My Photo
Location: Somewhere in the Heart of Dixie

Redeemed Sinner. Deep Roots. Southern Heart.

Monday, July 7, 2008

It's All In The Definition...

DLR once stated, "The ultimate tyranny is the redefinition of words". This is a profound statement. Ever since the founding of our government, people have used terms with warped definitions, which sometimes mean the exact opposite of what they are intended to represent. Today, I hope to clear up some misconceptions regarding some common political terms by looking strictly at the word's definition.

The term used to describe a person, or agenda, that advocates a totalitarian government, very susceptible to tyranny.

The opposite of Liberal, this person, or agenda, advocates a limited, or "conservative" government.


The root word, republic, means representative government. This was the form of government used by the Old Testament Hebrews before Saul became king. It is the least susceptible to tyranny, and therefore, is the best form of government. In America, the original Republican party began right before the War for Southern Independence. It was extremely liberal to the core and the exact opposite of it's definition.

This is also a form of government. A Democrat believes in a strict "majority rules" type of government. This is not a good model. Democrats before and during the War for Southern Independence were also the exact opposite of this definition. In fact, they were more republican than the republicans were!

This term was used to describe supporters of the US Constitution. The word federal comes from a Latin word, which means "covenant". So basically, federalists are covenanters. In this case, it was a confusing misuse of the word, since both the Constitution and the Articles of Confederation are covenants.

Used to describe people who were against the ratification of the Consitution, even though they supported the use of the Articles of Confederation.

My personal opinion is that the Constitution should have never been ratified. The Constitution gives WAY to much power to a centralized government.

There are many definitions of this word so here is my personal interpretation. Tyranny occurs when anything sets itself up in the place of God and assumes responsibilities that He never gave it.

Labels: , , ,


Blogger Gravelbelly said...


This is off-topic, but if you haven't read this article, I think it may interest you:

July 9, 2008 at 8:27 AM  
Blogger Stephen Boyd said...

Very interesting.

July 9, 2008 at 3:06 PM  
Blogger Ana Smith said...

Thanks for the definitions!

"My personal opinion is that the Constitution should have never been ratified. The Constitution gives WAY to much power to a centralized government."

Now, I'm not arguing with you :-), just trying to learn and understand:

Do you believe the Articles of Confederation were strong enough?

Do you believe a unifying document is needed in a government?

Do you not find it necessary today to defend the Constitution?

If so, why do you suggest that it should not have been ratified?

Again, please understand that because I have only scratched the surface in studying government, I am asking these questions because I want to learn.

July 29, 2008 at 7:08 PM  
Blogger Stephen Boyd said...

My response is getting waaay to long so I will attempt to answer your questions in a post. Just to clarify, you asked, "Do you believe the Articles of Confederation were strong enough?"

What do you mean by "strong enough"? I assume you mean strong enough to stand the test of time as the Constitution has.

July 29, 2008 at 10:02 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home