PF, I would say that in general terms based on my own experience the closer to the position of religious extremist a person gets, the less honest that person become. I will agree with the irony of the situation you pointed out.

__________________
"BOY: On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses? GIRL: Will he offer me his mouth? BOY: Yes. GIRL: Will he offer me his teeth? BOY: Yes. GIRL: Will he offer me his jaws? BOY: Yes. GIRL: Will he offer me his hunger? BOY: Yes. GIRL: Again, will he offer me his hunger? BOY: Yes! GIRL: Yes. BOY: On a hot summer night, would you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses? GIRL: Yes. BOY: I bet you say that to all the boys!" -Meatloaf

Lord Snow, the real worry about any religious electee is that the dictates of his religious organisation can over-ride the wishes of the people who elected him. State and Church are kept apart for a reason.

As fondly as Americans think of their founding fathers, who today would want to live under that level of draconian demand?

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

As anyone other than an Agnostic incorporates faith into their daily routine, what degree of significance should one place in that worry? How frequently does the faith of this or that elected politician routinely over-ride the wishes of the electorate? I seldom read of those events in the Latin West. I suppose they occur, but with what frequency, and to what degree do those events cause problems to the electorate?

__________________
Eudaimonia

We in Australia are having a few governmental issues due to a couple of independent politicians who hold the balance of power in the Lower House. Both these men are from more intense Christian groups.

The issue of gay Marriage, something which should be a shoo-in in the home of democracy and equality, is the single most visible example of religion's influence.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

The implication, as I read your post, is the the "few governmental issues" can be traced to these two independent politicians who are not willing to vote the way that they should vote. Is that correct? What is wrong with their failing to vote that way?

__________________
Eudaimonia

As it apparently is not a shoo-in, why should it be? This is not to suggest that Marriage should or should not be particularly inclusive or exclusive, but rather why should it be a shoo-in one way or another? Is there some reason that it - or any emotional issue for that matter - should not be closely debated before being decided?

__________________
Eudaimonia

The Oz parliament cannot separate in their minds the civil union called marriage and the sacramental bonding of man and wife.

They are quite happy for people without a religious bone in their bodies to marry, but won't allow same-sex marriage.

Culture/religion/habit is pervasive.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

I couldn’t agree with you more! Culture/religion/habit is not only pervasive; it shapes how we perceive the world around us and think about the relationships found in it.

In the minds of many people the two relationships are the same; marriage is the bonding between male and female humans. One should keep in mind that the Stonewall riots occurred in our lifetimes, only 43 years or so ago, as doing so lends perspective to how far the West has travelled in that interval. The change in societal perceptions of homosexuality has been enormous, sufficiently large that the required redefinition of the noun marriage will occur soon – no mean feat to change the language that fast.

One of the enduring characteristics of democracy (a virtue IMHO), more so for representative, rather less for direct, is that it is prejudiced against rapid change. Not, of course, that rapid change cannot happen, merely that it is unlikely to do so on any particular topic. As you alluded in your ref to the Founding Fathers, if we compare the relationship the Citizen has to the State today, and that of 1912, I think the Citizen has a much larger range of personal freedom available now than then.

__________________
Eudaimonia

I'm not as certain of that. There is now a myriad of little defences of liberty, of which the Miranda Decision was one of the early stars. However . .

There are also a mountain of "thou shalt nots" snuck in by all levels of bureaucracy which snag at our shins and drag at our heels. Many of these have never seen the inside of a legislature of greater staure than the local city council.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

Indeed, there are a host of those “legislation by regulation” irritations. There are other limitations today that did not exist in 1912, all the limitations placed on smoking being only some examples, but I’d suggest that the extent of individual freedoms available to the citizen is enormously larger in 2012 that in 1912.

There are many examples of this individual liberation. Women were not enfranchised until 1920, and official racial segregation was not outlawed until 1964. It wasn’t until the 1970s that the professional medical associations removed homosexuality from the list of mental disorders. The SCOTUS did not create the right to privacy until Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965), and then Roe vs. Wade (1973).

As for that contemporary icon of freedom, “Free Speech”, there really is hardly any comparison worth talking about. The Sedition Act of 1918, was upheld on appeal by the SCOTUS in 1919. The Alien Registration Act of 1940 was only rendered moot by them in 1957.

While I draw upon U.S. history for illustrations, I suggest that the same transformation is largely true throughout the Latin West. The last successful blasphemy prosecution in the UK was in 1976, and the White Australia policy wasn’t dismantled until the 1950s. So, while acknowledging contemporary constraints upon citizens that were absent in 1912, on balance I think the evidence of many more freedoms now than then is convincing.

__________________
Eudaimonia

That only counts if you were one of the oppressed. LOL

We digress.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

Not altogether. That digression paints the background for the Obama vs. Romney horserace. It is because the U.S. has become more liberal over these last few years that candidate Obama became first Senator Obama, and then President Obama. I suggest that this unambiguous liberalization trend will permit someone whose Faith is somewhat outside the norm ( acknowledging here that Faith remains an important consideration to many) to compete successfully for the POTUS. Ref here the small gap between President Obama & Mr. Romney in the head-to-head comparisons. While Mr. Romney may not win either the Republican nomination, or if successful at that, the next few years at the White House, it will not be because his Faith is not mainstream Christian.

__________________
Eudaimonia

You have more faith that faith is not a deciding factor than I, old friend.

__________________
Calm, quiet, smooth, devastating

I do think that the evidence as presented is persuasive, even if it may not be universally convincing.

__________________
Eudaimonia