Video: Would Richard Land vote for a Mormon candidate?
posted at 10:28 pm on December 3, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
An important question. As most but not all of our readers know, Land’s a big cheese among Southern Baptists and was one of the sources for that Reuters piece a few weeks ago about some Baptists looking unkindly upon the Mormon candidate due to LDS poaching from their congregation. It’s a matter of no small import, then, whether he’d personally be able to pull the lever for Mitt. Hannity asks and gets an answer.
I’d be lying if I said I knew much about the political differences among evangelical leaders but Land seems to be a bit further towards the center than, say, James Dobson. (But only a bit.) He seems pretty jazzed at the prospect of Mitt reassuring him that he’ll govern according to his conscience and not according to the LDS canon. Exit question: Does anyone but anyone not think Mitt’s going to do that? In which case, why does he need to spell it out?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
This mormon issue has gotten so absurd that it will cost the GOP in the future. It’ll be the Al Smith issue all over again
Defector01 on December 3, 2007 at 10:30 PM
We need an atheist in 2012, dude.
Allahpundit on December 3, 2007 at 10:31 PM
Blech. I’m not liking this religious test business…
Bad Candy on December 3, 2007 at 10:35 PM
I’d take a look at our resident atheist in the house and say, “uh. no we don’t.”
lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 10:36 PM
I think the only way the country would ever elect an atheist is if he or she was a military hero (a General) or something like that, and people could trust him or her based on patriotism rather than religion. Other than that, I don’t see it happening.
Big S on December 3, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Richard Land? Who can take that guy seriously?
I know i havent been able to ever since somebody pointed out that his name sounds like the name of a gay theme park.
amish on December 3, 2007 at 10:40 PM
I’ve never really understood very religious people who are very vocal about it. I still cry for my mommy sometimes when I see some of the evangelists on t.v, and that dude in the debate with the bible scared me a lot. I guess I’m suspicious of anyone who believes too fervently in anything, since nothing is for certain; which is why I don’t get all the Republican infighting with the evangelicals and the Mormon issue and all this crap. Oh well, I could live with Obama or Hill if the alternative is Rudy or Huck anyway.
RW Wacko on December 3, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Need? No. Is there anything wrong with an atheist? No. However, an atheist President would change many, many things, wouldn’t it?
Swearing in on the Bible. Pointless if the atheist does not believe in God, right?
Urging people to pray in times of strife such as 9/11, Hurricanes, fires, etc. Unless he is a very sincere man/woman who states that s/he does not believe in God, but understands that He brings comfort to Americans and urges them to pray to bring themselves comfort (or something along those lines)… this would come across very weird, would it not?
Ending speeches with God Bless you all and God Bless America. Again, unless s/he could pull of a great respect for believers and their faith, this would be very empty and meaningless words coming from an atheist.
Personally, I wouldn’t have a problem with conservative-leaning atheist who understands the history of this nation, its tradition of celebrating Christian holidays (Easter, Thanksgiving, Christmas), etc. just to name a few things. But I don’t know many atheists personally who lean that way in politics. I know many who are that way as civilians, but most I know who are politically active lean very left and very angry and very disrespectful and hateful towards believers.
Just some thoughts.
Michael in MI on December 3, 2007 at 10:45 PM
I resemble that remark!
I don’t care what religion he is as long as he knows the “Constitution of the United States” is his bible during his term and his boss is the American people.
TheSitRep on December 3, 2007 at 10:45 PM
I meant to say “Is there anything wrong with an atheist as President? No.”
I simply wanted to say that while we don’t need an atheist, we also don’t not need an atheist as President either.
An analogy is that some leftists say because our health care system is broken, we need universal healthcare. To that I say not necessarily. Just because one thing may be broken does not mean the opposite is the solution.
Michael in MI on December 3, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I live in Mass. The Mormon “issue” is not an issue as far as I’m concerned. It didn’t affect the way he governed here. I really don’t think it’s going to affect the way he he’d govern the country.
For the record, I’ve been supporting Hunter. So it’s not like I’m gonna pick up Mitt’s case and run with it. Will I vote for him if he gets the nom? Yes.
Just a view from someone who saw it up close.
