Ok then. You keep voting based on someones’ religion. How’s that worked out so far?
Grunthor, did you know that 78% of Republicans & 62% of Americans (even 55% of Democrats) say that a candidate's religion is either "very" or "somewhat" important to them as voters? (2006 Rasmussen poll; for exact citation, see end of this post)
You're not castigating the majority of voters, are you? (BTW, 92% of Evangelicals think a candidate's religion is either very or somewhat important to them).
Now why do you think this % of people are so savvy about this aspect of a candidate? Simply put, because other-worldly commitments are a reflection upon character and discernment -- discernment as in vulnerability to deception.
Now, sure I understand you're at least in part trying to inject some "balance" into how candidates are weighed. I think a good chunk of voters use common sense in this regard.
Voter discernment includes MANY issues...namely,
voting record,
present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements,
social issues' stances,
character,
viability,
scandal-free past, etc.
What I object to is FReepers who think they're acting in a "free way" by trying to stigmatize voters who don't 100% disregard character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment in weighing candidates. (That seems to be exactly the opposite of a "Free Republic" in which we live).
Now I don't know if you would go so far as this Lds "apostle" (Dallin Oaks), who said the following in his "Religious Freedom" speech he made a number of weeks ago:
From the news release about his speech: ...of course leaves citizens free to cast their votes on the basis of any preference they choose...But...If a candidate is seen to be rejected at the ballot box primarily because of religious belief or affiliation, the precious free exercise of religion is weakened at its foundation...
"Weigh all their ways," Mr. Oaks seems to say, but don't advocate that candidates steer clear of anything religiously objectionable, which I might add, could potentially include...
...Satanism,
...religious terrorism,
...or candidates who embrace obtaining a graduate degree in divinity -- as in becoming a god himself!!!
I'm sorry, but just because I might claim to worship tulips in my backyard while running for office -- and it doesn't sit well with my voting neighbor who sees such worship -- doesn't "weaken" "the precious free exercise of religion...at its foundation" when that neighbor elects to vote against me primarily on that basis. In fact, it strengthens it. Why? Because "the free exercise of religion" isn't a one-way street applicable only to candidates! (It also applies to voters!). And there's ALWAYS more voters than candidates!
IMPORT OF WEIGHING A CANDIDATE'S VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION: What exactly is wrong with the voter standard that I'm not going to vote for somebody -- ANYBODY -- Democrat, Republican, independent, Green, populist, etc. who thinks they are a god in embryo or part of the future gods of Kolob coalition? Believe me, if Hillary stood up in 2010, announced she was running for president based on her experience as a "god," I don't think we'd see standing ovations from the Democrats based upon some wrestled-out-of-context "freedom of religious expression" notion.
My concern was why did that Lds "apostle" come and wag a finger at voters, saying, "Hey, you, yeah, you, Mr. or Mrs. Individual Voter...if you dare consider the Hare Krishna aspect of this candidate...the Moonie ties of this candidate...the Satanic ties of this candidate...the Wiccan beliefs & practices of this candidate...then we'll accuse you of weakening the very foundation of the constitution??? In other words, 'Vote for the Hare Krishna dude or else!!!' By this standard, we couldn't even take into consideration a candidate's expectation of 72 virgins awaiting them post-'martyrdom' death as a glimpse of their broader religious perspectives.
While Oaks was claiming that "The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign," numerous reasons exist as to why the religious beliefs of a candidate ARE relevant. We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum.
If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist!
Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist. To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
The above-mentioned 2006 Rasmussen poll can be found Election2008:43%WouldNeverVoteforMormonCandidate.
Excerpt from that thread: The Rasmussen Reports survey found that 35% say that a candidate's faith and religious beliefs are very important in their voting decision. Another 27% say faith and religious beliefs are somewhat important. Ninety-two percent (92%) of Evangelical Christian voters consider a candidate's faith and beliefs important. On the partisan front, 78% of Republicans say that a candidate's faith is an important consideration, a view shared by 55% of Democrats. However, there is also a significant divide on this topic within the Democratic Party. Among minority Democrats, 71% consider faith and religious beliefs an important consideration for voting. Just 44% of white Democrats agree.