Posted on 04/11/2012 6:54:38 PM PDT by svxdave
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will have little trouble courting the evangelical vote, Southern Baptist Convention leader Richard Land told The Daily Caller during a Wednesday interview.
“I don’t think Romney will have any kind of a problem — unless he picks a non-social conservative running mate — he should be okay,” Land, president of Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Committee, said about concerns that Romney’s Mormon faith could turn off evangelicals.
According to Land, evangelicals are extremely concerned about the possibility of a second Obama term and are energized to vote against him.
Land cited Obama’s hot mic moment with outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, in which Obama said he would have “more flexibility” after the election to discuss issues like missile defense, as one reason for evangelical anti-Obama sentiment.
“I cannot tell you how important that Russia comment was because it feeds into the fears that evangelicals have that there is a radical inside Obama that is straining to get out and once he doesn’t have to ever face the voters again — the day after the election they are going to be confronted with a Jekyll and Hyde situation,” he said. “Whatever concerns they have about Romney pale in comparison to their worries about a second Obama term.”
While evangelicals might be okay with voting for a Mormon, Land said that the media will likely make a big deal out of Romney’s faith to draw independents away from the former governor.
“[The Media] are going to trot out every exotic belief of Mormonism you can find. Baptism of the dead, etc., in the hopes that the strangeness of it will drive independents away from Romney,” he said.
Ads by Google In Defense of Mormons Connect With Other Mormons Online. Photos, Testimonials, Email & More! www.LDSsingles.com Land explained that most evangelicals are already well aware of Mormon teachings — pastors often teach about the Book of Mormon as an inoculation against door-to-door Mormon missionaries. Independents, he said, are likely not as aware of certain unorthodox beliefs.
When asked if he believes evangelicals will have a problem voting for Romney, Land responded, “I don’t.” He added, however, that if Romney picks a pro-choice, non-social conservative running mate he will face more difficulties courting that vote.
The potential vice presidential candidate that would give Romney the biggest boost, according to Land, would be noted pro-life Florida Sen. Marco Rubio.
Land also mentioned Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, former GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as acceptable running mate options.
Land asserted that a person’s faith does play a role in their decision-making process and that he anticipates Romney’s Mormon faith will inform his decisions if elected. To Land that’s not a problem.
“Most the Mormons I know are decent, God-fearing, honest people,” he said. “I think that Romney, as a serious Mormon is far less likely to have any sexual scandals than a person who wasn’t a person of faith. He is far more likely to keep his word. Far more likely to be a role model than were he a person of no faith. I think most Americans like having a president who is aware and acknowledges he is accountable to a higher authority than himself.”
“If his Mormonism informs his policies he will be pro-life, he’s going to be pro-family, pro-traditional marriage, so far what’s the problem?” Land said.
Land does not endorse political candidates.
Which of his economic moves do you love most? His taxpayer funded free cars and car insurance for welfare recipients, his $50 or free abortions, his own special crap and tax for Massachusetts or is it all of the socialist Romneycare itself that you favor the most?
He’s not just a social liberal, he’s a economic liberal as well, and just remember, when it comes to socialist liberal programs, Romney did it first in Massachusetts!
I know his history very well thank you and I’m extremely pissed off that he is going to be the nominee. see my new tagline.
Land doesn’t speak for THIS Southern Baptist.
(Thanks for calling Abraham Lincoln & Teddy Roosevelt & Ike & Ronald Reagan "evil"...I'm sure many FREEPERs will send you notices of 'appreciation'....NOT!)
Well, I've had this discussion many a time on various FR threads...where the Q is raised: Are we voting for a 'pastor-in-chief' or commander-in-chief?
There's a few operating Bible-based "principles" that undergird this Q...And it's essentially this:
Principle: This question addresses not only the role and identity of the POTUS, but the perceived 'self' identity of the candidate. If a given candidate thinks he's a 'god' or 'would-be' god, he exposes himself as deceived on one of the most basic elemental identity issues you can think of.
If a candidate doesn't even know who he is fundamentally, how do we know similar distortions won't effect his judgment? Besides, if he inwardly lauds himself as 'divine,' why would we want to reinforce such an idolater who steals glory from the One True God?
