Well if she just "wasn't thinking straight" and would like to retract or clarify her comments and explain she supports the election of moral, ethical Reaganites who are "non-Christians", then I will welcome her comments.
I personally know a "non-Christian" Republican (he is of the Sikh faith) who ran in the GOP primary against Barack Obama. Sikhs are an Indian-based faith that is very devout, pro-life, conservative ethic that believes in a monothetist idea of one true God like Christians and Jews.
I would have welcomed the election of a "non-Christian" like him over the alledgedly "Christian" Barack Obama.
The problem is your gal Kathy didn't say we need to elect more "Reaganites" or "moral people" or even more "religious" people to office, she said we have to elect Christians and if we DON'T elect "Christians" then we're legislating sin. The reason why we don't' support your gal Kathy is she's bound to lose to Nelson in a landslide if she keeps "phrasing" her comments that way.
True, but Kathy I'm sure would support the Sikh over non-Christian-Christian Barak Obama too, It's just that she mean the election of more Bible-Believing true Christians would make this country great(er). I am sure that you would not question that either.. I am sure that you would support the election of Christian-Reaganites like Pat Toomey over supposed Christians like Spector also.. would you not..?