Okay, but I think you'd admit that this is not what we could call an objective source.
There's nothing objective in being objective. Although, if you are saying that religion is not science (which is usually portrayed as objective), then I would agree. However, the premise of science requires a certain kind of 'faith' (at least scientific realism), and it is the principle that matters, not the amount of indulgence one takes in such matters. Scientific realists take pride in the truth of science as a measure of reality, while religionists take pride in the truth of religion as a measure of the meaning they can obtain from reality. The former is a means to make the universe somewhat meaningful, the latter is a means to make the universe completely meaningful.
A fundy would agree with that statement, and back up their vision of what God is like with faith, just like you do.
The fundamentalist makes an error. They want a completely meaningful universe at the expense of making our observations and reasoning altogether meaningful. There is always a trade-off between these two, however the agnostic gets off the train too early, while the fundamentalist stays on the train too long. The moderate spiritual mind gets off at the spot which recognizes our human needs of religion while at the same time maintaining a strong tie to honesty. For this reason, approaching spiritual needs in a moderate way is by far the best strategy, and it happens to be the strategy taken by the history of Christianity (hence the freedoms, science, and stability that were promoted in Christian cultures).