[Prudence]

Religion is tricky because it forms part of of an individuals evaluation and decision making processes. Policy decisions especially lend themselves to evaluation of "rightness" or "wrongness". I can't say that I would be able to make any policy decisions that were completely devoid of any influence from my religious beliefs. Mormonism, Catholicism, humanism - they all are systems of belief that, at their core, have something to say about what behavior is or isn't proper.

There can be a very fine line between "I am making this decision because, based on the totality of my influences and life experiences, it is the best decision for the entire country" and "I am making this decision because my church/not church has decreed that it is the proper decision." They can sound like such different approaches in the abstract, but in implementation - for some people those two concepts are synonymous.

And I guess that's where I draw the line with candidates - do I think that they're capable of seeing a distinction? Or is their faith/non-faith so dominant in their life that inevitably both they and their church will dictate the same decision?