Some atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, believe that religious education is a form of child abuse. It should be considered perfectly appropriate to ask an atheist candidate whether he agrees with this blatantly intolerant position. Various religious groups, meanwhile, encourage their members to believe things that might clash with the requirements of holding high office. Mormons teach that the head of their church is a prophet of God and his mouthpiece on earth. A large portion of evangelical Protestants affirm biblical inerrancy and reject science as a method for determining the truth about the natural world. Many Pentecostals believe that God is directing world history toward an apocalyptic cataclysm in the Middle East.
All of this is supposed to be off-limits to public scrutiny? Why? Because we want our leaders to conceal their most deeply held and potentially dangerous views? Or is it that we fear that our nominally religious politicians will be forced to admit that their garish displays of public religiosity are a pious sham—a put-on designed to appeal to simple-minded voters who care more about cultural signaling than evaluating the details of competing public policy proposals?
Read more: The Economist
