American voters ought not be concerned with a candidate's religious affiliation

"1. As Puck said, if perceptions of religion are extremely relative, it all depends on our perspective. Then, because there cannot be an agreed upon "definition" of what a religion is about, it really doesn't matter what religion a person says they are, and therefor, voters shouldn't care." Straw man. Firstly it was the claim of belief not perceptions of. It is the fact they profess faith, not the faith itself that is the issue in regards to rational faculties. Secondly voters perception of a candidates faith is irrelevant if the candidates themselves state their belief e.g. Born-again, Mormon. "People (and I believe this is your position, Puck) aren't so much interested in what religion a candidate is, but rather that they would abandon reason for faith to believe any religion." No, I stated that a person's belief is both an indicator of future action and an indicator of use of reason. Many see any claim of faith (Christian, no matter how bigoted or cultish) as a positive aspect in a candidate in regards to their own interests. In both cases a person's faith is relevant. "Of course we all accept "truths" every day based on varying degrees of faith." Contradiction. A truth requires no faith. "We cannot logically explain everything we believe to be true, but that seems to be OK." By whose standards? If it cannot be logically deduced and it is still believed, that is not "OK". "So decisions of faith aren't really as nutty and dangerous as some would make them out to be." US policy in Jerusalem can be tied directly to "decisions of faith". War is not dangerous? "Beyond this, regardless of religious affiliation, do you think all presidential decisions come from logical reasoning? They use logical reasoning based on information that they TRUST is true -- information that they, you might say, have faith in. Do they exhaustively try to prove or disprove intelligence they receive? I doubt it." It is a good thing because they don't? As I mentioned in R1, it is a measure of one's use of rational thought. The current administrations fiasco in Iraq is a fine example of what happens when intelligence is taken on "faith". "So whether they profess to be religious or not, they will receive information, often believe it to be true based on FAITH, and then make decisions based on that information. Kinda sounds like what religious folks do." You have changed your definition of faith for this round, but no matter. It is not by necessity based on faith. It is based on a traceable series of resources. The president or whomever concerned can then rationalise on the basis of that information and their sources. No faith is necessary. Does that sound "like what religious folks do"? No. Use of logic and reason is not faith and faith is not the sole domain or the superlative process for making decisions. Clearly a candidate's religious preference has relevance. It has relevance for those opposed to the advances of Dominionism in US politics and law. It has relevance to those voters who want a religious candidate to vote for. It is relevant because of its possible influence on future policies. Regards, Puck.