PowWow on December 3, 2007 at 10:48 PM
I’m talking about the guy in the house of representatives. He has the most liberal voting record in the house, if memory serves. if this is the “atheist” we need; then I’d say no we don’t need one.
Anyways, I find it interesting how much atheists focus on religion (or lack thereof). I’m not overly religious (probably more atheist these days), but I don’t give any thought to someone’s religion as long as they are american first. By wanting an “atheist” you almost have to ask – what’s more important to you? american or atheist first?
lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 10:59 PM
Heh. That was me. :D
I think it generally comes down to jerks like Dick Land just wanting Mitt or anybody else to kiss their ring–all to buy the privilege of getting treated like any other American. This religious bigotry crap is getting real old already.
ReubenJCogburn on December 3, 2007 at 11:00 PM
It really is only an issue for certain devout Christians who think the Mormons are proselytizing to Christians and trying to convert them to Mormonism. It is a competitive thing.
From what I can tell it really isn’t an issue for Catholics at all so Sean isn’t representative and I can understand his not understanding.
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Who cares if he is a Morman, really? I just want to know where he really stands on the issues.
Jay on December 3, 2007 at 11:01 PM
You mean like Dawkins saying the Mormons were fielding a candidate in Mitt in his review of Hitch’s anti-theist screed?
Bad Candy on December 3, 2007 at 11:02 PM
You LOVE taken that big wooden spoon out to stir the pot, dontcha?
SouthernGent on December 3, 2007 at 11:02 PM
The deep irony will be if Mitt picks up some sort of sympathy vote after all the religious dust up.
I’ve made clear statements in other posts about the (my) Christian view of Mormonism, but my opposition to Mitt comes much more from his prior stance on abortion and a lack of certainty that he’s not going to tack way left after the primaries.
I’m voting Fred if he’s still on the ticket when it comes to Texas, and I’ll pull the GOP lever in November come hell or high water.
TexasDan on December 3, 2007 at 11:03 PM
I’m not dawkins. I can’t speak to him. I’m saying that I, personally, do not factor in someone’s religion when I vote. If they are right on the issues, i don’t really care what they are.
lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 11:05 PM
lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 10:59 PM
The atheist in the House of Representatives is Pete Stark (CA). He’s pretty liberal.
Big S on December 3, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Let’s look at our only avowed nontheist in congress:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark#Congressional_scorecards
# American Land Rights Association – 9% for 2006
# Americans for Tax Reform – 8% for 2005
Family Research Council – 0% for 2005
FreedomWorks – 6% for 2005
National Federation of Independent Businesses – 8% for 2005-2006
National Rifle Association – F for 2006
US Chamber of Commerce – 32% for 2005
# NAACP – 94% for 2005
# NARAL Pro-Choice America — 100% for 2003–2005
National Education Association — 100% for 2005.
National Organization for Women — 100% for 2005
Population Connection — 100% for 2000–2005
This is our only current experience with a nationally governing atheist. It’s not a good record.
lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 11:07 PM
Romney Takes the NPR Religious Test
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Population Connection…the former Zero Population Growth. I’m pro-choice, but not rabid about it, and I think NARAL and NOW are misguided. However, I think Population Connection is just creepy. NARAL and NOW don’t consider an embryo or fetus human, and there’s a debate about that, but PC asserts that even adult humans are a problem. Not good.
Big S on December 3, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Agreed, I just thought I’d point out that atheists aren’t immune to that brand of thinking.
Bad Candy on December 3, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Too bad the atheists are all on the Left, eh AP?
packsoldier on December 3, 2007 at 11:15 PM
@ lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 11:07 PM
The voting record is because he is a liberal, not an athiest. I seriously dont understand WHY religion matters at all when voting someone for office. I would vote for a christian, a mormon, a scientologist as long as he is right on the issues. I am an athiest and voting for someone who I think is believing in something that is not so is not a problem for me as long as he is right ont he issues. The only thing I will NOT vote for is another ass who claims he talks to god and gets justification from god for his actions.
muyoso on December 3, 2007 at 11:15 PM
I also meant to add at 1115, some atheists are atheist first. I’ll admit, I’m an American conservative first and foremost.
Bad Candy on December 3, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Will you be 45 by 2012?
