Allow me to post four principles of why some Christians think Romney's religiosity is relevant:
Four Principles as to Why the Religion of a Candidate is to be Seriously Considered:
Question #1 at hand: Is it important to have a POTUS whose God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Principle #1: The 'Batphone' Principle: During a Jack Bauer-type of '24' crisis [Let's have a 'Commissioner Gordon' who actually HAS a 'batphone' direct line to the One True God of this world in the midst of crisis situations!]
Question #2 at hand: Is there a transcendent-yet practical-issue beyond faith under consideration here?
Principle #2: We must weigh a candidate's level of vulnerability to deception - for that transcends 'religious' considerations: If a candidate is gullible in the most important area of his life -- his faith – this serves as an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities
Question #3 at hand: Are we voting for a 'pastor-in-chief' or commander-in-chief?
Principle #3: This question addresses not only the role and identity of the POTUS, but the perceived 'self' identity of the candidate. If a given candidate thinks he's a 'god' or 'would-be' god, he exposes himself as deceived on one of the most basic elemental identity issues you can think of.
If a candidate doesn't even know who he is fundamentally, and inwardly lauds himself as 'divine,' why would we want to reinforce such an idolater who steals glory from the One True God?
Principle #4 also deals with Question #3, but from a distinct angle: Is a POTUS a 'minister' of sorts?
Some would say 'no'; I say 'yes,' and here's why—and this principle also links back to #1:
Even non-religious people tend to at times honor the Bible. The Biblical record shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the TRUE Lord -- not by some low-level Mormon god who is part of a great number of Mormon gods...
And these Biblical leaders did not -- or were not to -- worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture.
It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader adheres to, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to
bttt
So I guess you would exclude Jews, and traditional American Indians, just to name a few. Is that right?