If there is NO RELIGIOUS TEST, then why are politicians asked so many questions about their faith?

There can be no state-sanctioned religious test. What criteria voters use, however, is quite different.

There's a strong fundamentalist base in the U.S. They vote in droves, so politicians try to pander to them. Bill Clinton is probably about as religious as I am, but he made sure he was seen signing in church every Sunday. Jimmy carter probably started this, inadvertently. It was then that people in the politics industry realized they could use religious fanaticism to their advantage, and in turn the zealots gained power. Reagan was the first presidential candidate to exploit religious faith in such a brazen manner.

you comprehend what, i myself did no longer think of lots in any respect approximately him (sturdy or undesirable) previously on the instant. I actual have an excellent style of admire for him after his statement on the instant and there is lots reality in the element you quoted that it only blew me away! i'm uncertain who i'm going to vote for yet in the Presidential Election, yet i think of it incredibly is the neatest, maximum open-minded and honest factor any of the applicants have suggested so a procedures. And brave too. i'm a Christian, no longer LDS/Mormon. Pastor artwork's remark makes me wince slightly - re: the "project" with Romney's assertion above. this is as though PA did no longer even understand what Romney suggested with any genuine point of awareness. right this is the considerable component of what PA neglected: "each and every faith has its own unique doctrines and historic previous. those are no longer bases for criticism yet rather a try of our tolerance. non secular tolerance could be a shallow concept certainly if it have been reserved only for faiths with which we agree." He would not say everywhere in his total speech (flow to CNN and consider it) that each and every guy or woman in united statesa. desires to be Mormon or have self belief in the Mormon faith. Nor does he element out "issues" with different faiths. Tolerance does no longer mean you're able to take yet somebody else's ideals to be your own, it ability you do no longer continuously berate/attack/cope with them in a distinctive way for it. an excellent style of Christians ought to examine from Romney's occasion, alongside with PA. rather of listening to what Romeny actual suggested, regrettably, many Christians will attack different themes they have with Romney's faith - because of the fact they have neglected the element - and neglected Jesus' overriding message of love for another.

Years ago, that was interpreted for Federal level politicians. Many states have laws on their books requiring state level political offices be held by a theist. I find this appalling.

Voters want to know. Many use this as a measure of their integrity. For instance, I do not agree with LDS (Mormon), but would have no problems voting for Romney because he does show integrity by the way he practices. Also, because his preacher does not preach against the US.

because questions are important people want to know so they ask which is there best weapon to use keep askin questions its always good but for religion and politics it should not matter what religion you are

A test is not a question !!

To marry my incomparably beautiful daughter you must be Christian. But if I ask you about your religion, that is a question.

A person's religious beliefs are a good indicator of how they will lean on issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc etc etc.

Most of us have not yet evolved to the level of our founding fathers.

so people know who to vote for