The issue for me is how a candidate addresses mistakes and failings. Religion shapes one’s perception of mistakes and failings (“sins” is the theological term), so knowing something about how a candidate deals with adversity may be useful to an intelligent voter. People can chose to totally ignore religion, of course. But freedom goes two ways. Each person should be free to take this factor into account in making up his or her mind about voting – that’s the protection to the practice religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

There are some historical examples to serve as cautionary tales. Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao Zedung are three of the most prominent political figures who believed in atheism. None of them even gave people a choice of voting for them, but ruled as bloody dictators. An intelligent and logical observer would have understood that atheism shaped the way these leaders dealt with dissent, mistakes and political decisions. Might an atheist someday come to power and provide a model of good government? I would want to move beyond the rhetoric and examine the practice of atheism of such a hypothetical candidate and make sure it is not like the three mentioned above before voting.

Politicians professing to be religious should be measured by a similar standard. For instance, recognizing beforehand candidate George W. Bush’s shallow understanding of the Methodist tradition, would have disclosed the hollowness of his 2000 election claim to be a “Compassionate Conservative.” Indeed, the Methodist Church is one of the most distinguished for its advocacy for the poor, and the need for social justice. But the religious practice of George W. did not include heeding the directives of his professed church. When the Methodists denounced the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, for example, this president did not follow the leadership of his denomination. The problem is not that he is Methodist: the problem is he is not Methodist enough.

So the practice of his religion was more important than his public profession. The same question of adherence or neglect ought to be a factor in considering the candidacy of Methodist Hillary Clinton.

Knowledge of a candidate’s professed religion, I maintain, is not as important as information on a candidates religious practice. Based on that logic, the real question for this week might read: “Is a Muslim candidate who practices the mandates of the Qur’an to be preferred over a Christian who ignores the teachings of Christ?” Given the current morass in Iraq, the rise of militancy in Iran, the fragility of the Saudi Royal House, the ambiguity in Syria and the factional strife in Palestine, this is not an idle question for foreign policy. The answer would require a grasp of the differences not only between Sunnis and Shiites, but also discernment about the teachings of Hanbali, the Hanafi school, Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, and Salafism. How wonderful it would be to have a US president a person who could analyze a situation with this sophistication!

One should be equally rigorous with U.S. presidential candidates. For instance, what if anything does McCain’s practice of religion in a Baptist church say about following his faith as an Episcopalian? If you take your civic duties seriously, such factors are relevant, even if they are not determinative. A careful examination of religion from the perspective of faith, rather than from an atheist’s point of view would constitute a Believer’s Delight!