Pastor Dan says he finds the prospect of putting the religious views of candidates under scrutiny to be scary. I agree. It's why I think the prevailing rhetoric over the last few years, where it has been taken as a given that candidates should emphasize their "faith," has ultimately been very dangerous for the general climate of religious tolerance we have in this country. There's been a general ceasefire between major Christian denominations, a downplaying of religious difference. This has probably been healthy. But once denominations start throwing their political weight around, and once the discourse of politics embraces the language of religion, it's important to understand just what those beliefs - and differences of belief - are.
It's not how I want things to be, but it's the logical consequence of what some people have been agitating for. If "faith" matters, the specifics of your beliefs matter, and the differences between beliefs will be highlighted. Multiple Choice Mitt might be the catalyst for the discussion, but it's nonetheless overdue. Want political fights to align with religious ones? Sounds like a bad idea to me, but it's what you've been asking for.
