I've never considered myself a member of any political party.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a member of the Libertarian, Green or Communist parties.

I prefer to think of myself as independent.

Yes, I admit I have certain political leanings, but that doesn't make me a member of any party.

I like to think for myself. To stay away from conformity as much as I can.

Unfortunately, in Indiana for the primary election, I'm forced to declare a party. Somehow, I still think being forced to declare a party to vote is unconstitutional.

Yet it seems the powers that be like it that way. I've never understood that - having to choose a party instead of the best person for the job. Whatever happened to thinking for yourself?

George Washington, our country's first president, was against political parties. He said it would divide people. That advice went unheeded, but good advice usually does.

So until that changes - if ever, doubt it will - I've got to declare something in the primary election. So I mix it up. Some years, I've declared I was a Demo. Last election, I declared I was a Republican.

This year, I think I'll declare I'm a Republican again just so I can vote against U.S. Congressional candidate Mark Souder. I'll cast my vote for Paul Helmke. And if Souder should still win in the primary, then in the general election, I'll cast my vote for Democrat Jay Rigdon. I may, of course, still vote for Rigdon in the general election even if Helmke wins - I'll come to that point when the time comes.

I've never voted before just to vote against someone. Usually, when I vote, I vote for someone because I think they are the best person for the job. In this case, however, I'm making an exception.

I refuse to vote for a "bully" politician. A self-righteous politician who wants to dictate rather than represent.

Case in point - the play "Corpus Christi" as presented last year at IPFW.

It's not that Souder was against the play. It's not that Souder spoke out against the play, which depicts a Christ-like figure who just happens to be gay. That's his right as an American - to voice opposition and state his views.

What makes Souder a bully, however, is when he and other politicians filed a lawsuit to stop the play just because they disagreed with the message.

And when those Indiana politicians more or less threatened IPFW's funding if they allowed the play to go on. Souder went on to help Notre Dame get funding but has basically left IPFW to fend for itself since the play. And Notre Dame is miles away from the area he represents.

If that's not being a dictator, I don't know what is.

He has refused to participate in IPFW activities because he disagreed with the play - despite the fact those activities had nothing to do with the play itself. Basically, he's a "do-it-my-way-or-I-won't-play" kind of guy.

IPFW is supported by tax dollars. They have allowed their campus facilities to be used for religious groups and activities. Therefore, IPFW must allow different views of speech on its campus even if the college board, president and student body disagrees with it.

So they had to constitutionally allow the play to go on.

IPFW also allowed protesters on the campus during the run of the play, giving the opportunity for both sides to state their cases.

Not only did the play sell out, extra dates had to be added to meet the demand. Obviously, the play had its supporters as well as objectioners, showing that every issue has at least two sides.

Allowing for the play to go on doesn't mean the school is anti-religious. In fact, just the opposite is true. Allowing for a play that questions organized religion and organized beliefs promotes religion. Think about it.

Also, IPFW has - the last time I checked last year - more than 16 religious courses. The college has religious organizations and activities all the time.

But Souder didn't think about that.

He didn't see the play as a way to promote religious diversity or discussion. Instead, he took it as a means to try to conform a public college to his views regardless of the fact that not all the student body, faculty and staff may agree with him. Having gone to IPFW himself, you would think that he would know IPFW, and colleges in general, are like that - places of multiculturalism.

(In some circles, the term "multiculturalism" is used as a negative connotation. Why? We are a multicultural world. Get your head out of the sand.)

College is a place where young adults learn to really express their ideas and concerns. College is where young adults really begin to accept themselves and challenge the system, as they should.

"Corpus Christi" was one way for an IPFW student to challenge the system, to express himself.

Yet, if it was up to Souder, he'd rather squash anyone with a different opinion, especially anyone with a different view on religion.

Jesus challenged the church and practices of his day. If Jesus existed today, would Souder file a lawsuit against him or threaten to take his funding away? I believe he would.

Of course, all this is just one reason why I could never, never vote for Souder. How could I vote for someone who wants to dictate people's freedom of expression simply because he disagrees with it?

However, I'm sure there will be those people who will vote for him because of his narrow views and perhaps they will get him into office.

For the sake of my and your First Amendment rights, I hope not. [[In-content Ad]]