•In a land that is considered free of segregation and founded by individuals seeking relief from religious oppression, ironically, controversy over religious freedom is in abundance. Unlike the republican party, the democratic party believes in creating legislation that is applicable to the lifestyle of the typical American without the worry of retribution from an angry deity. Americans should be free to practice, or in some cases not practice, any religion of their choosing. Yet some believe our government favors Christian religions and forces the beliefs and rituals of such religions upon the people. There is a wealth of evidence to support this argument.

•Republicans in America support the idea that since the forefathers of this country created the government and the constitution utilizing the guidelines of the Christian religion in the Bible, this country should remain inherently Christian. Any non-Christians are free to live here, but the essential principles of the central government generally adhere to the constructs of Christian law. There are many obvious examples of this mentality in everyday society. The ban on gay marriage and the constant struggle over abortion rights are two such issues. Other examples of the belief in the superiority of the Christian majority reside in the Pledge of Allegiance which features the clause under God, and on the back of our currency where it is printed the phrase in God we trust. Christian principles are also inscribed on the walls of the many courthouse which feature replicas of the Ten Commandments. IN a free country like America, the democratic party believes that everyone has the right to be free of one all-encompassing God.

•The democratic party seeks to alleviate the use of religion as a precipice for lawmaking. Although abortion is banned in the Bible, it is archaic to assume that the Bible plays a bigger role in governing America than does the actual needs of society. In keeping with the tradition of civil rights, gays should be considered equal to heterosexuals, and should therefore possess the power to exercise the same unalienable rights. The democratic party supports the rights of the gay community to participate in matrimonial services.

America is a free nation, and no one should have to suffer from religious oppression. School children should not be punished for refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance when such recitation conflicts with the practice of their chosen faith. Under rule of the democratic party, people of all cultures and theologies will no longer be forced to conform to the statutes designated by the Christian religion. Instead, laws will be made based on the desires of Americans as a whole, for the good of the people.

•America is actually a representative democratic republic. We employ a system of democracy in which elected representatives from each independent state come together to form a common republic. Then, that system of representatives votes on particular issues keeping in mind the good of the people they represent. Regular citizens rarely get the chance to vote directly on national issues. In fact, this is a different type of government system altogether, known as a direct democracy. America could never work as a direct democracy, however, because quite frankly, the country is just too big. Imagine counting the votes of every single American citizen dozens of times per day in order to make decisions. Although it is much easier to get things accomplished with a system of representatives, there are still many problems with how our government is run.

•For instance, how is it that a presidential candidate who loses the popular vote can still be elected over another? When we vote in our representatives, we trust them to make decisions based upon the popular opinion of the people who elected them in the first place. This does not always happen. The representatives make up what is known as an electoral college. In presidential elections, the people vote directly for the candidates that they wish to run the country. Then, the electoral college analyzes the votes, and the representatives from each state place their vote for president depending upon the outcome of their respective state’s vote. Sometimes, however, a representative will disagree with the outcome of the popular vote in his state, and will instead choose to vote against the wishes of his people.

•The electoral college affixes a set number of points, or votes, to each state depending upon the population of that state. A presidential candidate could technically win more states than anyone else involved in the election, but if the states he wins do not count for that many votes, he could still lose the election to someone who collects the votes of bigger and more heavily populated states.

This is the biggest problem with American democracy. Since the president of this country has more power than any other person in the country, he or she should be directly elected, especially since a person, a representative, can be swayed in many ways. For instance, let’s say that the representative of a state wants to pass a law for government funding for some humanitarian projects. If he or she knows that one candidate is more likely to vote yes on his or her cause, then that representative may vote for that candidate regardless of the outcome of the popular vote. It is much harder, however, to sway the votes of millions of people in the same way since everyone’s interests can be rather diverse. Abolishing the electoral college would also strike up more public interest in the voting process. Less than half of the current registered voters in the United States actually show up to vote. If we elected our presidents under a direct democracy, there would probably be much less controversy in our government.

In the dictionary, liberal is defined as favorable to progress or reform & open-minded and tolerant. Now while it is definitely important to fight for one’s beliefs, liberals should try not to be so rigid in political campaigning. Being the two dominant schools of thought, liberals and conservatives (democrats and republicans) have the responsibility of deciding what is best for the nation as a whole. Liberals especially, given their nature for open-minded thinking, should have the ability to attempt to rationalize the arguments of their conservative counterparts and attempt to find a happy medium between the heavily skewed viewpoints. Then, an educated and mutually agreed upon decision should be made for the good of the people they govern.

