Originally posted by David C
Sound good to you?
"The national government... will maintain and defend the foundations on which the power of our nation rests. It will offer strong protection to Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality."
" ...[text shortened]... a result of liberal excess during the past... few years."
I find the quote to be highly open to interpretation. I would be far more inclined to support the speaker if they were more specific in what they considered to be "Christian".
Of all the people in this world who call themselves Christian, few factions acknowledge many other factions to be "Christian". The very term by which such a world wide multitude self labels themselves has come to be rather vague in definition. Thusly, before I say yay or nay to this speakers support of "Christianity as the very basis of our collective morality" I would like to know what his/her personal identity of Christianity is.
Furthermore, I am loath to support such a mix of religion and politics. When I speak of sociological matters I do not have to hid behind my belief system to validate my logic. When I am church, I speak of church. When I speak in public forum I speak of public issues. My personal theological beliefs may shape my motive, but if I am to suggest sociological reform to my neighbor I must speak of logic, not my beliefs. While the principle and overall lesson may be the same, when I speak of such reform I do so in terms of positives and negatives. That which is beneficial to the people, and that which is destructive.
I would be far more inclined to support a person who speaks in such terms than a person who just so happens to have the self applied label as myself.
EDIT: Postponed posting this while site was down. Naturally, between the time of writing this and it actually being posted the source was revealed. Go figure.