Okay now I have often said that since I find all religions essentially ridiculous, that identifying one or the other as MORE ridiculous, would be sort of......well ridiculous.
However having said that, I do have to admit that there does seem to be a bit of a historical cushion built in to ancient religious beliefs, due simply to the fact that they have been around so long and believed in by so many. Even as a critical thinker I can almost give a little leeway to people who are adhering to the religion of their ancestors, or accepting on faith alone the stories written, and accepted as truth, for many thousands of years ago.
However the ability to provide that same benefit of the doubt to a person who is a member of a more recently formed religious faith, such as Mormonism or Scientology, and whose prophets are well represented by the modern historical record, becomes much, much more difficult. At least for me.
In fact recent advances in genetics essentially disproves one of Joseph Smith's most important "revelations."
“For Mormons, the lack of discernible Hebrew blood in Native Americans is no minor collision between faith and science. It burrows into the historical foundations of the Book of Mormon, a 175-year-old transcription that the church regards as literal and without error."
So for somebody to continue to embrace a faith that history identifies as the creation of a con man, and which science finds lacking in credibility, what does THAT say about their judgment? And is that somebody that we can trust to control the most powerful military force in the world?
In my opinion these are questions which cannot be ignored simply because we find the questioning of a person's faith uncomfortable, or worry that we will be considered impolitic.
Just remember what happened when we failed to consider how George Bush's religious world view would impact HIS policy decisions!