For instance, conservatives believe that life is sacred and that fetuses become living humans upon the moment of conception, but that murderers should be executed in a court of law to protect the general public. Liberals believe that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, and that anyone has the choice about whether or not she is ready to mother a baby. However, liberals also believe that our country should not execute criminals since it doesn’t deter crime anyway, and there is always the risk of executing an innocent person. Jail time should be sufficient enough, and the death penalty is “cruel and unusual.”

Sorry to say this, but both sides are completely hypocritical. To the conservatives, if life is sacred, then ALL life is sacred, even the lives of the bad guys. To the liberals, if women have the right to choose to abort a pregnancy, to kill an innocent child, then why can’t this country execute people who have been proven as murders beyond a shadow of a doubt? Now, the simple is solution is either all life is sacred, or no life is sacred. It seems logical enough. What is the point of trying to reform the government when we haven’t taken the time to evaluate what exactly we are reforming? Liberals seem to want to reform for the sake of reform, but neither side is willing to deal with the reason behind these opinions.

Liberalism stresses the rights of the individual, and the root to a successful government is the fair and equal treatment of its people. The central values of liberalism are freedom; responsibility of the individual; tolerance in regards to race, ethnicity, age, gender, sexual preference, geographic location, and socio-economic status; social justice; and equality of opportunity. Everyone should have access to the same level of education, and everyone should have the opportunity to pursue any job which he or she desires in complying with absolute tolerance. Freedom and equality are values which should be implemented worldwide, and decisions about international affairs should be agreed upon in a peaceful, unimposing setting between elected officials of all nations.

In a liberalist society, every individual is responsible for his or her own actions. People are free to live their lives while keeping in mind the interests of the common good. Everyone is entitled to free speech and access to information. Peace abounds in a liberalist society because everyone is free and equal.

Although all of this sounds rather Utopian on paper, our society is a long way away from the liberalist goal. With left and right wing candidates constantly going out for blood, our society is limiting its own progression. Plus, in order to begin to dream for world peace, all the other societies of the world would have to change. Politicians just aren’t that flexible when it comes to relinquishing their power over to the people they govern, and with terrorist threats and energy warfare on the rise, the central government is really our main source of protection. People cannot be expected to take that kind of responsibility for the common welfare, because, unfortunately, most people are inherently selfish. If that weren’t true, then we would have succeeded in establishing such a benevolent government by now.

Liberalism is a beautiful dream, but there is no way to ensure it’s success in a cut-throat capitalist society. As long as people have the longing for wealth, they have the longing for short-cuts and greed. Somehow it is hard to believe that an unselfish society can exist on the foundation of a selfish marketplace.

Hopefully the liberalism reform will come to life one day, and all the nations of the world can exist in a peaceful, loving manner.

The most drastic example of this struggle between big brother and civil liberties deals with our methods of public transportation, specifically the airlines. Whole body scanners are becoming mandatory additions to nationwide airports. These scanners literally scan right through a person’s clothes, even the skivvies, to get a digitized full body image in an attempts to locate concealed weapons. Many claim that this is a total violation of personal privacy, and that digital scanners not only strip travelers of their clothes, but of their dignity. The alternative to those who do not wish to be digitally stripped is to be actually groped by airline officials and bag checkers.

Countless lives have been lost, and billions of dollars are spent each year cleaning up after plane crashes related to terrorist attacks and threats. In response, whole body scanning technology is being used for the very first time in airports, and despite claims that all of this is meant to prevent terrorism, the public consensus is that full body scanners exist only to instill the illusion of protection. As long as people feel safe, airline security is treated to endless digital peep shows and we ignore the actual issue of national security and safety among travelers.

The fact of the matter is, we are talking about digitized images of the human form. And although full body scanning may not completely alleviate the threat of terrorist attack, it certainly can’t hurt in our never ending campaign to end violence in America. Most people would probably rather be subjected to a ten second scan and be on their way than board a plane when they don’t feel completely safe, right? What’s the worst thing that can happen? Alright, so someone gets to see a digitally recreated image of your naked body for a few seconds, and then never thinks of you again because there are several thousand other travelers waiting in line behind you.

America is just going to have to accept that if we as a people want any safety whatsoever, we’re going to have to forego some of our own civil liberties, even if that safety is simply an “illusion.” What’s the point of living in this society if cannot even trust our own government to protect us from harm? And if society is still unsatisfied with the way in which the government approaches public safety, then people are going to have to get creative because it is unlikely that terrorist threats on civilian ground are going to end anytime soon.