Why should what a people hold as their private faith matter? It should be how they will govern that matters, I for one would rather have a man who will do the right thing politically as President than someone will sincerely share my faith while making all the wrong moves for the USA, but I guess some people just can't see the logic in that.
You can't reduce it this matter to just voters opting for "someone sharing my faith..." 'cause even voters recognize the big difference 'tween a Southern-Baptist backgrounder like Bill Clinton & a say, a Mike Huckabee.
It's not as simple as that.
As for Why should what a people hold as their private faith matter? It should be how they will govern that matters... the following posts from today's thread http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1937333/posts I believe addresses this:
A poster had written that it'd be a nice change to have a lifelong family man...and I, sarcastically responded:
Hey, we're not voting for "family-men-in-chief" for POTUS. (What a man does & believes in his "personal" & "private" life is personal and private...it's not meant to be dissected as you step into the voting booth)
Well, two female posters rightfully took me to task for this statement:
I think a godly family man would be a nice start for taking on the spawn of the devil. It is a complete contrast from the fraudulent Clintoons. + Hey, if a man betrays his wife, he sure will have no problem betraying others. So yes, personal life and character does matter.
I then responded: OK, OK, OK, I give up the temp mask I was wearing personifying other FREEPERS!! (As FastCoyote could tell from his post #179, I was being a bit sarcastic) I actually agree with you both--at least on these points you've made...One of the posters insightfully added: Oh, and by the way, I disagree with that statement completely, that line was spoon fed to us by the Clintons and look where it got us. I just don’t buy that lie, I didn’t believe it then and I don’t believe it now. The President of the United States is a very important job, it’s not for the faint of heart with a closet full of dirty secrets.
And so I responded: Well, again, I was being sarcastic because I was basically parroting the false motto--as you aptly pointed out--of the Clintons. My point was, tho, is that there's a parallel tract of the Clinton motto...and that is to take the exact same statement and instead of applying it to personal, private moral behavior, some FREEPER folks apply it to personal other-worldly commitments as if it was only a private matter & not to be evaluated in the voting booth. I don't believe you can separate a person's other-dimensionly commitments from their character...and as you pointed out, trying to parcel out character from this high office is indeed a lie. (Nice touch to that paragraph) Bottom line: IF a person is vulnerable to deception & therefore deceives others with the example of their lives...in what they hold dearest in their personal & family lives & faith lives...for example, what a POTUS does with an intern that breaks the covenant of his youth to his wife...or for example, what a potential POTUS believes in the most important area of his life--his faith...THEN, what kind of confidence does that inspire for the voter when it comes to knowing that leader of the Free World will be at times negotiating with the heads of rogue terrorist states...or the heads of Muslim states?
Differences between Clinton and Huckabee? Well, they are both statists for one . . . hmmm.
Oh, yeah, one of them has had a license to preach.