[sexobon]

Religious affiliation has become the test of time here to demonstrate that a political candidate's sense of community can be greater than their sense of self. It's a surrogate for in-depth psychological evaluation (which we don't do anyway); because, it has provenance. The track record of a particular religion the candidate affiliates with gives people an idea as to what extent the good of the many will take precedence over the good of the few; or, the one, within the framework of our Constitution (incl. protections from separation of Church and State).

A candidate without religious affiliation can still succeed. It'll require a demonstration with similar attributes. That could be long term: exemplary military service, charitable work, human rights advocacy ... etc. Not all of these will resonate as strongly in the minds of as many voters though, since those are smaller subsets of the population than religions.

I haven't noticed a marked difference between the outcomes derived from the architecture of religion in politics in the UK and the US. They appear to be equally slippery slopes, just for different reasons. But then, I've only had to live within the US system.