"Roots are nice if you like that kind of thing, but they're not really that important if you have the fruits"

I just read a synopsis of an interview with a new political leader. You probably know who he is, but that's not important for this post; it's not personal, and his way of thinking is very widespread.

From the interview, I learnt that this new leader thinks at least three things:

• Marriage does not matter, as long as are responsible and love your "partner" and children, providing a stable home.
• Belief in God does not matter, as long as we have a tolerant society.
• Tree's don't need roots, as long as some healthy, juicy fruit grows.

OK, he didn't actually say the third. But I'm presuming that's only because he wasn't asked the question.

• Let this new leader look for a society where people set aside marriage as a long-term policy, and see how well the values of responsibility and loving provision thrive. (Actually this is already becoming pretty clear in the West, at least for those who haven't enjoyed the privileged social status of the gent in question to exempt them from some parts of the fall-out).
  
• Let him look for a society that built itself upon atheism instead of Christianity for a century or more, and see how much tolerance there is to go around.
• Because, he may as well look for a tree that never had any roots, and expect a tasty meal from it.

Yes, you can enjoy the tasty fruit after you chop the roots off. Perhaps you can continue doing so even for a few generations, where we're talking about civilisations and societies. But that's not quite the same as claiming that the roots aren't really important.

Ladies and gentlemen, our society's new leaders and visionaries. They don't dig or plant, though they do (as everyone in the West presently does) enjoy the generational fruits of the labours of those who did. That's not really the issue though, is it?