Then there's an associated principle to consider here: Is a POTUS a 'minister' of sorts?
Apparently, you might say 'no.'
I say 'yes,' and here's why:
Even non-religious people tend to at times honor the Bible. The Biblical record shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the TRUE Lord -- not by some low-level Mormon god who is part of a great number of Mormon gods...
And these Biblical leaders did not -- or were not to -- worship false gods/idols. The Old Testament is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture.
It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" like the soup kitchen down the street.
History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader adheres to, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.
Therefore, we must weigh a candidate's level of vulnerability to deception - for that transcends 'religious' considerations: If a candidate is gullible in the most important area of his life -- his faith – this serves as an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities.
What insults? We can’t talk honestly about our candidates flaws?
I have been called a mormon plant, a dead soul and various other insults by some on this forum. I have not insulted anyone.
As a tea party member and a conservative Christian I thought i could converse openly with other conservatives.
My goal is to get rid of Obama and his communist pals and restore the constitution.
Your posting history on this thread exposes your agenda to be that of character assassination of Newt Gingrich, working to establish milt rominy’s inevitability as the pubby nominee. So with this latest whine we see you’re purposely trying to deceive readers, too. Go pimp your milt rominy somewhere that your fellow dead souls will appreciate. The nomination is not yet determined and you rominyites are not yet the ‘saviors of the constitution’ white horse crap spewers you believe yourselves to be.
Reagan was a great man, however, Reagan was wrong with the Marines in Lebanon, and Reagan was wrong in granting Amnesty and in trusting the Dems to reduce spending in exchange for a tax increase. Reagan, also, made some moves as Governor of CA that would not go over well, today.
Nobody is perfect.
Study your history and quit making saints out of politicians of the past.
I speak for myself.
However, MILLIONS MORE agree with me than with you.
That you detest Romney is not enough, by itself, to justify harm to every Republican on the ballot, this year.
That you detest Romney is not enough, by itself, to justify your behavior.
You are doing nothing of any benefit to the conservative cause.
You are actually causing harm to the conservative cause.
Obama is dangerous. You say NOTHING negative about Obama, ever, from what I can tell.
We can not hold the House and take the Senate with any 3rd Party option.
Coat Tails matter.
We can refuse to support Romney with money or bumper stickers or yard signs, but refrain from costing the other Republicans their Congressional seats!
You never endorsed Santorum and you don't speak for me or a great majority of evangelicals....
...You're important in your own eyes.
You're sad.
IMO, informed....AND compromised to the nth degree.
...I was, and still am, a Santorum supporter....
..and I, along with the others who promoted and upheld Santorum....
..were insulted most viciously on a daily basis by a certain group on FR....with ridicule, vitriol and untruths.
No one....but no one.... of this forum's moderators...came to our defense..
.... we only had each other's back.
Just thought you should know.
You will remember I left a few months ago when I saw your endorsement of Gingrich...(who I was neutral about)..
...and was beginning to experience intense ridicule for my choice of candidate, Rick Santorum
I folded and ran away from the insults
......but realized there were many here on a daily basis fighting for my chosen candidate....
..so I returned to do my part and help them.
You can do whatever you want with my account.....my heart isn't in it anymore.
Frankly that is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. Is Romney a conservative? NO.. However you give Obama 4 more years I highly doubt there will be a representative Republic of any shape left on the other end. I dont worry about that with Romney. Say what you want about Romney I am not a big fan but I would vote for crewed up dog food that has been digested and dropped in the back yard over Obama and it would be a 100% improvement compared to Obama on any issue. In a Romney vs Obama contest, say and do what you will but if Obama wins and you did not vote Romney then in 4 years look in the mirror and blame it on yourself. If you dont see any difference between Romney and Obama then you really dont know what Obama is all about. Like I said give me Romney everyday over Obama I would even take Clinton back over Obama. Obama is a danger to all freedom loving people in this nation and must be voted out. Even if the GOP picked Bill Clinton I would be first in line crawling across nails and broken glass to vote. Oh you want 1 difference? Obama is in the image of people like saul alinsky that hate and want to destroy this nation and Romney atleast worked and lived the American dream and I have no reason to believe he wakes up every morning thinking how he can cripple this nation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.