Option red: A "conservative Christian" Republican party that would "permit" me to do the best I can for myself and for my family, allowing me to keep a large share of my earned money while asking only a fair amount to fund the requirements of living in a society. In exchange for this "permission", though, we would be required to "recognize the role of Christianity in our country", and to put dampers upon our own free practice of religion.
Option blue: A "secular liberal" Democrat party that would "permit" me to live and to believe as I choose, to recognize as family all whom I decide and to express my spirituality as I deem appropriate so long as it does not genuinely interfere with the rights of others. In exchange for this "permission", though, we would be required to submit to penalization for earning more than others, and to fund the whims of the majority.
I'm sorry, but I thought the deal printed in my nation's Constitution was that the freedom to live and believe as I choose, and to do the best I can for myself and for my family, were "inalienable rights". These are things that I'm supposed to have already, independently of what the idiots in Washington or some ivory tower somewhere thinks the government can bestow upon me. And yet, I look at our Presidential candidates, and I'm increasingly seeing a choice between which freedoms I will "sacrifice". Thanks, Mr. Huckabee, but I'm not going to trade my religious beliefs for the Fair Tax Initiative. Thanks, Ms. Clinton, but I'm not going to trade my money for Universal Health Care. Since when do I have to choose?
Reference: wicca-teachings.blogspot.com
