I don’t know about you but I seem to have a lot of pissed off FB friends since the last election. These friends like to post links to support their status updates. Last night I clicked on one, because it sounded interesting. Once I got to the article, I realized that something was struggling inside of me. It was a feeling that something was not right.
Did you see what I saw?
I am all for praising God and I am born again (because I was told it was a permanent thing even though I don’t go to an independent fundamentalist baptist church anymore), but this is a political party. I know that the idea of “separation of church and state” is not officially in the constitution, but every time you turn around the supreme court seems to be upholding the idea.
I am a non-practicing republican. The non-practicing part is because I do not agree with the social platforms (abortion and gay marriage) that the party has at the moment and unfortunately being moderate in the Republican party is not as popular a stance as it used to be. I love God and all, but I also believe in the idea of everyone’s right to pursue happiness. If happiness means marrying someone of the same sex, then go for it. It is not my bag, but it obviously is theirs. I personally could not have an abortion because the baby would haunt me, but if having a baby means that the girl would have to drop out of school and stop pursuing her dream and therefore stops her from pursuing her happiness, then she has to do what she has to do. Oops, I seem to be digressing.
It is cool with me if politicians are religious, but I just wonder about their choice of words here. This is an article about Romney’s controversial analysis of why he lost the election not about spiritual awakening. Why call them spiritual leaders? Why not call them party leaders? Maybe I am in the minority but the idea of party leaders being spiritual leaders makes me think we are one step away from pasting scarlet letters on our breasts (and unfortunately I don’t look like Demi Moore).