It is needed now more than ever. The question remains: What is better? The answer is very clear: Nothing else. Certainly not "moderation." Certainly not gender feminism, not supply-side economics, not state interventionism regardless of reality, not libertarianism, not Marxism per se, not nativism, not liberal consensus economics, not rabble rousing versions of populism even if other forms of populism may have value, not black grievance politics with its endless victimhood whining, not Green politics with its Cultural Marxist social agenda, nor anything else. What is required is leadership -to make RC become successful in the world. For that you need the imagination to fathom what Radical Centrism could become. A strong sense of the future, in other words. But you also need a strong sense of history, of where we have come from, of why RC arose in the first place, and of what the record of Radical Centrism in the years since ca. 2000 really means. "Gee, the phrase "Radical Centrism" isn't as popular as it once was, let's drop it and move on to the latest new idea, whatever that is"??? Cross out the words Radical Centrism and substitute "Christianity" or "futurist" or "ecology" or you-name-it and what does this say? That we should treat philosophies of life as ephemera, deserving rejection because the winds of popular culture are, for now, blowing in another direction? I don't think so. Generating enthusiasm for a philosophical or political cause is not the same thing as selling a consumer product. In fact, there is no comparison. A product is intended to be used and eventually replaced, with perhaps the only exception being one's house -presuming some place that has special meaning because of its location, its architecture, and so forth. Otherwise a product is ultimately disposable. There will be a better cell phone some day, there will be a better automobile some day, there will be a better television set or better breakfast cereal. But, as much as it might be improved, would you put democracy in the disposable category? Or capitalism? Or environmentalism? As far as I am concerned Radical Centrism is equally indispensable, irreplaceable, and necessary. Basically the popularity of the phrase Radical Centrism is not an issue. Some day it may be wildly popular. But that would not be what makes it good, its ideas are what make it good and noble and excellent. Yes, good marketing is essential. This is not in the least dispute. But marketing is not sufficient. It is necessary to "make Radical Centrist happen" even if it costs money to do so, even if there is no money to be made for your investment of time, even if others may criticize you or shrug things off because political discourse is now focused on other topics. My original motivation for becoming a Radical Centrist was to find a political home for myself. Where could I possibly go? I thought of myself as a "liberal" but the then-current Democratic Party of 1995 which used the term of itself, was anything but liberal as I understood the word; the party was becoming Cultural Marxist and not liberal at all. It was far along in the process of abandoning the legacy of JFK. Adlai Stevenson, and Harry Truman, and had become virtually anti-FDR in outlook. After all, Franklin Delano was a sincere Christian believer, as was his cousin Theodore before him. Today's Democrats, although this is not always true, are predominantly anti-Christian. Plus anti-Jewish (outside of New York City). The only religion they have the warm fuzzies for is the most retrograde and intolerant and violent religion on the face of the Earth, Islam. But the Republican Party was not an option. The GOP was what it still is and presumably always will be, the party of the rich. It also is the party of social conformism whether or not what this is all about is conformism to the best principles available to us, because, for conservatives, tradition is all that really matters. As for social issues, the party is fixated on abortion to the exclusion of almost everything else. While I take a dim view of abortion -as did Albert Schweitzer- my view is that there are a range of issues that demand our attention and effort. If I am conservative about some matters this is anything but always the case. Probably to this day, if you take the word in its "classical" sense, I still am more liberal than conservative, maybe much more so. This means that I could never align myself with the Republican Party even when I vote for Republican candidates more than I vote for Democrats. Republicans may be stupid but they seldom are evil, which is exactly the opposite of Democrats. Then there are the candidates themselves. I have had no respect for any major party candidate for the presidency since Jimmy Carter, someone whom, in retrospect, did not deserve my respect. William Clinton was the Antichrist, George W. Bush was a simpleton and a clown, Barack Hussein was the incarnation of the Devil, and now we have a world class example of a buffoon, a loudmouth, a con man, a know-it-all who knows almost nothing, a micro-intellect, and, generally, an ego maniac. These character flaws do not prevent Donald Trump from sometimes doing some really good things, and it was a huge relief when he defeated Hillary in 2016, an odious Cultural Marxist -writ large. But this hardly says that I like Trump. Actually, I can't stand him and always wonder how in the hell he managed to graduate from an Ivy League school and learn almost nothing. So you