Presidents and politicians are often elected in some part based on their religion. In America, presidents have always been Christian, and usually protestant. Even though the Constitution forbids religious tests required to hold a public office, the people have their own informal qualifications for their leaders. John F. Kennedy was opposed partly because he was Catholic; Mitt Romney is similarly situated because he is a Mormon. Does this affiliation matter? In a society where church and state are supposed to be separate, should politicians talk about their religious beliefs?* Are there any religious questions that politicians should or should not be required to answer?

In theory, religious belief does not decrease the ability of a person in a non-religious occupation to do his or her job. A Buddhist is not necessarily more wise than a Muslim; a Jew is not inherently better at negotiation than a Hindu; a Baptist is not necessarily a better leader than a Methodist. A candidate should be elected on their qualifications and merit, not religious affiliation.

However, the office of "politician" might be considered different from a "regular" occupation. The leaders of a democratic society must retain the support of the people, and individuals are more likely to support a person with the same religious beliefs as themselves. Besides, people should have the right to ask their future leaders any question. The more information a voter knows, the better a decision he or she can make.

*Beliefs != practices. A belief may be defined as an idea, a practice may be defined as an action. You can believe that it is a moral duty to kill infidels, but not practice murder.

You may find this informative:
http://thinkinghard.com/politics/WhyPoliticiansHaveToLie.html

My two cents? I don't see people as voting for hard facts. People vote on appearances and on immediately apparent needs. If someone doesn't look good to someone, they aren't going to vote for them. People divide lines in their religion (as to who is "in" and who is "out", "us" and "them"). If someone is part of your group, all the better. I'm not saying all people base their entire vote off of this, but it definitely sways it.

Christianity and leadership is incredibly loaded - Christians are called to pray for their leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-4), and it outlines what makes a Godly Leader pretty clearly in Titus 1:4-9.

But, if you look at Titus 1:4-9, many of those traits are seen in "men of God" as much as in secular men. Anyone is capable of alcoholism or cheating on their spouse as much as they are of restraining these urges. I think that a lot of extremists do not see it that way, and that they think only Christians are capable of restraint. The only thing I can say about Christianity (and most peace loving religions) is that it might put similar practitioners at ease knowing that their leader will do what is good and right, and that the leader and practitioners are in agreement about what is good and right. Which is why a lot of leaders appeal to Christians...there's a lot of them in the states.

It's not necesarily bad either because the elected officials are supposed to represent the people who elected them.

But yeah, if both candidates were completely even, but one of them was a Christian, I would probably vote for him/her.

For whatever reason, the American public sees religion as a major factor in their lives and therefore in how they select their political leaders. It's not unique to the US, though religious rhetoric tends to be conflated with moral rhetoric more often in US discourse. Has a US president ever been a convert from another religion? Benjamin Disraeli was Jewish until the age of 13 and became Britain's Prime Minister during the 19th century. Could a Jew become US president?

America was built on tenets of freedom and protection of the individual. Hence why the bill of rights cannot be violated or removed by congress.

It seems like a grand idea until we evaluate what it entails. The majority, while they can get their way sometimes, still have to bend to the will of the minority. No group is entirely subjugated to another. This leads it to being unpopular, especially to the majority, who are restricted from acting how they please (prayer in a graduation ceremony, for example).

Whoever thought up the separation of church and state was apparently very perceptive into what religion is, and quite objective on the matter. Religions often adopt a code of conduct from their deity, which, in the eyes of the religious, are more binding than any laws created by man. In a relentless takeover, religion attempts to inject its dogma into anything and everything (science, for example) because this is a divine command. Many are simply too biased to promote any secular government, even though that's what America is about.

Since the foundation of America, Christianity, the clearly dominant religion, has been wearing down what used to be a once purely secular nation. The phrase "under God" appears in our pledge of allegiance, where it once did not. "In God we trust" was added to our coins, and later to our paper money. And further, attempts at legislation to promote one religion's ideals are observed quite often (anti-abortion).

It's a great shame that America has fallen so far. And perhaps even worse that people attribute this to a nation that's falling away from their god, when really the opposite is true.

---

Whether or not a religious candidate will be elected solely on the basis of his religion isn't something we could fight. Even if it were illegal (which it shouldn't be), then we could not possibly enforce it. The majority will only elect a Christian president. There's nothing we can do about that.

I don't think everyone who is pro-life/anti-abortion is necessarily religious. Is it really a religious issue? I mean sure a lot of religions are like "LOLNO dun do it" and the people are like "KK", but I still think it could be a moral issue, rather than religious.

The late Christopher Hitchens was against abortion. You certainly can't accuse him of being religious.