I am a Christian but i would have no problem voting for a satan worshiper if they had the qualities and policies I look for in a leader. (My christian friends are officially freaking out now.)

The only time I think a candidates religious views should be a part of the debate are:
1) when THEY make it part of the debate first, and
2) when their religious beliefs make me question their reasoning skills.

For example, if Candidate Joe says he worships the Mogo Alien because it appears to him and only him every night, I might decide to make his religious beliefs part of my decision making process.

Even though I’m certainly no Romney supporter, I think a candidate’s religious beliefs should be completely irrelevant to his or her ability to be a good President. Now, all the religious folks out there are probably going to start screaming about how it is important, because a person’s morals influence their judgment (a friend of mine just said this to me yesterday, as a matter of fact). However, I have to strongly disagree. There are people with strong principles, good character and sound judgment who hail from all religious persuasions – be they Hindu, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Mormon or even Atheist. Similarly, there are plenty of “people of faith” who would make absolutely lousy Presidents.

I don’t understand why what someone believes (or doesn’t believe) affects their ability to serve this country. There is no religion or denomination with a monopoly on wanting to do the right thing by our fellow citizens. Maybe we all have different ideas on how best to do the right thing, but that should be the issue, not where, and how frequently, someone attends church (or if they even go to church, for that matter). What an odd litmus test. Honestly, it kind of seems like the only reason a candidate’s particular religious beliefs are an issue is so voters can determine if he or she is part of the “club.”

That’s just how it seems to me, at least.

My feelings exactly. I used to love to talk about politics. While I still care passionately, I just dont want to talk about it anymore. everyone has drawn their lines, chosen sides, and call the other side evil. Both sides do it and it disgusts me.

What so many don’t seem to realize is that criticizing national security and foreign policies doesn’t mean that you want America to be annihilated by terrorists. I’m getting really tired of that implication, and I’m also getting tired of the whole black/white world outlook so prevalent in politics today (i.e. if you don’t agree with my point of view, then you are my sworn enemy and want the terrorists to win). Ironic that by taking Edwards’s comments out of context, Romney did exactly what Edwards was griping about.

Man, oh man…this is going to be a long 18 months. How is it that I can loathe yet love politics so much, at the same time?

Here is the speech and comment by Edwards.
http://johnedwards.com/news/speeches/20070523-cfr/

Pertinent part:
The war on terror is a slogan designed only for politics, not a strategy to make America safe. It’s a bumper sticker, not a plan. It has damaged our alliances and weakened our standing in the world. As a political “frame,” it’s been used to justify everything from the Iraq War to Guantanamo to illegal spying on the American people. It’s even been used by this White House as a partisan weapon to bludgeon their political opponents. Whether by manipulating threat levels leading up to elections, or by deeming opponents “weak on terror,” they have shown no hesitation whatsoever about using fear to divide.

But the worst thing about this slogan is that it hasn’t worked. The so-called “war” has created even more terrorism—as we have seen so tragically in Iraq. The State Department itself recently released a study showing that worldwide terrorism has increased 25% in 2006, including a 40% surge in civilian fatalities.

By framing this as a “war,” we have walked right into the trap that terrorists have set—that we are engaged in some kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam.

The “war” metaphor has also failed because it exaggerates the role of only one instrument of American power—the military. This has occurred in part because the military is so effective at what it does. Yet if you think all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.