can see the problem. In 1995 I was an Independent voter and that is what I am today. In 1995 I also realized that my political views did not fit any established political profile. True enough, there was some commonality with the Democratic Socialism of Eric Fromm, but this should not be pressed too far. Fromm was a free speech advocate and he was highly critical of homosexuality (as was his mistress, Karen Horney). If he advocated such things as single payer medical care he also favored productive capitalism along the lines of Scandinavian businesses. He was interested in Marx but primarily the "young Marx," the liberal Marx, of the 1844 Manuscripts. In any case, the Socialist torch was passed to a new generation in the 1970s, a group of younger people indistinguishable from most of the campus rioters of that era. Long before 1995 I had completely rejected that approach as counterproductive and something to avoid like the plague. Besides, even in my YPSL days, I was a Saint-Simonian, not a Marxist and everyone who knew me at the time was well aware of this fact. I even published material about Saint-Simon in those years. And Saint-Simon, to put things this way, was half capitalist and half socialist, with the capitalist half sometimes dominant. He had been, after all, a businessman at one time. Hence among his latter day followers were the French Rothschilds. Which also should make it clear that I am, if anything, pro-Jewish even if, anon, some Jews are knaves and idiots. Many Jews, if not all of them, would have no problem with this evaluation. I also understood of myself that I am definitely NOT a mild-mannered moderate. While people sometimes need to compromise, any such idea is unthinkable to me concerning a number of core values. Any compromise at all on these issues and you have thrown the baby out with the bath water. What is necessary is prevailing, seeing good ideas, valid morality, truths of every description, win out. For that to happen requires fighting and fighting hard. Moderates as I understand this persuasion, are people for whom no fight is a good fight, and whose motto is: "Why can't we all just get along?" Heck, I like wars, wars of ideas, that is. I thrive on intellectual combat as much as any Jesuit you can think of even though I am not Catholic. In any case there is an important tradition within Christian history (which is overlooked by just about all Evangelicals and, for that matter, most Catholics) in which debate of issues epitomizes education. Hence, my patron saint sometimes is Thomas Aquinas. I have several "patron saints," depending on my needs at the time, but Aquinas definitely is one of them. The idea being that if you are a Christian it is necessary to have real brains and not, so to speak, take everything on unquestioned faith. In any eventuality this is not how moderates see the world. Jesus said, as reported in Matthew 10: 34, "You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." I prefer to take that statement as metaphor for intellectual warfare, for serious argument and debate, for taking strong stands on issues that really matter, and for fighting for what is right. Compromise is not the idea, winning a war of ideas is the objective. The way to win is not though retreat. Sure, there is such a thing as "strategic withdrawal, " sometimes you need to hold your tongue, sometimes you realize that some people will not hear a word you say and if they have power or status it would make no sense to pick a fight that would make things worse for you, but perhaps you understand what this is all about. Any war is a long haul affair, there may be setbacks, but you are in it to win, not to throw away important truths because they are unpopular. Some of my core values are unpopular these days, do you think I don't know that? But in one sense any unpopularity simply does not matter. I am nor concerned with selling laundry detergent or laptops. There are no sales quotas to worry about. This concerns, to put it in Christian terms, "winning the world for Christ." For sure my version of Christian faith is very unconventional, for some people it is not Christian orthodoxy at all. I once joked to a friend that things might make the best sense to say that if I was a pastor it would be at the First Comparative Religion Baptist Church of Oregon -Buddhists and Hindus and Zoroastrians and Jews welcome. As far as I am concerned the best way to conceive of the Holy Spirit is to think of her (the Holy Spirit is female throughout nearly all of the Old Testament) as the equivalent of the Goddess Ishtar. Which puts me close to the Assyrian Orthodox Church, viz, the Saint Thomas (Didymus) Christians, of India, or the Nestorians of Asian, especially Chinese, history. This is my faith, not something else. I arrived at this view as someone who once taught Comparative Religion, who has spent much of a lifetime studying the religions of the world, and as someone who has been a "spiritual seeker" more years than I care to remember. My faith is what seems unarguably true to me as the result of all of this and as a result of a number of important experiences in my life. Each belief is held strongly there is no compromise about anything at all. Its just that this is not how traditionalist believers see the world or the place of faith in it. None of this means that I am perfect and certainly I have done more than a few stupid things in my life, but these are the truths I have identified as vital and worth living