Is it bias if you distrust ALL religions?

I've been heartened many times, usually fleetingly, by stories I've heard on National Public Radio.
None of your blathering about "liberal bias," now. In an era when almost no "news" source spends more than necessary or looks further than required to find out what's going on, NPR will take the time and invest the bucks to look at least around the edges of a story, if not to crawl behind it. Stories that begin "The White House said today" or "The Governor's office announced this afternoon" are pretty sure tipoffs that you're being spoon-fed what somebody wants you to believe. You don't hear a lot of those on NPR.
So I'm listening this morning, and there's a segment indicating, in apparent surprise, that about half of all Americans say they'd be reluctant to vote for a Mormon for president.
The surprise, I suspect, was feigned. I know Mormons who say they're reluctant to vote for Mormons.
"I grew up in the church," one of them told me a few weeks ago in a discussion of Mormon president manque Mitt Romney. "When he says his religion won't influence how he governs, he's absolutely lying."
I have no opinion on that and take no position; I'm just reporting what I was told.
Similar findings kept popping up when Joe Lieberman (Selfserver-Conn.) was running for President: Surveys, some pundit was always pointing out, showed that many Americans would be reluctant to vote for a Jew. You think?
The announcer and a reporter discussed the Mormon issue for a few seconds, arriving at no conclusion. Then, as they left the topic, the announcer dropped in the finding that cheered me up:
45 percent of American voters also say they think evangelical Christians have gone too far in promoting their views.
Hallelujah at last. Maybe Democracy has a future in this country after all.
In the matter of religion, I have no preference. I don't care what you believe or what you preach, though I'll be obliged if you don't preach creationism to my children. This nation is far enough behind in the sciences without digging that hole any deeper.
Where elected officials are concerned, though, I want decisions to be made on pragmatic grounds.
I have friends, for instance--OK, more like acquaintances--who see no reason for any kind of conservation, because they believe God will come back and carry us all somewhere before everything runs out. Use up the oil, cut the old-growth trees, foul the air and water--makes no difference, because soon there will be a flash of light, a burst of music and we'll all grow wings and flutter off to Heaven.
I may have some of the details wrong, but that's the gist of it.
Certainly they can believe that if they choose. But I don't believe it, and I don't want a politician who thinks as they do making decisions that affect what the world will be like after they're gone.
We tend to shy away from talking about religion in politics, unless we believe God has spoken directly to us and chosen us as his messengers (too much of that going around these days, by the way--personally, I believe God is a little choosier than that evidence seems to indicate). That's a mistake for a couple of reasons:
First, it drives the conversations underground. If we don't trust Mormons or Jews or evangelicals, wouldn't it be better to have those conversations in daylight? "Say, Mitt--I like some of what you say, but I'm really worried about your church's position on Blacks. How about a straight answer on that, at least?"
And second, now and then it lets the wackos sneak into office. I mean, really Mike Huckabee?