From Bryan Fischer, Idaho Values Alliance

As I mentioned in yesterday’s update, Nampan Matthew Salisbury has expressed his intention to launch a challenge to freshman GOP Congressman Bill Sali in next year’s Republican primary.

According to the Associated Press, he is running against Sali because he believes politicians should stay “out of your bedroom and out of your social mores,” and that “Idahoans deserve a candidate who doesn’t represent social engineering.”

These phrases, of course, are right out of the playbook of secular fundamentalists, who do not want to give religious convictions any place at all in public policy debates. This naturally raised questions about Mr. Salisbury’s convictions on social issues, especially with regard to the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage and the homosexual agenda.

He insisted in an email to me yesterday that his quote was taken out of context, and accused the press of essentially twisting his words in its quest for a story. In a preliminary conservation Mr. Salisbury and I had this morning, he indicated that his remarks regarding “social mores” and “social engineering” were actually directed toward liberals who seek to use the law to impose their politically correct views of such things as the homosexual lifestyle, child-raising and education on the rest of society.

Mr. Salisbury is a Christian, a member of a conservative evangelical church in Nampa, and was active in the Gideons for a number of years (the mission of the Gideons is to place a free copy of the Scriptures in the hands of as many people as possible).

The question now for Mr. Salisbury is exactly how his faith informs his views on public policy, and we hope to have more information for you on that subject in short order. I will have more for you when we have the opportunity to finish the conversation we began today.

Mr. Salisbury contacted Idaho Chooses Life yesterday, after ICL executive director David Ripley expressed concerns about the language Salisbury used in announcing his candidacy, language which is virtually identical to the language abortion supporters use to argue that abortion is none of the state’s business.

After their conversation, in which Salisbury said abortion is “abhorrent,” Ripley now accepts Salisbury’s pro-life claim. (Salisbury indicated to me in our conversation that he believes human life begins at conception.)

Yet after their conversation Ripley has remaining concerns. “I am mystified that Mr. Salisbury has chosen to anchor his campaign message in the philosophy of Planned Parenthood – you know, the rhetoric which claims that ‘the government has no business in our bedrooms.’ Apparently it has something to do with his belief that Christians in public life ought not be very explicit about imposing our faith upon others.”

Blogger and political commentator Clayton Cramer likewise has remaining questions, after an email exchange with Mr. Salisbury’s wife. Says Cramer, “I asked for clarification from Mrs. Salisbury – and the response that I received left me unable to figure out what Mr. Salisbury’s position is on abortion – but it does not appear to be supportive of any sort of a ban.”

Cramer goes on, “I also haven’t been able to get a clear answer if the ‘government out of the bedroom’ remark means that Mr. Salisbury opposes sodomy laws as a matter of public policy . I can’t tell if I am seeing muddled thinking, muddled writing, or an attempt at straddling the pro-life and pro-choice camps.”

Mr. Salisbury will have ample opportunity to clarify and amplify his views on these subjects in the days to come, and he will need to do so, as his early comments have generated a bit of confusion among his friends in the pro-family community about where he stands on important issues.

Perhaps he simply stumbled out of the gate, and chose inelegant and easily misunderstood language. If so, he will have time and opportunity to make his positions clear.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.