I realized something interesting... There is this debate about Romney, and whether we could elect a Mormon president. On one side, there are the liberal secularist, many constitutional conservatives, and independents saying there is no religious test for President, shouldn't matter at all. And, I agree. But who do we actually elect? Married Caucasian males of wider Christian faith exclusively. Now, there was a separate but similar debate I heard recently about appointing a Muslim to a cabinet post so we would 'understand' foreign policy better. Putting two and two together I realized something interesting. The country was founded by Protestant Christians predominantly, and the formation of the culture, government, whole society reflects that. Part of that is the strong respect of freedom. Now, if a religion is formed upon a different ethos, pushes a subservience to God that includes abdication of personal freedoms to the church, and that church pushes the concept of social and moral control through the state, would you consider actively opposing a candidate for governance based on that persons adherence to that faith?
I had to ask myself this, and I think the question is yes. Not in terms of bigotry, or opposition to any one individuals belief. But globals in a persons religion are unavoidable, and if that person makes the choice to agree with said religion, how can they support our constitution in full? A funny thing, as it is easy to believe that an atheist free market conservative will uphold the tenets of the constitution. Its easy to understand, even vote for, a Jew like Lieberman, knowing that his priority is foremost this countries safety, even when I disagree with most of his social views. And it is even possible to comprehend Rudy, who is not in line with his own church, but clearly states his position.
But that brings us to the big two. Even moderate Muslims are a question mark. There is little evidence that supports their (collective) endorsement of the separation of government and religion. Not that it is the paramount issue, but is not reflective of the majority in America, and would play into a voting decision. Again, I don't mean in terms of bigotry or any such, people are free to believe what they want. But when we know what they believe, and it does not fit with the open and free government system in the U.S., why can't that be used in consideration of a candidate?
Second, returning to Romney, how can I fully support someone to make correct decisions, when you know as a absolute certainty that they believe an obvious falsehood? I don't mean "are Mormons Christians" and what not. I mean the obvious phony history surrounding the whole origin of the religion (no hate here, its blatantly obvious to any, and extensively investigated by real anthropologists...). Hey, many very capable Christians believe in the whole ten thousand years since creation thing, but that is obvious ignorance, and someone who promoted such would by on the bottom of my list as well. Again, its not a bigotry thing, you can believe in fairies and frosty the snowman for all I care, but if I know you believe in that, and promote it as real, does that not give me grounds for questioning your decision making capabilities?
It is my right, in this country to decide who will lead us. Many religions do not have that same structure, that's ok. Even Catholics (not really the religion of choice in inspiring the foundation of this country) seem to abdicate freedom in the regards to leadership in the church. Here is where true liberals (old school), libertarians, and some conservatives are in agreement. Freedom of choice permeates the respective philosophies, even when in disagreement. Its a obvious tenet of the atheists, verging on nihilism. Its a huge cornerstone of Protestantism. And for those simply ruled by commerce, holds pretty well again.
Thus I stand, ones religion in the individual context can be a fine indicator for voting, and should not be a big deal. But in the age of PC, you can't disclose such. It come in as a modifier, after issues based decisions, and political platform. For instance, I don't care about Hillary's type of Methodist thinking. Many misguided Christians are swayed by socialist tendency's. I mean the intentions align in wanting to help your fellow many. They just can't see the unavoidable flaw of abdicating that responsibility to government. Socialism will always fail. So even though I agree with more of the values held by the United Methodists like Hillary, I would not vote for her based on that. And I would vote for Romney over any socialist, but I am not comfortable with any Mormon who I didn't know personally to lead us (again, its LEADERSHIP, not friends, family or acquaintance...). Personal knowledge reveals character, and anyone can be part of a religion simply by birth or for community association, and that shouldn't disqualify for office.
So, that leaves the hanging question of analyzing in a governmental context the compatibility of filling that government with individuals who believe in a religion that does not support fully that type of government...