# How secualr is the USA when it comes to elect a president. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 7, 2004, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206 "2004-01-07T14:27:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/1 "2004-01-07T14:27:05Z")
The thread “Would you vote for an atheist” including in the OP the question if an atheist would have any change to be elected as president, brought me to the idea for this one. After reading the answers on that thread, I posted the following question: > [@](#): > > If a non religious presidential candidate even doesn’t make any chance, how can you claim the USA is a secular nation. And received interesting answers on which I would like to reply. So to avoid hijacking the other thread, I shall do it in this one to start the intended discussion. To avoid this OP becoming too long I shall make a new post for every answer I received. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/2 "2004-01-07T14:29:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Posted by cheddarsnax > Nobody’s claiming that the US of A is a secular nation (at least, they shouldn’t be). Calling America secular is usually a reference to the government. While politicians do have a habit of bringing up religion, it’s not like we’re running a theocracy here. And the public’s refusal to elect an atheist doesn’t mean that the government is not, for the most part, secular. I’m sorry, but it is not because you claim “nobody should” that it isn’t been done by uncountable people. And I don’t have the impression that those who are in lead in the US right now are secular. Quite the contrary. The US president seemed to have claimed that he is even guided by God in his decision to wage war on a sovereign nation. I can’t call such president “secular” making “secular decisions” since he claims himself that his decisions are “guided by God”. That is in my opinion a very dangerous evolution and not that far away from statements made by some people in other nations that God asks them to murder innocent people. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Neurotik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/91b2a8/32.png) [@Neurotik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Neurotik)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/3 "2004-01-07T14:29:57Z")
That’s silly. The US is secular because its laws are secular (for the most part). ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/4 "2004-01-07T14:48:31Z")
> [@](#): > > posted by tomndebb > Easily. There is a difference between how laws are written and enforced and how people believe. Voting taps into people’s beliefs; unless you believe that the government should (must? can?) force people to vote without allowing their beliefs to influence their personal decisions (when voting or otherwise), then your implied claim that the U.S. is not secular is without foundation. Why should voting “tap into people’s belief”? And how do you separate writing laws and enforcing them by approving them by vote, from the belief of those who write/approve them? You most recently had a case of an elected judge who was very vocal about his belief influencing his decisions and brought his belief even visible demonstrated into the courthouse. It is not because he was later forced to withdraw this “artwork” that he becomes all of a sudden completely secular. > [@](#): > > As I noted, above, we have elected people with no particular religious belief. It is simply one of our idiosyncracies that we expect them to give lip service to religion–not because all citizens of the U.S. require it, but because there is a large enough minority that does. Which implies that there is a large influence of religion(s) on the election of whatever politician and teh decisions made by such politicians who want to be re-elected. > [@](#): > > Beyond that, secular does not require atheism, only the ability to tolerate beliefs other than one’s own. Since Catholics are no longer killing Huguenots and being killed, in turn, by Puritans, (and since a person from any of those groups might be elected president), secularism has made itself felt in the U.S.–although perhaps not to the particular definition that you may wish to impose on it. Iit “made itself felt” yet this is clearly overruled by the influence of the religion(s). I don’t “impose” anything. I pose myself questions and try to come to conlcusions. > [@](#): > > Until 1980, no president could be elected who had been divorced, yet long before 1980, nearly half of all marriages in the U.S. ended in divorce. The choices an individual may exercise in the voting booth do not need to be rigidly equivalent to the choices one makes in one’s private life. I think I must disagree here. It is very visible that a candidate for presidency is judged on his private life, which can easily lead to attacks refering to his overall integrity. Many people seem to tend to connect a “stable marriage-with-children” to stability in decision making. I find this an incomprehensible reasoning. I am tempted to look for a connection with religious teachings on this behaviour. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/5 "2004-01-07T14:54:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Posted by RDelirious > > 1. Extraordinarily difficult due to the degree of cultural prejudice among the “American Middle”. > > Yes I said cultural, not religious. Earlier on in the thread there was an impugnation of the level of real religious belief of several recent Presidents. But the thing is, a large number of Americans already have some sort of religious identification be more a cultural or ethnic thing than an element of true practice of faith. I know a bunch of people who identify as being of X organized religion yet have not been to one of its places of worship, except for weddings, since childhood and routinely break every one of its precepts. Many Americans would easily tolerate someone who declared “I believe in my own way that there is a Greater Will at work in the Universe, but while we’re here we must do what’s best to improve the human condition here and now”, if he’s NOT all New Agey about it and comes across as an otherwise down-to-earth guy, and as mentioned before does not come across as condescending(\*). Oh, the fundies may freak, but if his policies are good on taxes, jobs and security, many in the so-called “Middle” would think “good enough that he believes in Something Greater”. > > The key is to not be “too