With political candidates routinely claiming to be a Christian as part of their political credentials, I wonder if others are confused by that declaration as I am. Firstly, there are so many flavors of so called Christianity among the various sects, that claiming to be a Christian without any clarification is almost meaningless.
Additionally, I assume that anyone claiming the Christian label as part of their political "bonafides" is most likely one who defines a Christian in very narrow terms, meaning that they believe most Americans don't qualify. Likewise, those with this very narrow view of what constitutes a Christian are almost assuredly ones who believe non-Christians are morally and rationally inferior and doomed to rejection by God.
Exactly how such an assumption of moral and rational superiority over the vast majority of citizens qualifies such a one to oversee the rights and freedoms of everyone is a mystery to me. Superiority is a denial of equality on the face of it. Orthodox Christianity, based on its professed theology, establishes a divine pecking order, not equality.
Then, we might question how such theology squares with the idea of religious freedom, a much heralded aspect of our society. Can those affiliated with a religious theology which consigns those of another faith to eternal punishment really promote tolerance of others and true religious freedom? Within Christian Orthodoxy, there are only two classes- good Christians and evil everyone else, and Christians are obligated to suppress the influence of any they don't accept as fellows Christians. Such self importance and promotion is a perfect formula for discord and disunity and constitutes the ultimate entitlement.
In this regard, you may have noticed that many Christian fundamentalists have begun to question the separation of church and state, another widely cherished aspect of our democratic society's commitment to religious freedom. These now contend that whatever the founding fathers intended, it was not to limit the influence of the government in promoting the tenets of Christian theology. Some are even so bold as to declare that the original intent of the founders was to establish a Christian theocracy and not a democracy at all. Such a belief is hardly compatible with being a leader or representative in a democratic government.
Even those among us who self identify with Christianity might question whether a candidate asserting the Christian identifier as a political qualification is really capable of participating in a democracy. Even more so for those who do not claim Christianity. Turning religious zealots loose in the halls of government, to promote their theology and suppress that of rest of us, is a surefire way to loose our freedoms, religious and otherwise.