|
It is not necessarily a big deal, but interesting to discuss at any rate. The distinction I am trying to figure is that between assessing a candidate--or at least ascribing a certain value to a candidate--based upon one's own perceptions of the religion that the candidate claims to subscribe to versus assessing that candidate based on his or her own stated values, especially as it relates to including those values in their job performance.
Here's a question...
Let's presume that I hereby announce my candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President. Someone naturally asks my religion. Being an honest and open fellow, I tell him I am a Mormon. Now, there's likely to be some hushed whispers and comments from the peanut gallery, but after that settles down, the real thing I want to know is this: What is it exactly that people are worried a Mormon or any other apolitical religion is going to do? Is it something like being afraid I'll support blue laws (closing business on Sunday) or things like that? Or is it that I'll answer to President Hinckley in SLC before I answer to the public? Or anything else that a "religious man" is more likely to do that is a bad thing than a "non-religious man."
|