While the US Constitution speaks out against State sponsored or sanctioned religion, it in no way addresses the practice of religion, or refers to it in any way as a qualification  - or disqualification - for political office.

While being what I like to call a Lassiez Faire Agnostic (there may be a god, but if there is, he is most likely far to busy with far more important things than worrying about whether I am smart enough to cross the street without his quidance and protection) I certainly understand, and even empathize, with people who adere to various religious beliefs.

Being of that viewpoint, I find a politicians professed religion to be an item of interest, but far less important than other factors, starting with their stands on issues, and their credibility.  For instance, if I were to be in a meeting with Bill Clinton, and he told me the sky was Blue, I would look for a second verifying source.  If a man will lie to his Wife, he will most certainly lie to you.  But like credibility, Religions come in various shades…  And many times, a persons Religious affiliation is driven by their environment, and only a portion of people actually make a conscious change in thier religion later in life.  It is not something fixed an immutable, like Race or Ethnicity, but it is, all the same, a circumstanc of birth for many people.

While I am not bothered by Mitt Romney's practice of Mormonism, I would be bothered by a politican that followed one of the polygamist sects of that religion.  Barak Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, though his early instruction was in the Islamic faith - uncommon and interesting.  But I would be concerned if he was an adherent of the same Islamic sect as Iranian President Ahmedinajab.  Hilary Clinton's Methodism is worth noting, but not so much as if she had converted to a "snake handler" sect of Christianity.

So, from my perspective, Religion is simply an indicator, and a noteworthy item of the gestalt that makes up a person.  But it is not, in and of itself. something that should determine ones fitness for political office.

Now, beyond organized religion, we must look at other aspects of the cadidate.  And at what point do we seperate Political leanings from Religion?

I submit, that for many on the left, socialst viewpoints are part and pacel of their religion (Liberation Theology).  While they cry about seperation of Church and State, both are part of their theology to differing extents.  The farther the left someone leans, the less the Church is part of the Religion, and the larger the State is.  Similarly, on the Far Right, the Church IS (or should dictate to) the State,

So, in my view, religion and poltics are not only related, but are inseperable parts of each persons persona.  You must look at the whole person when deciding who to cast your vote for. I cannot fathom how someone can look at ONLY  persons Religion, as a basis for deciding if that person would be a good leader (or Congreeman, or Dog Catcher, or whatever)…