I don’t care one way or the other since he (that I can recall) never brought religion into politics, but I was under the impression that he was Atheist, or at least firmly in the ‘not very religious’ category. IIRC, a few months into his first term he started going to church, something about being too busy or having to find a church in DC, but for some reason I thought there was an underlying tone of ‘I’m not religious, this is just for show’ or maybe even that Michelle/the kids were bugging him to go. However, I may very well be remembering it.
ETA, I think a gay president, all else being (close to) equal, would have an upper hand in this day and age. In a time when a black president can win twice and a female can run twice (and get close once), I don’t think a gay candidate would have an issue. Plus, it would really, really drive the dems to the booths, an Atheist, not so much.
Your memory is short. Obama’s religious affiliations were a topic of controversy in his first election campaign. In summary:
He was raised in a non-religious/non-observant environment.
He came into contact with churches in his 20s, while working as a community organiser.
After some years of “church shopping”, he found Trinity United Church of Christ in 1987, and he became a member there in 1992 at the age of 31. He was baptised there; he was married there. He describes his conversion experience in Dreams of My Father, which he published in 1995.
He was still a member of Trinity in 2008 when he ran for the presidency for the first time, and his membership became a matter of controversy on account of the politically radical views of the pastor, Jeremiah Wright. After initial resistance, he severed his links with the church at that point, and I don’t believe he has formally joined another church, though he has continued to affirm his Christian faith and its importance to him.
The contrary views (a) that he is a Muslim and (b) that his is an atheist have not gone away, but has always seemed to me more the product of wishful thinking than any serious examination of the observable facts. It’s possible that at some time between 1995 and 2008 he became an atheist but, really, I don’t see any reason to think so. He strikes me as the most intentionally Christian president since Carter.
Then it’s very possible I just recall a headline or some such mentioning that he was going to church for the first time after X months after being in office. It may have implied that it was for show, but I really don’t recall, either way, I was under the impression that he wasn’t religious, but I could be wrong. But like I said, so far as I can remember, he didn’t mix church and state so it doesn’t seem to be an issue. I mean, if he wants to finish a speech with ‘and God bless you all’, whatever, it’s when politicians base laws on ‘the bible says…’ that I have an issue.
As far as I recall, he has been more or less regular in his churchgoing over the years, depending on what else was going on in his life at the time, and he says so himself. There is no congregration in DC of which he is a member, or with which he has any special connection, plus being President of the US is one of the times in your life when regular churchgoing might compete with other calls on your attention, so I wouldn’t read too much significance into the fact that his attendance has been a bit spotty while in office.
Off hand, I can’t recall any president in my lifetime who proposed legislation or executive action on the basis that “the bible says . . .”, so I don’t know that that provides much of a basis for differentiating.
Oh, don’t get me wrong, even if I were super religious, I could understand that. Not even just that, but the security alone would almost warrant either clearing the place out or just having a priest/rabbi/etc just come to the White House and doing a short service there a few times a week.
I’m not sure about a president, specifically, but I’m sure politicians have based policies on scripture. Just look at how many politicians have used religion or quoted the bible as their reasoning for saying that same sex marriage should remain illegal.
(FTR, to that, I say, if you really and truly believe that, fine, if that’s just a cover, have the nerve to come out and say so. Tell us you’re just not comfortable with it or you think it’s icky or you just don’t like and and you don’t know why or you’re gay and you’re not ready to accept it. If you say it’s for religious reasons, the opposition is barking up the wrong tree, if you tell people the real reason (and for many, I’d bet it’s the ‘I think it’s icky’ thing) that gives people something to work with. It’s almost impossible to change faith based beliefs, but things you have, more or less, legitimate issues with, can be worked through).
Also, see abortion, adultery, “intelligent design” (as a comprise because there’s no such thing as evolition in the bible).
Maybe no president specifically said ‘the bible says’, but the phrase ‘religious right’ didn’t come from nowhere it’s hardly an insignificant group.
