The problem with creationism is that it is objectionable science and policy rather than faith. In fact, I suspect many people who think that disparaging Evolution as unproven theory disqualifies you for national office are actually soft creationists, believing that God has touched the world at some point in some way so that the human condition is at least broadly aligned with God’s purposes. Nevertheless those people are aware that the progress of science through the centuries has uncovered countless physical mechanisms that once were assuredly divine handiwork. They are not therefore going to let their sense of faith rest on whether we know all the steps on how Evolution produced the eye or first proteins.

I do not mind my, or anyone else’s religion in the public square on Sundays (or Fridays, or Saturdays). Neither do I mind when it is in the lives of its adherents, passionate or all encompassing. But when we come to politics (or science for that matter), then I think the genius of America is that we confine ourselves to platitudes and bromides. In that way the diversity that our freedom permits and begets has a basis for us to function as a polity. So while I appreciate that few people who themselves use a faith test when deciding whom to support or oppose would want the State to establish their test, I do think that in doing so they vitiate a civic ethos in a way that should be deemed, “UnAmerican.”

I don’t agree with the idea that religious teachings are irrelevant to political debate except insofar as they have policy implications, or at least I don’t agree with the way it is usually stated. In my view, a much broader range of beliefs may ultimately have implications for how a candidate sees the world and so have implications for how he acts once in office, and those should be subject to scrutiny.

I think it is fair if a creationist is scrutinised for his beliefs, and we do that all the time. It would be equally appropriate to apply the same scrutiny to an atheist. If it is appropriate to ask someone about their view of the Bible, and we have done that in this election cycle, then how do we pretend that these essentially religious questions are to be allowed and others should be excluded? How can anyone plausibly speak of religion in the public square without moving beyond platitudes and bromides about how wonderful faith is?

I do appreciate that many Americans do not all define religious belief or “having a religion” in terms of doctrine at all, and that is part of a pluralistic society. Equally a part of that society are those who do take authoritative teachings and interpretations of Scripture to be true and essential to salvation. It is the prerogative of the latter to judge candidates accordingly.

Whether or not one’s religious beliefs include a belief in the possibility of error, they should be couched in an awareness that you will appear as wrong in your adherence to one dogma as adherents of another dogma appear to you. What’s American is the belief that there’s room for all reasonable varieties of religious experience however error drenched. “Room” means politely ignoring what you take to be eccentricities and follies of others as you would have them do with what you assume they take to be yours.

Where a candidate subscribes to the tenets of a faith that have direct political import – e.g. a belief in the inferiority of women or obedience to the dictates of religious leader, then you have a poltical rather than religious basis for opposition. When a candidate’s motives or worldview is unsuitable because of a faith conviction, e.g. pacifism no matter the situation, you have another.

Finally, I think it’s American to appreciate that people “have a religion” to a variety of degrees and for a variety of reasons. In a modern, pluralistic nation we appreciate that you can “have a religion” for reasons entirely exclusive of what its proprietors insist its content. So a pro-choice woman can support Catholic Ted Kennedy.

Few have argued that people cannot take strong exception to someone else’s religious beliefs. They have focused their criticism exclusively on a political expression of this, and so that is the line of argument I’m addressing.

There are a LOT of negative statements above Jesus in the Talmud, for example. Didn’t hear that point get raised when Joe Liebermann was the VP candidate for some odd reason.

Orthodox Jews also wear funny underoos. Didn’t hear many comments about that either.

Now, I am not picking on Jews (really), but just asking for consistency for Mormons.

I have also pointed out elsewhere that Mormonism is a religious founded in the US, unlike some other religions with very foreign roots. This is worth thinking about as well.