You know this whole “I’m not voting for (fill in the blank) because he doesn’t believe in “my” God or he belongs to a “cult”, is pretty ridiculous.
I thought after Jack Kennedy was elected, this “religious test” for candidates was not an issue any more.
Don't mix up qualifications for presidential candidacy with qualities of a president.
Lots of folks (perhaps even you?) might be worthy to be qualified to run for president. (Candidate qualifications)
Mitt would have such qualifications. The Muslim congressman from Minnesota would likewise have officeholder qualifications
But qualities of an officeholder--while common to many voters--are still more subjectively distinct. Frankly, while some common consensus points of evaluation exist, they still vary according to voter. Some voters weigh social issues more; others weigh character more; others weigh pet issues more; others weigh experience...
So a Catholic/New Ager like Dennis Kucinich (friend of Shirley MacLaine) certainly has the qualifications to run for office; but some of his New Age leanings (has been influenced by a spiritual "healer"/teacher from a New Mexican New Age organization) may effect how a voter views his qualities as a President. Nothing wrong with that, is there?
The "religious test" will _always_ be "an issue". Indeed, it may become _more_ of an issue as the war with Islam progresses.
Question: Would you vote for an Islamic for high public office? At this time in history, are the beliefs and worldviews of Islamics (who are candidates for high public office) not an issue?
My own answer: religion remains "a test" for me. I would not vote for an Islamic under ANY circumstances, ever. I realize your own opinion (and the opinions of others) may be different.
- John