Sunday, March 05, 2006

Where Do I Stand?

Well last week I made a very important move in my life... I changed my political ideolgy on Facebook from Conservative to Moderate. I have issues with Facebook which I don't feel like explaining but I do try to keep my profile up to date, especially when it comes to music- and it did actually mean something that I changed from Conservative to Moderate.

I still consider myself more conservative... in fact I AM a Conservative. The problem is that many people see Conservative and think Republican Party. For a while I have been drifting away from "partisanship" and the Republican Party. The problem is that I don't want to be attached to certain issues that I don't stand with the party on (death penalty, gay marriage, creationism) and I don't want to have to stick by certain scandalous fellows (Delay, Abramoff) because they are representatives of or connected to the Republican Party.

Something else that plays into the decision to become and Independent is that I don't like the power direction that the GOP currently has. I find myself becoming increasingly alienated by the Evangelical side of the party. As a Catholic in a state that is in a state that is nearly split down the middle between two religions (Catholic and Southern Baptist) I don't want to necessarily be represented by the views and teachings of the Baptist or (general) Protestant religion. It isn't anything against them personally... we just hold different beliefs and believe differently the way a government should function in regards to religion.

On top of that I take the biased view that the Catholic religion is the most naturally moderate religion that is common among Americans. I say that because... if you think about it, its true. In the matters of sex laws we are very conservative naturally, but on the issue of the death penalty the Church takes a liberal stance. In the issue of abortion Catholics are very conservative, but when it comes to the War in Iraq the Church took the stance (and JPII was very firm in his stance) that the war was NOT just and should not be allowed. Also the Church takes a very liberal stance on issues regarding social welfare, and has recently done what many Christian denominations have not... acknowledge the validity of Darwin's theories.

As far as the issue of gay rights, well many in the public are ignorant over the Church's ACTUAL stance. Catholics consider homosexual relations to be a sin and one that is not allowed. Theoretically you would not be allowed to receive communion without having the sin resolved. But this is the exact same stance that Catholics take on premarital sex, adultery, masturbation, etc. Also last year there was a big deal made about homosexuals not being allowed to become priests. Some reacted like it was a ridiculous infringemnt of the rights of gays that they could not have been a "practising homosexual" three years prior to becoming a priest. But this is essentially the same stance the Church takes on EVERY man becoming a priest. The fact is- as a priest in the Catholic Church you are not supposed to be a practising ANYTHING. The only real difference in the treatment of gays and others in the Church is that gays can't get married- a matter of church doctrine. Any other infringement of rights isn't against the Church as an institution but rather against a societal view of homosexuality.

So back to my original thoughts on becoming an independent. I also find myself disagreeing with the party system as a whole. It seems to me that the country would be better served if we had a no-party system. Instead of having divisions solely among party lines like we do today with bickering and fighting based almost solely on which party someone belongs to it would simply be the issues on the forefront. Naturally alliances would be formed but under a no-party system there would be no "machine" running things and would give more oppurtunity to enact necessary changes. The system of electing presidents would also be better. I think it ought to be similar to that of Louisiana- two seperate elections. The first election would be an open primary- ALL candidates are voted on. That would mean Kerry, Edwards, Hillary, Jeb, McCain, Pat Buchanan, etc. would all run against each other at the same time. The two highest vote getters in the popular election would then move on to the second election- the "runoff". This could then be decided by a second popular election and subsequently by the electoral college. So in effect you could have Hillary running against John Edwards in the 2008 election.

I realize that none of that will never happen but in taking a stance that I don't believe in parties I am taking an idealist stance. So an increasing alienation from the GOP, disagreements with some of the policies/acts of the Bush administration, an understanding of my views in regards to my religious beliefs, a lack of interest in some issues (gay marriage- how can someone say with a straight face that marriage is sacred if they know how high the divorce rate in America is? Plus sacred implies religious and its not like many of the churches are becoming lax on gay marriage), and a belief that parties are detrimental to the political system has driven me to embrace the titles of "Moderate" and "Independent".

(Also I'm not ready to take the step to becoming a Libertarian yet).

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home