Why I'd Call Myself Liberal But Not A Democrat

[sorg]

American politics... two sides of the same coin? Well I hope so–shouldn't we be on the 'same coin'? But my problem is that we only have 2 choices since the U.S. political system is still a 2 party system.

Why is that? Isn't this an outdated model? Most other countries, as far as I know, have MANY parties–the 'multi-sided dice' or 'faceted gem' system, with each party getting a fair shake.

Our system polarizes us as Americans. It makes it so you're either ONE OR THE OTHER–"with us or against us", as 'they' like to say. It's too simplified and human intelligence and perception is WAY more complex than that.

"We have the Green Party and the Libertarians" you might say, but we've all heard this one... "you're just giving your vote away if you vote for Nader or Perot or that guy with the big ears". This needs to change; we're not set up right now for more parties. So, I'd like to talk about the only 2 American parties that stand a chance–Republicans and Democrats.

Each administration has its own personal agenda whether it be 'ecology' or God or 'immigration' or various mixtures, but candidates are basically forced to choose between one or the other party, Republican or Democrat–making a lot of what their own party allegiance stands for BULLSHIT & inaccurate/inarticulate.

For instance, we're asked to choose: Religious or NOT. As we all see, the Republicans are supposed to be the religious/family party, while the Democrats believe in allowing citizens the choice to live an openly gay lifestyle or abort unborn children. This makes the Dems 'anti-religious'. This designation is based on the assumption that Christianity is religion and everything else is secular. To say that the 2 party system–or religion for that matter–is that simple–is of course–inaccurate, and that's where words do not perfectly equate but the 'conservative/liberal' divide is real. Conservative does not equal Christian and Liberal–unChristian.

In fact, 'Conservative' means traditional and 'liberal' means accepting of change. Some religions allow themselves to change with the times, making them a more liberal religion. Now here's the tricky part: political Conservatives think of themselves as the defenders of traditional morals and old-fashioned ethics, and in our society these ideals equate to 'Christian'.

NEW FANGLED ideas like female/gay pastors have not been accepted very easily because our society has formed opinions based on translations handed down through Patriarchal and Heterosexual societies interpreting the Bible, and only the NEW testament is admitted here–not the OLD testament. The more liberal Christan sects have been accepting of these ideas but the old testament is strictly for Jews or story-time.

I know devoutly religious Democrats and I even know some gay pastors–imagine that! And what about those Jews? How do they fit in to this modern American world? Buddhists? With a deeply devout Midwestern Christian family background, I know that these groups–as well as other religious/social groups–are simply not recognized when it comes to salvation (going to Heaven.) Hell, Methodists are going to Hell if you're a Catholic. (Ironically, the word catholic means 'all-embracing/universal'.) At least all dogs go to Heaven.

The Hindu religion is known as the religion with 3000 gods. These 3000 gods, (translated from the Sanskrit more accurately as INFINITE gods) encompass all the myriad emotions of human existence–not just GOOD/BAD–and they are LEARNED from, not just worshiped. Buddhism doesn't even have a God (it's a non-theistic religion–no shit–look it up)! Karma is the closest thing that they have, and as you may have heard, Karma's a bitch!

I apologize for making this political talk into a religious talk but my point here is that Politics (in America anyway) is Religion. In fact, more to the point, the two party system is so polarized because Christianity is polarized. Heaven/Hell; God/Devil; My Christian Sect/Sinners. These simplistic, old-fashioned and narrowly focused divisions have placed the United States at the back of the pack when it comes to open-minded, all-embracing intelligence. But I hear it's "unpatriotic" to think about or question my people, so don't tell anybody I said that (unless they're European).

Since, in the U.S. we live in a predominantly male/white/Christian society (so far), we're still asked to define things in a polarized way, and that is why I'll call myself 'liberal' but I'm not a Democrat–I'm independent.

P.S. I wanted to also ponder other misunderstandings such as GUN CONTROL, TAX DOLLARS, FOOTBALL & WAR vs. ART, CONSERVATIVES vs. CONSERVATION, DEMOCRATS vs. MAKING MONEY, but I'll need to save these arguments for another blog post.

[Chris]

So you are Liberal or an Independent Religious person/persons/who worship Dead Tuscan Masters and chant to each other in( Vulkin Italian) ? Hummm!!

[Trelaine]

Live Long and Prospero

[sorg]

All hail Leonardo, All hail Leonardo, All hail Leonardo!

[Trelaine]

I don't really want to get into religion (there are enough people in the world doing that for me), but the origin of the word "Religion" is interesting.

Origin:
1150–1200; ME religioun (< OF religion) < L religiōn- (s. of religiō) conscientiousness, piety, equiv. to relig(āre) to tie, fasten (re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; cf. ligament ) + -iōn- -ion; cf. rely

The way it was explained to me, is that "Religion" is actually the beliefs and values (whatever they might be) that bind one to the world. For example, if a person is a marathon runner and everything in their life is connected to running, like always thinking of diet, how many miles they ran that day, what suppliments to take, etc., so regardless of whether they call themselves Christian, Jewish, Hindu, (fill in the blank), their true religion is running - that is the filter by which they preceive, interact, and are bound to the rest of the world.

In that sense, Art is as valid a religion as anything else.