for. regardless of what anyone else may believe. This is how I think. It is my responsibility to identify truths for what they are, everything that concerns me as an individual and part of a community. Once a truth has been identified -and each presumed truth should be scrutinized through research so that you are as sure as it is possible to get that it really is true- the case is closed. Each truth becomes a rock to take a stand upon, there is no argument any longer. This said, it has been my experience that no political party and no religion, and no system of education, advocates nothing but truth. All extant faiths or schools of thought are mixtures of true and false. Some may be mostly true, and I think this is the case for Christianity, but even then there are errors or mistakes of judgment to deal with. Your "beliefs" do not nullify what is untrue or no better than half true. This leaves me with a good number of truths that do not fit any "off the shelf" ideology or philosophy or faith. It is up to me to combine these truths in a way that makes sense, that has the potential to convince others that these are, in fact, truths. And truths that we would all be better off internalizing so that our lives become better, so that communities become better, so that we value lifelong learning. Clearly no extant religious group teaches this message. To me this message is vital to everyone's well being. And either you cherish truth or you do not. This is independent of the opinions of others. If it is true you become a champion of any truth that matters to you. This means actual truths you have discovered for yourself, it has little or nothing to to with talking points published by the DNC or the RNC or of any religious persuasion that currently exists in the world. The point being that for me the cause of Radical Centrism is the equivalent of a sense of mission for a normative Christian. You carry on with your mission despite obstacles, despite opposition, despite everything that may cause problems. This is not like selling a product, it is putting your life on the line for a noble cause. That is precisely how I look at it. And what better political home for me than Radical Centrism? Consider my views on evolution and on homosexuality. In the first case I am as "liberal" as anyone can be; not as a Darwinist, more along the lines of EO Wilson's sociobiology, but evolution nonetheless. To me evolution is an iron clad truth even if, at least as I see it, it is teleological, it is guided in some sense. But ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, we are the pre-natal result of "speeded-up evolution" in our mother's womb. That process takes place in nine months but follows directly from millions of years of biological development in nature. No-one questions that this process is guided in the womb; my view is that it also was guided in the course of natural selection in the natural environment. Or as Buckminster Fuller once pointed out, the potential for exactly this was present from the beginning, from the moment of Creation itself. Note that the translators of the King James Version of the Bible were adamant that the Apocrypha should be included in any publications of the holy book. It wasn't until the 19th century that most Protestant Bibles were printed without the Apocrypha. This matters because Wisdom of Solomon includes what may be the earliest expression of the theory of evolution in history. Maybe not; this was the Hellenistic era. Conceivably Cicero said something along the same lines, or some other thinker of the era, but as far as available evidence suggests, Wisdom 19: 18 - 19 could be the first version of the theory of evolution on record. Here is what it says, it is very short but it gets the point across with clarity: "For as the notes of a lute can make various tunes with different names though each retains its pitch, so the elements combined among themselves in different ways, as can be be accurately inferred from from the observation of what happened. Land animals took to the water and things that swim migrated to dry land..." That is it, there are no follow-up comments that take the idea further. But there should be no question that the complete Bible as translated at the request of King James includes a passage that obviously refers to the process of evolution. This also says that many of the Church Fathers, like Clement of Alexandria, were right to say that the Genesis account is allegory, not meant to be taken literally. Not because it is convenient to do so or in step with educated opinion in the present day, but because evolution is the process of how God works in the world, to put it in traditional terminology. We have it directly in the Wisdom of Solomon. It seemed obvious to me, years before discovering this pericope in Wisdom, that evolution was true beyond any reasonable doubt, but it was good, indeed, to find this passage in the Bible. It is just one more example of what I take to be a true and tested principle, whatever mistakes there may be in the book, regardless it is a repository of many essential truths if, anyway, you know how to look for them and are not shackled by doctrines that preclude being honest about what it is you are reading. Are you uncertain about truths you find in the Bible? That is, about ideas that seem to be true but about which you can't be sure. For heaven's sake, look it up, whatever it is. You may find out to your chagrin that something actually is