Fascinating how the vast majority of elected officials always seem to have some sort of religious ID, when a cross section of America would certainly have a substantial amount of believers, but also a pretty hefty amount of non believers. This always reminds me of how Northern Ireland is supposed to be two thirds Protestant and one third Catholic when the rest of Europe is supposed to be virtually non religious. In other words, in the case of politicians in general and regions defined by a religous divide, how often is it the case that people are just taking a religious label as a form of cultural identifier?
I'm sure voters make inferences about it. For example, how would a Democrat running in a blue state on a totally progressive platform do if he was a practicing member of a very conservative denomination (i.e. Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God), even though he kept his religious views completely separate from his political platform? Or conversely, if a Republican in a red state adhered to the Tea Party line on taxes and spending but attended a Unitarian Universalist congregation? Well considering that the Senate Majority Leader is a Mormon and no one throughs a fuss about Catholic Democrats even though the Roman Catholic Church is certainly not progressive I think it's safe to say it'd be a non-issue for a Democrat. For the Republican it'd depend on the state, but outside the South I have a tough time seeing it being a particularly big deal.
