Since this is an speculative OT shithole of a thread... ... That phrase's always bothered me when used to describe why someone with religious faith shouldn't be allowed to hold office (... not that BF is a state...). It's not something limited to this thread, but something increasingly prevalent in my country.

There are basically three schools of thought when it comes to how a government should regard religion in politics:
*In theocracy (if atheist, atheocracy), nobody of faith different from TPTB can hold office
*In pluralism (this is not an accepted definition everywhere), people of all faiths are welcome to hold office and take information of their faith to make political decisions
*In secularism, people of all faiths are tolerated, but expected to vote with constituents or in a utilitarian fashion. In secular decision-making, you will generally not have political issues argued based on what a religious authority has said.

Unless you have reason to believe Luke is in fact a theocrat, you're promoting atheocracy, which, from my agnostic perspective, is fundamentally the same as theocracy.

ETA: I mean -- if Luke's application were "Archbishop Roberts will be informing my decisions" - I could understand the unease. - But, he's given detailed responses, would probably give rationale for anything serious question you ask, and that rationale probably won't be "I would oppose such a measure because, as confirmed by Archbishop Roberts, it is heretical by Pope Urban V's Currency Centralization Bull of 1365."