false, or no better than partly true. But you will know. And knowing is far better than simply believing, any day. But it can happen, at least it does for me, that if you read scientific literature on a subject or issue that matters to you, an assertion in the Bible, if you do some serious digging, you will be pleasantly surprised. Don't take anyone's word. Find things out for yourself. If it really is true, science will back it up. So it is with respect to sodomy, as homosexuality was called before that word was coined in the 19th century. This is a subject that has been a concern of mine since 1975, something that I began to research as far back as 1976, and something that I have spent countless hours studying especially since the 1990s. I have written 3 books on the subject and a good number of scholarly articles. I know my material is first rate, and one book, for 2000, led to a 3 hour interview on statewide CBS radio in Oregon, for a liberal show, and about the same time there was a favorable letter review by conservative Michael Medved. None of my "opinions" on the issue are top-of-my-head in character. Everything I say is supported by research findings, sometimes by 'liberal' university experts. There is no real question, if the evidence matters to you, that homosexuality is a mental illness -or psychological disorder or some other terminology that means the same thing. And this being the case, there is absolutely no justification for such abominations as so-called "marriage" between homosexuals, for homosexual adoptions of children, or even for toleration of homosexuals or of homosexuality. They are clinically sick, they are sexually insane. This said, I have zero respect for anyone, including Justices of the Supreme Court, who regards 'homosexual rights' as settled law. It is no such thing and homosexuality should be re-criminalized and the sooner the better. As for the Justices, as I see it, while there is precedent that allows for Judicial Research, it is time that Judicial Research should be mandatory in all cases where substance matters, not just points of the Law. All court decisions favorable to homosexual interests should be thrown out. Homosexuals should be required to undergo reparative therapy to eliminate their morbid condition -on penalty of incarceration for non-compliance. Needless to say, my hard line stance makes me almost a minority of one. But popularity isn't what this is all about. Many Evangelicals think it is, they certainly act like it, but while they dislike sodomy they are generally unwilling to either make themselves genuinely informed and certainly unwilling to do much of anything at all in the public realm about it. You can say something similar for most Catholics or the eastern Orthodox, and even for Mormons even though they have at least tried to take real world measures against homosexuals in the recent past. It isn't that I am the only American alive who regards homosexuality as an obscenity that needs to be eradicated. At the moment, while the tally stood at about 65 % in 2004 or thereabouts, there still are around 40% or 45% of Americans who share my values on this issue. Included are somewhere around 55% of Orthodox Jews, plus most Baha'is, Buddhists, and others. However, this is not about numbers, it is about the truth and about the consequences of following utterly depraved and dysfunctional public policy. How many families have been shattered because of homosexuality? How many children have grown up in homosexual households internalizing the values of a full blown psychopathology as if it was all for the good? How many communities are now at war within themselves? And organized homosexuals are at war with Christian faith itself, and with every religion in the world except 'liberal Protestantism,' a faith that has lost members at an alarming rate ever since the hemorrhaging began in the 1960s. Most liberal denominations are now a shadow of what they once were. In cases, like the United Church of Christ, less than half of their previous membership. Numbers do not tell the whole story and may be misleading, but in this case they are instructive. There is something to say that could restore as normative America's one time opposition to homosexuality, namely a new consensus that homosexuality is, no doubt about it, a mental illness. There is no equivalent truth that can pull their feet from out of the fire for liberal Protestants. Liberal Protestantism is committing suicide on the installment plan. The only exception to this rule concerns the American Baptist Church (formerly the American Baptist Convention, of which I once was a member). But the ABC never went as far into cultural relativism, nor as far into the libertarian-like morality of "do your thing, anything goes." Where all other liberal churches are in membership free fall, the ABC has had the same membership of about 5 million ever since it reached this plateau in 1960 or thereabouts. This is to say that my opposition to homosexuality is based on empirical evidence which exists in abundance. Are majorities tolerant of homosexuality these days? So what? I have never had the opportunity to express my views in any meaningful public forum. My attempts to get my books published have gotten nowhere. But this is hardly a case of "bad luck," and I know it. The point, in any eventuality, is that no-one should expect me to moderate my views because of public opinion. I intend to change public opinion, all by myself if