I would say yes, if only because of the format. I think it helped to have two different discussions with questions from moderators and much more intelligent questions from the audience.

I am NOT a person of faith and still I appreciate what makes others tick and informs them.

I thought both candidates did better in different areas. I would have like the same questions asked of each candidate, and whomever came second not to be able to listen to the first.

Still, except for a couple of the questions, there was strong intelligence on display. And I trust both of these candidates not t o have any desire to inject religion into the public policy arena.

I'm infuriated by the role questions of religion play in elections. Having Jesus in one's heart doesn't really say anything about how that would traanslate into specific policies. God sems to guide politicians to polarly oppsite practices. How did Pres. Bush get from being born again to his torture policies?

I couldn't care less what church a candidate attends. Just tell me what policies are proposed.

On the other hand, religion is important to a lot of people. Even though I'm an atheist, I have to ackowledge that fact as part of the reality in the USA.

This kind of forum is the worst possible way to bring religion into the political arena. . By oversimplifying and playing to the controversy quotient, the result is the distortion of both faith as such and of its role in leadership.
It might be different if the questons and the moderation were put in the hads of someone with a philosophical, rather than a commercial, bent. Alas,, that's not happening.

However, once such a forum is offered, how can one refuse to participate? In the wake of the onctroversery over small town Americans, any Democratic candidate was compelled to take part.

To see Democrats as opponents on the question rather than allies is very disturbing and ,also, dumb. While I've defended Hillary against overly zealous attacks, in this case, I think she misvalculated, badly.