Isn't it sad that we even care what religion our President is?
Indeed. It's only because they play such a big role--if constitution-abiding libertarian was president, it wouldn't matter if they're Mormon, Muslim, Scientologist, Baptist, Anglican, Rastafarian, Sikh, or whatever. Personal belief shouldn't play a role in governing, but it does due to the fact politicians make the laws they want to see, while they should be making the laws best for everyone to co-exist and make their own choices, provided they don't harm others.
The idea that religion does not, cannot, should not play a role in governing is kind of silly, as we are a religious people. That does not mean that our elected representatives should mandate theism or church attendance, but one's sincere religious faith ought to be a force in an individual determining right from wrong and acting on it. It also ought to be a determinant in figuring out what issues are a matter for society to uphold for the sake of the rights of persons, and which issues are on the individual to decide for themselves and for the rest of us to tolerate thatever "it" is.
The idea that religious people somehow forfeit their right to expect their ideas to become public policy because of the role religious motivation played in bringing them to pass is just silly, but the "tolerance for me, but not for thee" secular crowd seems to have embraced this concept. This, of course, is horse hockey, pure and simple.
