If that is the standard, then we can't elect anybody except a good fundamentalist christian. Unless we are jewish, then we have to elect a good Jewish person. Or if we are muslim, then we have to vote for a muslim.
The argument is that if we elect anybody that doesn't meet our definition of Christianity, we are somehow endorsing opposition to Christianity. Our founders were clear that religious tests were not required in government, I would argue that they are not generally appropriate for choosing your candidate either.
Frankly I don't care if the Presidential candidate gets up in the morning and worships a bed post. I want a Presidential candidate that promises to cut government to the bone. That thing conservative candidates used to work for. Back before the Republican party returned to its roots of big government and even bigger promises of wasteful spending.
Seeing as the 'big three' sound like they haven't met a spending bill they wouldn't like, and the other 6 either want some sort of social moral law at the federal level, I think I'll actually vote for the lone conservative in the Republican primary. The only one that mentioned the Constitution in the debate and the only one on the stage that apparently knew the document existed.
I'm going to disagree here with that point in this sense...
Evangelicals view Mormonism as a cult. There are plenty of threads on FR that detail why. That is quite different than someone like Reagan, who was a Christian Disciples of Christ. Or someone who is in a Christian church. Or someone who is Jewish.
Not all evangelicals will turn up their nose at Mitt - especially versus the Hildabeast. The problem is that millions will in fact stay home. We can argue that this is short-sighted, or stupid or whatever, but that probably will not change the reality of the situation. Bush II squeaked by last time. We will need the 4 million who stayed home the last time, to win this time, imo.
For many (not all) evangelicals, the choice will between voting FOR what they perceive as evil (Hillary or similar) OR voting FOR someone who shares many of their concerns, but is in a cult. This will be troublesome for many. It will certainly not be energizing to many in that block. There will, of course be those who hold their nose, trust God to work out the details, and pull the lever for the guy who shares many of their values, but is in a cult. But in the back of their mind, pulling the lever will be EQUAL to endorsing a cult. Some will make that leap. Some won't.
I suggest that if Republicans are planning on winning with Mitt, they're going to need one heck of an innovative strategy.
best, ampu