End to Political Parties & Religions ruling the world

End to Political Parties; Religions ruling the world -- two separate ideas.

If all political parties were to be dissolved tomorrow -- who would you vote for?
The one that wears the same suit you do? Perhaps the one that drives the same car? Or even the one that goes to the same church as you do? Maybe the one that has the best TV ads?

Sounds a bit dumb to pick someone to run the country on the sole reason of any of those doesn't it? Yet think about it -- how many people running under the same party have exactly the same beliefs on how to do everything, from what should be done, to how it should be carried out? Or better yet, how many times have you not agreed with someone from your own party on how something should be done?

Yet there are millions of individuals who vote for someone based entirely on what party they are -- with no regards to what they believe in! It's the same thing as voting someone in because they drive the same car as you; you have no idea what they are like, you're just taking the word of some third party.

If Hitler and Stalin were to run as Democrat and Republican in the USA; many people would vote for them just because their party said they were OK, and that's good enough for them. You'd have a few people sitting at home, shocked when the results come in on the millions of people voting for one or the other. And a few planning on a revolt or otherwise overthrowing the office for a reelection.

Yet here is the question again, who would you vote for if political parties didn't exist?

When you have to make the decision on your own, with no help from others, how would you choose? The answer to this should be the same with, or without, political parties: if their beliefs match yours, at least the majority or the main points.

If a candidate goes in and tries to tell you of all the good things he/she's going to do for the state, yet not raise taxes at all -- move on to the next candidate if you think the "no raise in taxes" is a reason to put them in office!
Can you renovate your house with new things without spending money? Why do you think a state or country-wide renovation could be done for nothing? If they do manage to pull it off without raising taxes, the money has to come from somewhere -- like programs they don't care for.

Now here's one of the most controversial sections of it all: abortion, & gay marriages. Why controversial? Because for many people, they can't separate their religious viewpoints from them.

No matter what your stance is on these topics, it shouldn't even be in politics or laws. Why? No matter what the law says, they'll still go on. No matter what the politicians stance is on it, you'd have to have around 3/4 of the people in office believing the same thing before anything would change law wise.

Think about it...
Women have been having "abortions" for hundreds of years. All a pregnant mother would have to do is "almost" commit suicide herself, and the fetus would die (think: drink a poison, punch herself in the stomach, take pills) only way to stop a woman who really wants to terminate the pregnancy is to keep her in a straight jacket, inside a padded room, and on as many drugs as possible to keep her out of it without harming the fetus. Ban abortion, and you'll have more alley-abortions, and pregnant women suicides. You'll have women crossing country borders to have them in other countries. Black market pills will be smuggled into the country to make it easier and less dangerous for the women.


Gay marriages? Again, doesn't matter what your stance is, it doesn't have any place in law or politics. Marriage is a religious ceremony; governments have marriage licenses to generate additional revenue. Think of one reason, other than a religious one, that says homosexual people shouldn't be able to marry.
If it involved "bad for families" -- why? It doesn't prevent homosexuals from dating and such. They'll still be families of homosexuals, just no paper certificate to say they are legally. Not to mention if homosexuals aren't able to marry, how can you prove that their marriage hurts families? There's nothing to base the argument on.
If it involved "it's sick", it's not a against marriage argument, but a against homosexual argument -- unless of course you think "it's sick" for a man and woman to marry as well.
If it involved "it's wrong", well, that's a religious or person reason more than anything - not to mention not saying "why" it's wrong! It's wrong for a person to lie and intentionally emotionally hurt another, but there's no law against that.

Now if you think that banning same-sex relations will make them stop; you really are naïve. Unless of course you believe that every home should have cameras covering every angle so no one has privacy -- people will still be having relations with whoever they desire.


Yet people go on about choosing these things for reasons to vote for or against a politician. And I'm sure many of you think it's the right thing to do.


But what about global warming? Health care for citizens? Food for the homeless? Jobs for the citizens? Pollution controls? Environmental laws so the inhabitants of the earth aren't killed off, people don't die from cancer caused by contamination and such? How about laws to protect workers from workplace hazards? Laws about garbage control and recycling? Education funds? Public transportation? Protection for threats? Freedom of speech? Freedom to practice religion without fear of persecution? Or even just knowing that your children won't have to grow up living in fear, because safety organizations are properly funded?

Oh, but those things aren't important as making sure women can/can't have abortions, or even homosexuals being able to marry or not are they -- at least that's the feel you get from listing to all the political advertisements! You've got to blindly follow what your political party tells you; and let your religion dictate the laws for everyone. After all, the best government is one that lets you practice any religion you want, as long as you abide by the laws of the majority. Might sound good, until you think of this: what happens when a religion that isn't yours becomes the majority in the government? Still think that the religious beliefs should be used to make law?