Should the show of religion/faith be a necessary part of the election process ?

[Totally Committed]

Poll question: Should the show of religion/faith be a necessary part of the election process ?

Religion and politics hand-in-hand in 2008 race
Lately it seems all the leading presidential candidates are discussing their religious and moral beliefs -- even when they'd rather not

Story Highlights:

* Personal faith of candidates is very public part of presidential campaign
* Clinton, Obama hired strategists to focus on reaching religious voters
* Dems targeting moderate Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants, evangelicals
* Some top-tier GOP candidates are finding issue awkward to handle

"To many Americans, religion is a very important part of their life and they are interested in how religiosity influences candidates," said John Green, a University of Akron political science professor and senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

"Where this election cycle is different," he said, "is that more of the Democratic candidates are speaking out about their faith, and they've organized their campaigns to appeal to religious voters."

In past campaigns, Republicans nearly cornered the conservative religious vote. The 2004 Democratic nominee, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, is a Catholic but lost the Catholic vote 47 percent to 52 percent to Bush, according to exit polling. Bush won white evangelicals 78 percent to 21 percent.Now, Democrats are speaking plainly about their beliefs. In March, Edwards told the multi-faith Web site Beliefnet.com that Jesus would be appalled at how the nation has ignored the plight of the suffering.

"I think the majority of Americans, the people who largely decide elections, what they are looking for -- particularly in these times -- is a really good and decent human being to be president," Edwards said in an interview with The Associated Press. "If you are a person, a man or woman, of faith, that has an impact on how they view you as a human being, whatever your faith is."

Entire Article:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/01/candidates.religion.ap/index.html

I find this a bit disturbing, this acceptance of the blurring of the lines seperating Church and State. While I agree with Obama, when he says, in the article: "Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters..." I do believe that this Party's chiming in with the Show-and-Tell exercize campaigns have become where religion is concerned is a slippery slope that could find Democratic political candidates needing to provide more and more "proof" of faith during elections, in order to become viable with more "voters" (Read: Red State voters), when I feel it's actually no one else's business.

How do YOU feel about this? Should the show of religion/faith be a criterion forced on the election process?

(1) The Seperation of Church and State is important. A person's relationship with God is personal and should be kept personal. It is no one's business what a candidate's relationship with God (or lack of one) is like, and it should not be used as a criterion in elections.

(2) The Seperation of Church and State is important, but I don't see a problem with a show of faith from a candidate if it is a sincere representation of the candidate's relationship with God. I don't see how using faith as a criterion in elections is hurtful, or potentionally hurtful to that Seperation.

(3) The Seperation of Church and State is not important. Our candidates should be willing to demonstrate their faith in order to be seen as viable.

(4) The Seperation of Church and State is not important. This is a Christian Nation and candidates should be willing to demonstrate their Christian faith to be seen as viable.

(5) There should be no Seperation of Church and State.

(6) Other. (Please elaborate)

TC