Why is that we question a persons religious beliefs when (grace, America)

[raison_d'etre]

Why is that we question a persons religious beliefs when they're running for office and not when they're applying for a job or being tried for a crime?

I really don't think it should be an issue unless they use their religious beliefs in their policy making. When and if they do this, they should lose their position. This goes for all politicians, including the president.

Does it really matter that much?

[Amaznjohn]

The better question is "Are they critical thinkers or do they rely upon mystical guidance?". Personally, I'd prefer the former over the latter.

[TRANSPONDER]

I rather feel the same way about their sexual activities - if they can do the job, I don't care if they have a mistress or have hookers call in after work. Unless they are breaking the law or are such that it might bring their soundness of mind into question.

It seems that this idea of judging a person's lack of 'sinfulness' (and I mean in the religious-morality sense) is an issue regarding whether anyone can be elected who cannot be regarded as ..well, the terms, sinless, Holy, in a state of grace popped into my mind as my fingers hovered over my worn out keyboard keys, but it does seem to me that sexual irregularities from Tiberius to Alexander Borgia have been the favourite discrediting smear (justified or not) to aim at public figures.

Thus perhaps their religious credentials are important before being elected or maybe its just the good old Thatcherist 'Is he One Of Us?' I have to admit that out of a religious and atheist candidate for the presidency the atheist would have to be a complete chump before I would regretfully decide that he couldn't have my vote.

Whereas being a complete chump would be no barrier to election if the religious credentials looked good. Though there again, after Dubhya, Sarey Palin was perhaps too much for even the US public to swallow.

[hljc]

See the spirit of antichrist divides Christians and can divide people against people , which is bonus for politician trying to get elected .... I have heard of one politician who had support for Christian schools and lost the election on the issue of supporting these children who are rejected by the secular world .....polititians will work on all ought against their opponent to discredit them ..... The basic problem is people in religion are entrenched into the religion with their whole being, just like atheist and liberal being what they believe , and will not change for their jobs , See people are not going to be atheist for their jobs and religion for their home life , I don`t make any sense .....

[Type O Negative]

Since the church and the state are separate, religion should have nothing to do with politics and law/policy making that in the end affect people of all religions and not just Christianity.

[hiker45]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

Does it really matter that much?

Oh yeah, it matters a great deal.

When we hire a person, we are just paying them to do a job for us.

When we elect a person, we are chosing them to represent us and make some very important decisions that will affect us. We feel better if that person is pretty much like us.

We take the person's race, ethnicity, cultural background, and religion into account when we choose a leader. That's how it has always been, and that's how it always will be.

[Heathen Hammer]

We question them because they choose themselves to make such information as a qualifier for their superiority for the position. The moment you do so it becomes fair game for scrutiny.

[Hueffenhardt]

There are some religions that just have to matter: Scientologist, Westboro Baptist Church, Branch Davidians, etc.

[Hueffenhardt]

Originally Posted by raison_d'etre

I really don't think it should be an issue unless they use their religious beliefs in their policy making. When and if they do this, they should lose their position. This goes for all politicians, including the president.

Sounds good until you think about it. It is not against the law to use one's religious beliefs in policy making, so it is not an impeachable offense, so good luck trying to get rid of him before his term's up. Two, how does one draw the line of when a person is "using their religious beliefs in policy making"? You can't, really, in practice.

Three, we can never know for sure that a person isn't going to use their religious beliefs in their policy making ahead of time. Therefore, we want to make ourselves aware of what the candidate's beliefs are (religious and otherwise) before we vote for them in the chance they may make policy using them.

So, a candidate's religion is relevant.

[tinynot]

I believe it is necessary to consider a persons religious beliefs when we vote. I don't know about the rest of you but I was pretty ticked off when Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright called the U.S. the US-of KKK and dammed America in his sermons. This is the presidents spiritual advisor. Of course now he is Obamas previous pastor. Obama called for a moment of silence, not a moment of prayer at Aurora; however, he did try to choke out something about God. Personally, I don't want someone of Muslim faith to be a policy maker for this country. An atheist has no organized religion, so they shouldn't be a part of this question. Maybe I am just not thinking clearly, but what do politicians make decisions on if it isn't their religious or spiritual beliefs? Take the gay marriage issue, usually the Bible is referred to as the reason not to approve gay marriage, a religious belief. Whether we like it or not the government is constantly trying to base laws on morality. Are morals not based in religous dogma? I suppose economic policies are not based on religion, anything else?