different” culturally. And the culture is theist even if the structures of the State are secularist. Sure, being from the Judeo-Christian tradition helps, but even there you have to be wary. Say you’re a Christian but attend church kind of irregularly, and when you lived in Florida you attended a Methodist Church and when in Oregon you attended a Baptist and when in DC you attended a Presbyterian because they were closest to your house… well, if you mouth the right biblical quotes when interviewed on the Christian Radio station then that’s not too bad, after all we all have busy schedules. OTOH attend the same church every Sunday, pray before every meal, and be even a deacon in the congregation… that officiates gay marriages? You are a prohibitive longshot. If you’re a Joe Lieberman-type Orthodox Jew, you are electable. OTOH if you go around in the broad-brimmed hat, the beard, the curly sideburns, tassels hanging from under your coat, it’s uphill for you. > (\*)I know, I know, demands for examples, etc. Look, politics is about perception – and the so-called “American Middle” has an anti-intellectual tradition longer than we care to recount. Atheism, agnosticism, utilitarian ethics, heck throw in darwinism, neuropsychology, and even whole-language reading classes, they all look and sound to that “Middle” as highfalutin’ talk from fancy-pants perfessers with too much book-learnin’ fer their own good. When Ann Druyan writes about how wondrous and beautiful it is to behold this world and realize it’s the product of countless natural processes that came together just right, what THEY feel is “hey, is that lady sayin’ that believin’ it came from God is simpleminded?” Again: the problem lies in being perceived as either a cultural outsider or a cultural elitist and that the American Middle would worry that it means at best you cannot truly understand their hopes and fears and at worse you dismiss their hopes and fears. Never mind that you do or not. > > (Of course, the geniuses behind the doomed proposal to rename atheists as “Brights” are a beautiful example of How to Lose Friends and Alienate People.) > One semi-serious plus of an atheist/materialist Prez is that the guy with his finger on The Button has got to be a little more careful if he’s NOT expecting that after the world gets toasted he gets to move in with 72 virgin playmates/meet Jesus/come back as a cow. I find this explanation very informative and to the point. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/6 "2004-01-07T16:47:27Z")
I would like to apologize to the entire SDMB community for “encouraging” **Alde** to open this thread. I will take into account in the future that he doesn’t understand the meaning of the “rolleyes” smiley. _Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa_. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/7 "2004-01-07T16:49:29Z")
Johm M, I’m sorry to disappoint you so greatly, but you have no influence what so ever on whatever I choose to post on this message board. I do hope you survive that cold shower and the related shock. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/8 "2004-01-07T16:59:34Z")
The fact is there is no easy way to track the answers here with the posts there. Frustrating is the nice way to describe it. Now I know you hate all the back stage clutter threads develop but this thread itself is clutter in its own right. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/9 "2004-01-07T17:04:27Z")
This is simply another example of **Aldebaran** being unable to distinguish between governmental agencies and individual beliefs. I suspect it will follow the same path as his trainwreck of a free speech thread. Julie ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/10 "2004-01-07T17:16:46Z")
You might enjoy this NY Times editorial **Aldebaron** : [The God Gulf](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/07/opinion/07KRIS.html) ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/11 "2004-01-07T17:26:30Z")
Grey, The answers there at the first question in the OP are of no relevance for - and have in my opinion no connection at all with -what is intended to be discussed here. I quote these posts because they are answers on my OP, though made in an other thread I do not wish to disturb. What is so extremely difficult about that? Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/12 "2004-01-07T17:27:29Z")
> [@](#): > > Why should voting “tap into people’s belief”? You answer your own question: > [@](#): > > It is very visible that a candidate for presidency is judged on his private life, which can easily lead to attacks refering to his overall integrity. So peope are allowed to judge a candidate, based on their beliefs, when it suits your argument, but it is not permissible for them the judge a candidate, based on their beliefs, when you need the decision to go the other way. Whether a presidential candidate is a good family man (which many divorced men are) is not really different regarding his ability to govern than whether he is a churchgoer. The distinction (without a difference) is simply one that you need to claim to make your point. * * * > [@](#): > > You most recently had a case of an elected judge who was very vocal about his belief influencing his decisions and brought his belief even visible demonstrated into the courthouse. It is not because he was later forced to withdraw this “artwork” that he becomes all of a sudden completely secular. He did not become secular, at all. And for that reason, he was removed from office by the secular decison of the court (a court made up of people who share many, if not all, of his religious beliefs). In other words, despite the pervasive nature of religion in the personal lives of a great many Americans, the country is able to function at a secular level. When he allowed his religious actions to _interfere_ with his judicial office, he was removed. You are imposing your personal understanding on the word _secular_. You seem to want to pretend that it means that religion cannot be seen, heard, or believed by any person connected to government. It does not. It means that the laws, themselves, are not supposed to be based in religion. You hold up Belgium as a “more secular” nation, yet the religious beliefs of the Belgian ministers of parliament prevented the legalization of abortion until 1990–years after the U.S. had legalized the procedure. Mostly this is simply more of your inventing things to complain about regarding your misunderstanding of the way that the U.S. functions. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/13 "2004-01-07T17:33:35Z")
