A Matter of Conscience

For those who have yet to read, please read a statement of conscience from Whil Wheaton. As we do live in a representative democracy (no snickering please), I enjoy reading the opinion of others. While I do not agree about everything he says, he most certainly has the right to say it. I can remember feeling that way about other issues that I to felt I was not well represented on. I live in a state that opposes many of the viewpoints I hold dear and feel I should speak up when I can.

As far as courage is concerned, I think many people have the wrong idea. You should stand up for what you believe and the members of our government should vote their beliefs. So stands the question, when we elect a government official, do we totally take away his opinion and beliefs in favor of ours. Or do we elect someone in whom we hope would share the sames beliefs as ours. And if the later, do we call someone who would vote opposite our personal opinion, a coward.

If we could elect a non-thinking being to congress (again, no snickering), one that immediately turned around and polled the constituency before voting? Would we feel better? If my memory servers right, and depending on which state you live in, I am fairly sure that a lot of people would feel they were misrepresented by the results of the last presidential election, even if it had turned the other way. You cannot avoid that in a two-party system.

And I am pretty sure you cannot get people to change their beliefs or ideas by calling them cowards. If you can, then they are the ones deserving the boot, not those that stand for what they believe in.

Wil states that the bill currently in debate would be passed by Republicans and scared Democrats. I am assuming he means that the Republicans aren't scared. In either case he implies that they will follow Bush regardless. That's a terrible assumption, not only would our Democracy be in trouble, but also the very foundations of the Constitution. Two branches of government, or even one of them, taking direct orders from one of the branches seems to be a recipe for disaster. And to think it took only 230 years for our government to collapse, after all that's what we are talking about.

I don't think that Congress is simply playing follow the leader. I get emails from my representative in Congress (I didn't vote him, he does not share my ideals, but he IS my congressman and for that he gets my support AND my opinions) and he's not always the staunchest supporter of the Bush administration.

I think that the members of Congress have their own opinions and ideas, and that they act on them. I beleive if I disagree with my representative, I should let them know, but not by calling them cowards or spineless.

Your representatives are just that, representative of the constituancy. I can disagree with my neighbor, and we disagree, which one of us is the represeted one. Work with them, don't berate them.

As far as my opinion on the whole thing, like they said in 1776, 'Don't tread on me'. My addendum, 'Woe to them who do!'