If so, run.
terryannonline on December 3, 2007 at 11:19 PM
That’s fine. But even the outspoken atheists – hitchens, etal – are all big government types when it comes to economic issues and are predominantly leftists.
It’s only because religious fanatics are being killed in Iraq, that hitchens even supports the current conflict. I fear the current crop of atheists are no better than the ones who tried to eradicate religion in various countries around the globe over the past century. Given the chance.
lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 11:21 PM
I’m not claiming they don’t, but when your religion (or lack thereof) is how you are identified; it’s a problem.
lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 11:24 PM
If we believe that people may act out of religion, then voting on the basis of a person’s religion is not illogical or inappropriate. We have to consider how relevent religion is people’s life. The answer is that both religious belief varies considerably and likelihood of accepting the crazier doctrines of particular faith also varies considerably among the faithful. Just to make this clear, I have no problem voting for the typcial American Catholic who would hard pressed to tell me how Catholicism differs from the doctrines of the Southern Baptist faith. However, there is no way I’m voting for a Sojourners Catholic (because they would be crazy left) or a Opus Dei Catholic (because they would be crazy right). Importantly, in both cases—the Sojouners Catholic and the Opus Dei Catholic–the politics comes out of the religious beliefs—and in both cases it is impossible to separate the bad politics from the religious nonsense. (Please note that my example here is not meant to attack Catholicism. It just seemed fairer to use a religion that produces a diveristy of lunacy instead just one particular type.)
The secularist cannot help but note that Mormonism is a little more lunatic than traditional Christianity. I not sure what the political implications are, but when people believe insane ideas they can often find some practical application for them. Mitt’s Mormonism is a source of concern for me, but I will vote for Romney if he is the nominee of the Republican Party. I trust he’ll flip-flop the right way.
Still, we learn the wrong leason if we say that because Mitt’s Mormonism is basically ok for the presidency, that we should make some general rule that a person’s religion is irrelevant. We face an imperialist Islam and we are quite right to not vote for someone because they are a muslim. I guess we could wonder is it ok to vote for muslim, if the muslim is truly an apathetic, lapsed muslim? I’d say no, because I’d still wonder about his willingness to defend America against muslim values.
thuja on December 3, 2007 at 11:32 PM
David Limbaugh: Mitt Should Can “The Speech”
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 11:34 PM
He actually only has to be 35, according to Article II of the Constitution. Well, except in Ron Paul’s super-secret copy, which probably says that a person has to have two heads and be able to play the banjo.
ReubenJCogburn on December 3, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Maybe a Deist first, one step at a time.
Who wouldn’t vote for Thomas Jefferson?
Speakup on December 3, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Me for one. They guy was as bad as Clinton
bnelson44 on December 3, 2007 at 11:43 PM
I wonder what percentage of Conservative Atheist commenter’s is here?
Speakup on December 3, 2007 at 11:44 PM
He’d have to get dressed, leave the house, shake hands, kiss babies, preferrably have a bride, be more optimistic, be coached, follow polls, be diplomatic, pick up a Southern accent, eat weird foods and pretend to like them… The pay w/b better, he’d have numerous iphones…but the world wouldn’t be the same again, for him, and for us. I vote against it.
Entelechy on December 3, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Yeah, it is, s’what I’m saying.
Bad Candy on December 3, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Just for the record, I’m a Southern Baptist if you absolutely have to put a label on it (I prefer just “christian”) and I’ve never heard of this guy before.
Benaiah on December 3, 2007 at 11:48 PM
as a southern baptist, and one who once took a class from Dr. Land. I can tell you that he would definitely vote for Romney if he was the nominee, especially if Hillary is the candidate.
However, like any good lobbyist, he is waiting to see who is likely to win before pledging his support.
hashman on December 3, 2007 at 11:49 PM
You disqualified AP at get dressed.
lorien1973 on December 3, 2007 at 11:50 PM
FYI
dr. land is the lobbyist for the Southern Baptist Convention.
hashman on December 3, 2007 at 11:50 PM
Faith would be a factor if a candidate were Muslim, since Islam is diametrically opposed to our constitution and cultural ideals. Based on the way Muslims are apparently required to practice their faith, I would have to assume that a Muslim president could not do his or her job properly (i.e. upholding the Constitution and defending personal freedoms) while also honoring his or her faith according to the dictates of Islam. It seems like that would be an unmitigated disaster in more ways than one.
