Robert Stockman, director, The Wilmette Institute on the Baha'i faith

The beginning of a new presidential campaign season has once again brought to the fore the issue of whether American voters are ready to elect persons outside the white Protestant mainstream to the nation’s highest office.

The first concern for anyone should be whether a candidate is willing to uphold the Constitution and the governmental system it establishes. There is no reason to disqualify anyone on these grounds automatically based on their religion.

The Rev. Robert Barron, priest and theology professor, University of St. Mary of the Lake in Mundelein and author of the blog Word on Fire

One wonders whom the producers of the U.S. Open broadcast were trying to impress or not to offend when they excised the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Of course, by not offending, they managed to do violence to the words of the pledge.

James Kirk Wall, Author of Agnosticism: The Battle Against Shameless Ignorance

NBC decided to go retro in broadcasting the Pledge of Allegiance during the U.S. Open Golf Championship. The original pledge was recited, the version adopted in 1942 that did not include “under God”. NBC apologized for playing the patriotic speech as it should be recited. They should have been proud, not regretful.

Stephen Asma, author, Why I Am a Buddhist

If I met a person at a party and he told me that his spiritual leader, Mr. Smith, had dug up God-given golden plates buried in his yard and these plates had mysteriously disappeared shortly after discovery in the 1820s, but not before Smith decoded them to reveal that Native Americans are secretly Israelites from the ancient lost tribes –if I met such a person, I would first check to see if he was drinking antifreeze, and then I would back away slowly and run in the opposite direction.

But this piece of theological weirdness is what every Mormon believes. It’s not any weirder than Catholic transubstantiation or the Jewish idea the Yahweh wants men’s foreskins, but it’s definitely weird. With two Mormon presidential candidates in the running for 2012 (Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman), the question of theological weirdness will only get more trenchant.

Hemant Mehta, Chicago Coalition of Reason and author of the blog Friendly Atheist

Last week, I was part of an interfaith gathering. One of the participants made very clear the message she wanted to spread: As this election season gets underway, I want to make sure people are not attacked for their religious faith.

She was suggesting that Mitt Romney‘s Mormonism, for example, shouldn’t be held against him. If you want to go after his policies, fine, but don’t attack his faith. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable stance.

The Constitution says we don’t have a religious test for public office, and people have the right to believe whatever nonsense they want. Maybe a couple years ago, I would’ve said the exact same thing.

The more I thought about it, though, the angrier I got…

Kevin Barney, Mormon blogger for By Common Consent

According to a recent Gallup poll, 25% of Americans would be less likely to support a candidate for President of the United States who is Mormon. When I see that statistic, I have to ask myself, "Why?"

Hesham Hassaballa, author of the blog God, Faith and a Pen

Once again, the separation of church and state becomes blurred as another presidential election looms. As former governors Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman enter the Republican presidential race, the issue of their faith - Mormonism - once again enters into the fray.

The Gallup organization released a poll of Americans' views on the faith of a President and found that 22% of Americans would not be willing for vote for a Mormon. Other findings show that 49% would not vote for an atheist; 7% would not vote for a Catholic, and 9% would not vote for a Jew.

There was no mention of how many would not vote for a Muslim, but I suspect the number would be disturbingly high.

Rabbi Adam Chalom, Dean - North America of the International Institute for Secular Humanistic Judaism

Should circumcision be illegal? It should be a parental decision, whether a bris [covenant] or a hospital operation.

In 2002, long before a ban on male infant circumcision was proposed in San Francisco, the Leadership Conference of Secular and Humanistic Jews had a long and detailed discussion on the issue.

James Kirk Wall, Author of Agnosticism: The Battle Against Shameless Ignorance

I am God; I will ensure that your life is fruitful and that your sons are kings. I just ask that you and your male descendants fork over a piece of your penis in return. That was the offer that Abraham receives in Genesis Chapter 17.

There are those who take this covenant very seriously and don’t think it’s insane at all. They are very upset that the voters in San Francisco may ban circumcision in November.

Hesham Hassaballa, author of the blog God, Faith and a Pen

Some believe that male circumcision is "genital mutilation." Others believe it is a religious obligation, a sign of the Covenant between God and humanity. Yet, some are so against male circumcision that they placed a proposal on the ballot in San Francisco to ban the practice. Jews and Muslims have objected, claiming that this violates their religious freedom. I tend to agree.