necessary, and believe it should be entirely possible because I happen to be well informed and the supporters of homosexual causes, in addition to being wrong about everything that matters, are overwhelmingly ignorant of the scholarly literature on the subject and just about all other relevant serious literature. Which, of course, is one reason why I am de facto censored and my writings have not gotten into print in many years. Supporters of homosexual know that in any honest showdown with me they would lose. The debate isn't over; the debate has not begun. It is not my fault that almost no Evangelicals ever look at research about homosexuality. But this is not an argument in defense of Evangelicals even though I like most of the Evangelicals I have known in my life and even though I share at least something of their Biblical worldview. But there is a lot that I disagree with and that is a fact. However, it should be added that the Bible's testimony on the subject of sodomy could not be clearer -even though most Evangelicals are blissfully unaware of most of what their own scriptures say on the issue. How they justify their unwillingness to make themselves informed is a question I cannot answer. But I can tell you that not only did the Apostle Paul vehemently denounce homosexuals and homosexuality, so did Christ. For Paul's testimony see Romans 1: 24 - 32, which says that the sin of sodomy is so odious that, following Roman law of the time, they deserve the death penalty. This is the supposedly "obscure passage" that Barack Obama once referred to in commenting about his change of views and becoming a supporter of homosexual causes. Actually there is nothing obscure about this passage at all, nor about the other 29 verses in the Bible that condemn sodomy unequivocally. But, but, but, Jesus never condemned sodomy? Like hell he didn't. Jesus was explicit in his opposition and said that sodomites will spend eternity in the Inferno with their lord and master, Satan. In case you are curious here are the passages; you can look them up any time you want. These are Matthew 10: 14 - 15, material about towns that will not listen to the Christian message, and Matthew 11: 20 - 24, the passage that contains the words "alas for you Chorazin" and "alas for you Bethsaida." In both passages Jesus ends by saying that the fate of the people involved will be worse than the fate of the people of Sodom. It is totally clear that Jesus is negatively disposed toward Sodom. The original sodomites got what they deserved, agonizing death and torment in hell for eternity. The people of some towns in Judea will be suffer and even worse fate in the future. I cited this material to a Christian friend at one time, not so long ago. He said that he didn't see any references to homosexuality in these passages. My guess is that many other believers have a hard time seeing any such references, either. The real question is "why not?" The best answer would seem to be that he (or she) does not want to offend others, he (or she) wants to be accepted in polite society, especially at work where money is at stake. And if you are uninformed you would be at a disadvantage in trying to make a case for Christian morality. You could easily be characterized as unenlightened, out of step, backward, and worse. Much better to hide from the truths in the Bible, truths the Bible highlights repeatedly. Far better, in other words, to deny your faith than to take a stand in defense of that faith. But I do not feel that way. In case it matters, which it should, the word "sodomy" was universally used in Jesus' time to refer to homosexual acts, sometimes including sexual acts that heterosexuals might partake in, like rectal sex, but in all cases, the word refers to homosexuals. This was the meaning understood by Philo and by many other people of the era, including, or especially, the first Christians. This is not a debatable proposition, "sodomy" meant homosexuality. For Jesus to use "Sodom" as a pejorative ought to be enough to get the idea. He was referring to same-sex sexual acts, and he despised such acts. In writing the book of Romans it can safely be inferred that the Apostle Paul knew what Jesus had in mind by way of morality and more-or-less repeated what he knew of Christ's views about sodomy. But there is one other passage where Jesus indirectly condemned homosexuality, in Mark 10: 6 - 9 where Jesus said that it is essential as part of the law of nature as created by God for a man to leave his parents and get married to a woman. This is not optional, it is part of God's plan. This being the case, homosexuality is completely out of bounds and is an impediment to God's plan. All of which is a long way to say that here are two positions that I hold with the force of conviction, there is zero chance of my ever expressing any other views on these subjects. Nor have I ever expressed any other views. The dilemma is that one view is radically liberal and the other is radically conservative. It would be impossible to hold both these views in the context of the Democratic Party or in that of the Republican Party. But there is no dilemma for Radical Centrists. And that is where I belong and it is the political philosophy that I identify with. And so it is with respect to many other combinations of issues. Is it any wonder that I feel as strongly about Radical Centrism as I do? Now you know why. Billy Rojas July 15, 2018 -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
