Should a political candidate's religion Matter?

Should a political candidate’s religion matter?

This is from Blueollie an atheist blog - It does not represent the views of ACGC or Mr. Singsank
This Daily Kos post by former Representative Alan Grayson started the thought process:

Yesterday was a federal holiday honoring a religious celebration; if there is a War on Christmas, Christmas is winning. So this is as good a time as any to discuss Mitt Romney’s religion, and the separation of church and state.

One of the unwritten rules of American politics is that you should never express disappointment with the voters. They can express their disappointment with you, each time you’re on the ballot. But it’s strictly a one-way street.

Nevertheless, I was disappointed to read last Thursday that a Mason-Dixon poll found that 26% of all American voters would be “uncomfortable” with a Mormon as President. Last month, a Public Religion Research Institute poll put that figure at more than 40%. In June, a Quinnipiac poll put the figure at 36%. And a Gallup Poll in June found that 22% of all voters would not support any Presidential candidate who is an active Mormon.

The Constitution could not possibly be clearer on this point. The penultimate sentence of the Constitution states: “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Note that this was in the original Constitution; the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights came later. [...]

The post goes on to say that:

Perhaps this is one of those times when people need to be reminded of what Lincoln called “the better angels of our nature.” Bigotry is wrong, whether it’s directed against African-Americans, gays, Jews or Mormons.

Mitt Romney got this right, in a speech during his 2008 campaign. He said: “I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”
Amen to that, Brother.

Sorry. But I disagree….sort of. I’ve thought about this at some length and I have to admit that I am puzzled.
When someone says that being, say, anti-mormon is “bigotry”, is that really true?

To me, it all boils down to what it means to “be” in a religion.. Note: for the purposes of this discussion, I am ruling out the mostly small, “hate groups disguised as religion” organizations such as the KKK, the Creativity movements, etc.

So, what does it mean to “be a Mormon”, “be a Jew”, “be a Catholic”, etc.?
To me, the important thing is “what does the candidate actually believe” and “how does a candidate think” and or “see the world”?

Now, I’d love to be in a position to say: “if someone believes crazy things like “this person was born of a virgin and was raised from the dead” or “this person received gold plates and translated them with seer stones” or “this person was taken to heaven in a chariot of fire” or “this person thinks that a deity orders the wholesale slaughter of human beings” and “stopped the sun in the sky”, then they are too superstitious to be an effective leader.
Unfortunately, someo
ne who doubts ALL of these things and does so openly will probably never win office at too large of a scale (say, state wide level or wider). We are a horribly superstitious country. 

So, for me, it boils down to “what does the candidate actually believe”?

If they really believe that a person’s dark skin is a result as a curse from their god then yes, in all cases that I can think of, this should be disqualifying. 

If a person really believes that it is acceptable to offer your daughters to be raped, that is disqualifying. 

If a person really believes that the coloring of an animal is determined by what its parents are looking at when they mate, they are too stupid to hold office. 

If a person thinks that the death penalty is an appropriate penalty for lying about how much money you have to give to the church, that person is disqualified, in my eyes. 

If a person thinks that the death penalty is appropriate for apostasy, that person has no business living in the United States, much less running for office. 

Then again It is common for people who label themselves as “Christian”, “Jews”, “Mormons” or “Muslims” to not embrace all of the “facts” in their holy texts. Lots of time, people can belong to a religious group or denomination but not embrace all of the canonical beliefs, theology or myths. Also, many interpret many of these things symbolically or they rationalize them away by saying “that is what our religious ancestors thought then but we’ve progressed from that”, etc. Therefore, it is possible to attach too much meaning to a label.

My larger point: a person’s actual beliefs, knowledge and values should be taken into account, even if that person’s beliefs are labeled as “religious beliefs”. This “no religious test” clause in the Constitution means that the government can’t forbid someone from running for religious reasons. But voters can use whatever reason they want. And no, I won’t allow someone to hide superstition, ignorance and evil values under “hey, those are my religious beliefs”. 

Of course, one’s religious beliefs are only part of the story.
Example: if an Ayn Rand type social Darwin type atheist was running against a evangelical Christian who believed that their religion requires them to maintain publicly funded safety nets for the poor and disadvantaged, well, I’d vote for the Christian almost every time (except for possibly rare exceptional cases).