squink, My impression is that this writer supports my views. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/14 "2004-01-07T17:39:18Z")
If you think **Al** is misguided here, point out why rather than giving him the 'ol **ad hominum** shoutdown. ---
**Author:** ![Aldebaran](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Aldebaran](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aldebaran)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/15 "2004-01-07T18:03:27Z")
Tom, where do I say the following: "peope are allowed to judge a candidate, based on their beliefs, when it suits your argument, but it is not permissible for them the judge a candidate, based on their beliefs, when you need the decision to go the other way. " And that judge was free to let his belief directly influence his decisions during all the time he was in function. Are all his decisions now reviewed by secular judges or are they not. If not, then his religious views still influence justice in the USA. And no, I don’t pretend that “religion cannot be seen, heard, or believed by any person connected to government.” I say that in my opinion it influences indeed that laws risk to be based in religion. Your example of Belgium is comparing apples with oranges (and I don’t recall when that specific law was finally signed and I am too lazy to look it up, so I take it that you are correct). It was not “religion” influencing the parliament. The opposition coming from a variety of people of different political colour is only possible in a nation with a variety of political parties. They provide for counter balance and opposites in the ranks of goverment and in the opposition. It is not the most easy way for governing a country, and especially a rather complicated one like Belgium, but in my opinion one of the most democratic systems possible. In a nation where only two parties have any countable effect and thus have the opportunity to deliver the Head of State, there is much more danger for religion entering the law making process if religion is part of the way electionable candidates are winning votes. Or better said: must try to win votes. The fact that the Belgian king at the time was that much influenced by his religion that he declared himself incapable of signing this law (= making it legal by his counter signing the signature of the Prime Minister) didn’t manage to prevent the law being approved and implemented. His refusal caused a crisis that was rather quickly solved by the creativeness of the Belgian politicans and their law specialists. Salaam. A ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/16 "2004-01-07T18:12:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 'possum stalker \* > \*\*If you think **Al** is misguided here, point out why rather than giving him the 'ol **ad hominum** shoutdown. \*\* There are a few people worthy of _ad homin **e** m_ attacks.🙂 At any rate, the OP is actually a question with a factual answer (and it has been answered). That leaves a free-for-all as long as this stays in GD instead of GQ or the BBQ Pit (where it belongs). ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/17 "2004-01-07T18:40:01Z")
**Aldebaran** : Theoretically, the US government is secular in that it cannot legislate relgious doctines into law, nor can it endorse or support one religion over another. The government, _theoretically_ cannot treat people differently based on religious beliefs. In _practice_ this has not always been the case but our justice system has gotten better over the decades at rectifying institutional religious bigotry. With regards to elections, there is a strong cultural prejudice in favor of candidates who seem to be religious, not because they necessarily want theocratic legislation (although some of them do) but because they perceive a person who believes in god as being inherently more ethical and trustworthy than a person who doesn’t. It’s about perception of moral character than it is about legislating religion. I think it’s a false presumption, and it leads to a lot of candidates who wrap themselves in religion purely for show, but such is the political climate. the government has to be secular in its legislation but the people are allowed to vote based on any prejudice they want. You don’t have to justify your vote or even tell anyone who you voted for. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/18 "2004-01-07T18:51:10Z")
In short, the institutions are secular, the people need not be. ---
**Author:** ![IWLN](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b5ac83/32.png) [@IWLN](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IWLN)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/19 "2004-01-07T19:20:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by John Mace \* > \*\*I would like to apologize to the entire SDMB community for “encouraging” **Alde** to open this thread. I will take into account in the future that he doesn’t understand the meaning of the “rolleyes” smiley. _Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa_. \*\* I have no desire to only see posts that I think are reasonable and agree with my opinion. No fun or way to learn anything from that. You are right, sarcasm doesn’t seem to be a good method of communication with **Aldebaran**. See, you’ve learned something from him. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206/20 "2004-01-07T19:24:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Your example of Belgium is comparing apples with oranges (and I don’t recall when that specific law was finally signed and I am too lazy to look it up, so I take it that you are correct). No, my comparison is direct and equal. The reason that Belgium took until 1990 to legalize abortion is that the _members_ of the various parties were following their _religious_ beliefs through the 1970s and 1980s. What party in Belgium ever opposed abortion on non-religious grounds? (I made no reference to King Boudewijn because he was not acting in Parliament.) As to the judge in Alabama: if you can cite a previous decision that he made which he based on _religious_ arguments, I will see whether those decisions were allowed to stand. That I am aware, his every attempt to make _religious_ decisions was reversed by higher courts. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-secualr-is-the-usa-when-it-comes-to-elect-a-president/223206.md?page=2)