text: Another try, for clarity's sake:
  
  It begins with the oft disputed foundation of the US as a Christian nation, alluded to in the Figueroa's third sentence and proceeds from there. 
  As a Baptist, Carter would be a more likely ally of Stewart than Reagan, who was nothing like a Fundamentalist. 
  The characterization of a conflated "Evangelical Right" fails to realize the differences exist, expressed in "Christian Right" or even the "Catholic Right". Everything is summary, and the sketch of how faith meets politics among these different groups is treated as actually equal.
  Although it is part of the title, "Catholic Integralist" is used only twice in the article with no explanation. One is left to conclude that any on the Catholic Right is in league with the Evangelicals and all that implies.
  In short, I find its premises, argument, and conclusion so facile as to be deceptive. Either the author and editor weren't up to the task of analysis or are dishonest. In charity, I say the former.