A recent post on CNN's Belief Blog was so ludicrous that I found it hard to believe that I was actually reading what was written. When I was still teaching I used to point out that opinions are in fact not always valid. There are two ways to hold a false or wrong opinion. Either you express an opinion that contradicts known facts or you in no way provide support for your opinion. Dan Merica's opinion in "In age of political vitriol, opposing Christians call for civility" proves to be false on both counts. He certainly didn't do any fact checking. If he had he wouldn't have taken Richard Land at his word that he favored civility in political discourse. Anyone who has followed Land's career would be well aware that he is rarely civil when it comes to preaching against those he doesn't like. There are plenty of people he doesn't like. He has outright demonized Muslims and Homosexuals, among others. You also would know right away that Land's agreement that faith should not be associated with a particular political party runs counter to everything he has done. He is a staunch Republican activist and always has been. The piece defies all known facts. So what is it based on? Apparently, a single discussion. Not much to base such a far reaching assessment on.
I do not know what motivated Land to claim he favors civility beyond potential gains in the are of public relations. I would speculate that whichever of the Republican candidates he favors has taken more of a political beating than he cares for. I admit I have not paid as much attention to Land during this election cycle so I do not know which candidate he is endorsing. I do know that he does seem to be following his usual routine. He did attend this years Values Voter Summit, which is a Religious Right and Republican event. I have no reason to believe his behavior has changed in the least.