first, this is a nation which is 80% christian. both candidates are avowed christians. so i think it’s not that weird that they’d be questioned by a christian minister on religious questions. i’m opposed to candidates using their position to push forward their own religious sect, though this often happens. but, i am pretty sure that it is impossible to disentangle people’s views on a host of issues from their religious viewpoints and what not.

second, i’m no longer much of a “naked public square” person. religion is important to people. in fact, anti-religion is important to people. many irreligious people talk about how religion should be a hobby, like knitting. well, that’s never gonna happen. in fact, most “irreligious” people have their own passions which are in many ways rather religious in form, though they might not have a god or supernaturalism tacked on to them.

as someone with a very thin/spare metaphysical and supernatural set of beliefs i’m among 2.5% of americans, and a tiny minority in the world. i’m enough of a communitarian now that i just believe religion has to be treated differently because most people conceive of it differently. i treat religion as another material/phenomenological condition of existence. nothing more, nothing less.

if i was god things would be different of course….

Muslims have thought that if such a challenge on the basis of religion is launched, they would also benefit. But Nik Bala, a family law professor at Queen’s University, believes the case for Muslims is much weaker than that of the Mormons.

“In Bountiful, the argument of freedom of religion applies, since polygamy is a requirement necessary to get to heaven. Islam permits polygamy, but doesn’t require it to be a practising Muslim,” said Bala. “The freedom of religion argument doesn’t hold up as strongly.”

of course, non-fundamentalist mormons would disagree with the idea that mormonism requires polygamy for salvation. but i guess it’s an interpretation….