I’ve noticed that almost all of the radical organizations I’ve explored have one thing in common: They all have at least some pretty good ideas or complaints – they just go about addressing those problems in irrational ways. I find that funny because if they’d only look at the issues in a different light, people would probably take them a bit more seriously. Take, for example, Concerned Women for America. The basis for the group itself is very upstanding: A nationwide effort of American women to come together in spirit to support their common goals and beliefs. The organization is based in Washington, D.C., and advocates positions in areas such as education and certain civil liberties, especially in religion. True, this is all very good. This group supports development in very key areas of the country’s well-being. However, there are several more areas in which they work, and with considerably less support for civil liberty. For starters, the group is anti-United Nations, believing the United States should be entirely independent and allowed to do whatever it wants, both within its borders and around them. It is also firmly planted in the concept of ‘the Biblical design of marriage’ in that marriage should be limited to being between a man and a woman, which they define as the concept of family. So Concerned Women for America is like any other opinionated group: It has its widely acceptable ideas, those that are mostly supported by the majority of the country, and then its smaller-scale, radical ideas (I classify the denial of some liberties, such as gay marriage, and the idea that the United States shouldn’t take into account what the rest of the world thinks as pretty radical). Most organizations are made up like this, and that fact is not necessarily a bad one. It is important to have many competing views on issues. What I find wrong, however, is how some groups go about justifying their movements. When arguments are made from a societal or psychological standpoint – that is, when groups can prove certain ideas are good or bad or have significant reason to believe so based on sociological evidence – then they are valid and acceptable. However, when you delve into vague justifications, such as religion or other variable standpoints, then you are making arguments that cannot possibly be accepted by the population as a whole, and thus the arguments are not entirely valid. Concerned Women for America bases its entire philosophy on biblical evidence (which, may I point out, is widely interpreted to begin with). Nowhere do they take their influence from widely accepted fact or proof. This wouldn’t be an issue if everybody accepted their method of verification, but because not everybody does, there is a distinct flaw in their rationality. If they expect to change the way the country operates, they need to find a reason that everybody can agree on. Otherwise their point is null and void. The same goes for their complaints about other groups and organizations. As they continue to accuse others of being radical, they only serve the perpetuation of their own radical actions in the way they justify their accusations. Concerned Women for America is just an example. Unfortunately, far too many organizations make this mistake. They make their points based on rules and opinions that in themselves are not universally accepted, and as such cannot possibly justify any arguments. As long as people continue to argue circularly, feeding their arguments with more arguments, no convincing will ever be done on their part, and they will be committing the same error as those they accuse.