Here in the US there is a Mormon guy running for office and I have seen stuff on Google news about people not wanting to vote for him due to his religion. I also saw a book in the Barns and Noble with the same topic. Does this really matter? Should all of the US presidents be white and Protestant? Just want to see what people think.

...

I think the problem is deeper then that... Political parties in general. Voting for someone, just because they are in a "party"... That's just pointless.

It's like we're still high-schoolers with our little lunch tables or college students with frat's... We never grew up.

"He's republican... Well, I don't always agree with his views, but I'll vote for him anyway..."

Let's ditch our parties and vote on opinions and views!

Mitt Romney is running for President here in the US. Although I am right of center, and he is rather conservative, I'd vote for Hillary Clinton before I'd vote for him.
Why?
Because he is a Mormon.
LDS is a rather bizzare cult by most standards. The basis for the religion is golden tablets which nobody is allowed to see! They also perform posthumous conversions, calling it "Baptism of the Dead." They practiced this on Jews for many years until agreeing not to, but are known to have posthumously converted adolf hitler. And then there is this obsession with tracking everybody's genealogy...

Eli

Religion shouldn't be a factor ...

Although admittedly, I do worry about some kinds of religiousity though ... especially Bush's ... since I knew it would be a major factor in his decision making. Religious fundamentalism or fanaticism can be a signal that the person is a rigid black and white thinker, and places greater weight on internal opinions than external evidence or expert advice. In other words, another Bush.

But overall I think the views of the candidate are over-emphasized in American politics.

The candidate should be hired to execute the views of the people. If he holds beliefs X,Y,Z, these beliefs are largely irrelevant, or at least should be. For example, if a president is pro-choice or pro-life, allowing this to affect his decisions about abortion policy is extremely unprofessional. IMO, leadership positions are really abused in this regard.

What I think should be emphasized more is not static beliefs ("I'm for X!") but problem solving and creativity, and the ability to separate personal views from policy decisions. Even if some candidate is "for X" ...their ability to actually bring about X in a competent manner is entirely another matter.

What blows my mind is that with many hot-button issues, the candidate has no authority over anyway.

A candidates personal faith does not affect my vote. If a good candidate who represents my values is of a different denomination, faith, or an atheist or agnostic matters not to me.

However, in some ways, my morality does affect my vote. Views on abortion, gun control, the environment, taking care of the less fortunate, etc are partially founded in my belief system.

In my case it is tricky, because some moral issues of mine line up with the dems and others with the repubs..so I have to take closer looks at the candidates and less attention to their party.

That's like saying being an evolutionist doesn't affect your views on science or being a cubs fan doesn't affect what sports channels you watch.

Exactly. And I probably wouldn't vote for someone in my philosophical position -- because I wouldn't really want to see an agnostic of my indecisive flavor in office -- but that doesn't mean his religion won't affect what decisions he makes. I will be attracted to vote for someone with similar values to me, and values are generally very closely tied to religion (Else partisanship).

Thus religion does affect my vote, but indirectly. It's not "I'll vote for this guy because he's a _______," it's "I'll vote for this guy because I like what he stands for, even it that happens to be because he's a ________."

If a politician's religion has no effect on his choices (Outside of flowery speeches), then it's not really his religion and world view, it's just a misnomered tradition (And it usually is).

SigmaX

Of course religion affects my vote. I refuse to vote for the fundamentalist Christians that demand to force their religion on others.

Such as which politicians and what specific bills did they try to pass and what would the cause/effect had been had they gotten away with it?

In deciding how to deal with persons, i consider the things that affect the interaction. So that way, the religion of a person like a president may very well not be important.
Where i live, in the Netherlands, this would be rather stringent, since I would like to keep things secular. Even relating religion rather then values directly with things the electable person deals with, downs his "score". (5.6% of last votes were for religious parties, CDA doesnt count, for me.)
If I would live in the USA I would have to be more lenient, since most politicians mention religion. (and people do not see that this only distracts from what is going on, some of them may even demand it.) Still, I could still try choose the people who avoid religion in their work.
BTW It would seem to me that US govt is in need of overhaul, corporations having too much influence, too much focus on the president, too little opposition possible in congress? So i would either vote blank or on some third party. (dont know how things are politically in individual states though)

For starters, the politicians in Arkansas; Cobb County, Georgia; and similar places.
Creation and evolution in public education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not to mention the fact that gay marriage is still illegal in the vast majority of the United States simply because Christians say it's immoral, the oppression of sexuality and "obscenity" laws because of the religious view of sex and nudity, etc.

There are still 3 states in the nation which require that political candidates hold a religious view in order to have public office.