But I don’t have a problem with Mitt being Mormon. Mormons are good people.
aero on December 3, 2007 at 11:58 PM
St st st lorien1973, don’t imply that I know his soft spots, ’cause that would not be true.
Entelechy on December 4, 2007 at 12:33 AM
The last Presidential candidate that had his religion as an issue somebody shot.
CommentGuy on December 4, 2007 at 3:33 AM
If you believe in cycles it’s been about 30 or 40 years since the last one so we are due again.
CommentGuy on December 4, 2007 at 3:40 AM
I’m still waiting for what, exactly, LDS beliefs are that would be a bad thing for the country. Seriously, I’m curious. If it’s just doctrine such as the “mythology” of Mormonism–i.e. what is sacred history, then it’s no weirder than anyone elses (aside from the fact we would preach Christ stronger since we believe we have more evidence He is God over the whole earth).
But outside of sacred mythology, if you want to call it, what is there that people fear?
Vanceone on December 4, 2007 at 4:11 AM
If Mitt is the nominee and Land doesn’t vote for him, he’ll in effect be casting half a vote for the Democrat nominee.
Same goes with all of you ‘I’ll never vote for Giuliani’ types.
James on December 4, 2007 at 7:48 AM
There is a reason why Howard Hughes hired Mormons to be in his close circle of trusted employees. They are fundamentally good folk.
Every Mormon I have every met was an awesome person. I think they are more honest and hard working than your average American of any faith.
Arguments over which brand of mythology you follow is inane.
That being said, Go Fred!
TheSitRep on December 4, 2007 at 7:56 AM
I’m not Baptist but I’ve never heard of the guy.
roux on December 4, 2007 at 8:29 AM
I never understood how Protestant faiths could criticize Catholics. We started the whole thing.
matd on December 4, 2007 at 8:30 AM
Yeah like that Scalia fellow.
sweeper on December 4, 2007 at 8:52 AM
And that’s the problem, where does he stand this week. Every one of the major issues (abortion, immigration, gunt control, taxes, conservative, big government,etc.) he has changed his mind on in the past year or two.
Ramping up to run, he has changed his mind on each of these issues.
You, nor anyone else, can say for certain (based on his voting history) that his views now are what he really believes in.
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 9:09 AM
We have gone through this…it is taking our most sacred image, our most sacred persona, Jesus, and making him married or worse a polygamist, making him just another man. That alone offends Christians (it means he was just a man and not God). It removes the virgin Mary. You don’t get how sacred Jesus (and His birth) is to us as a Christian Trinity. The fact that he died and 3 days later rose, that the blood was shed for all mankind,is tainted by Mormon folklore (as Christians see it). Taking the words of the bible and twisting them to Mormon meaning, is abhorrent. Go to the real textual meaning from the Greek and Hebrew, but not pulled from a hat. The bible is made up of thousands of documents, cross checked and analyzed for 2,000 years. Christians don’t like some one pulling words from a hat and distorting historically, linguistically accurate text.
That is what is upsetting, you may think it is wrong, but those are some of the reasons.
You are arrogant to think that Mormon’s (or any other religion), can hijack someones beliefs and not have them angry.
Everyone who posts realizes, in their life, if some one stole something they have ownership to (let’s say an idea for the company to make huge profits). And some one else came along, took that idea off the desk, revised it a little and sold it as theirs…the original idea broker would be angry. Or someone stole the playbook of the Patriots, revised it a little then sold it…the Patriots would sue, NO? How about a book you wrote, and someone stole it, changed a few words, then sold it and made billions, would you be angry and want that book? Or would you say, well that’s okay, they can do what they want. I’ll think of something else.
It does not negate Mitt as a candidate, but he has to get over the Mormon theology of “we are the same”.
Mitt has other reasons to be disqualified, read my earlier post.
right2bright on December 4, 2007 at 9:27 AM
Michael, in point of fact, Thanksgiving was based directly on the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, and is a non-denominational holiday that all Americans can partake in–even atheists–precisely because it is non-denominational.
You don’t need to be religious to be thankful for the good things in your life.
Meryl Yourish on December 4, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Comment pages: