I think these threads are basically pointless, firstly because religions like Christianity or Buddhism or Islam are so diverse that they just can't be summed up in a neat acronym, but also because, as alluded to earlier, there is a big distinction between the people who claim to follow the religion and the religion itself, and what you choose to emphasize will probably determine how you vote. Incidentally, that probably explains the negative views of buddhism, seeing as most of the buddhists people here are familiar with are western converts, who do tend to be pretty annoying.
Having said that, some people seem to not only be voting based on the adherents but then equating that with the teachings (FWIW I'm happy to concede that the vast majority of christians, including myself, on a spectrum of goodness range from OK to awful, and only a few actual saints consistently live as the gospel tells them to).
I can't understand who's anyone who's read even a little of the gospels can view them as Clark seems to, as just a few examples will show:
Jesus's crazily legalistic view of salvation:
Jesus urges followers to be a dick to people who hold other views:
Poll