And if I’m accidentally creating a hyperbole, if this weren’t an issue, people wouldn’t still be calling for the separation of church and state.
Just googling “seperation of church and state” (and I know it’s because his name is in the headlines) this was one of the first things to pop up). Can you really tell me that this guy “[Jeff] Sessions even believes in applying religious tests to our Supreme Court Justices. He has implied that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor isn’t religious enough to do her job. (Sotomayor is Catholic.)”** isn’t basing decisions on the bible.
I kind of assume that most politician’s policies will be influenced by their ethical views, and if politicians adhere to religions with an ethical dimension (which is most of the religions we’re familiar with) then their policy positions will be affected by their beliefs. (This is also true for non-religious politicians, of course; their policies will also be reflected by their beliefs.)
You mention a whole bunch of policy positions that you (I’m guessing) don’t like, but pf course a politician’s beliefs - religious or otherwise - could just as easily take him towards policy positions that you do like. If I’m right about Obama, the Presidents who, in my lifetime, were the most religious, and therefore the most likely to have policy positions influenced by religious belief, were both Democrats - Obama and Carter.
I don’t know whether, or to what extent, Obama’s policies were influenced by his religious beliefs, but I certainly don’t see any reason for thinking that they weren’t.
(And, no offence to Jeff Sessions, but suspect his objection to Sotomayor wasn’t that she was insufficiently influenced by her religious views so much as that she was insufficiently influenced by his religious views. But that, of course, could be the result of her religious views.)
Damn few. Jefferson for sure and probably Lincoln. Carter I personally would allow but I could introduce you to some friends of mine who put me to task on that one. But you have to remember that I’m active in my religion (ELCA), associate with people even more active in theirs, and my mileage may vary from yours. I am looking for someone who practices their religion and beliefs on at least a regular, if not daily, basis and is part of a fellowship (or theological support system, if you will) of one kind or another.
As for what today would seem to me to be “all that religious”? Ordained is going to be one thing I would consider, how active they are within their own denomination or faith, when he/she decides to visit various churches would be another clue I would look to, or at least some sort of contact with a fellowship of people who hold similar beliefs on a regular basis. But just showing up at some church now and then when there are votes to be had or cameras to pose for? Just saying you prayed after some tragedy or another? Just listing something on a form? Not so much.
The OP wonders if an atheist could get elected POTUS today; probably long before any devoutly religious person or minister could. We usually have like 4-10 ordained people in Congress (usually the House) at any one time but when was the last time any got close to a nomination let alone the White House itself? I can’t remember one any time during my life unless you want to count Pat Robertson.
I am not saying its a bad thing; heck I wouldn’t want my Presiding Bishop as POTUS even though I supported her to her present office. I think the lip-service Presidents offer to all religions is plenty. But do I think that a lack of that would mean someone couldn’t be elected? Short answer — no.
Ronald Reagan was a famous “non church going” PotUS. His staff said it would be too big of a security issue for him to attend church. This after Jimmy Carter who not only attended church regularly but taught Sunday school when in Plains.
Too early to figure out what’s really going on with Trump’s religious beliefs, but IMHO the biggest gap between talk and practice regarding religion among recent Presidents is Reagan.
Like I noted before. It’s the talk that matters most. The practice doesn’t seem to matter to voters.
Has everyone forgotten George W Bush; famously a born again Christian? Or was that also an act; like the bumbling folksy cowboy gimmick he had which he gave up circa 2006?
I think the only arguably devout Presidents in the modern era have been Carter and GW Bush. Plenty of Americans go to church only once in a while and think about religion occasionally in a rudimentary sort of way, and by and large they seem to be content in voting for candidates who seem like they probably do the same.
Just to expand a bit, if an openly gay person ran for POTUS, would it be easier if they were a man or if they were a woman? On one hand, it seems to me that lesbians are somewhat more tolerated in our predominately straight society* (especially bi women). On that basis a lesbian may have an advantage over a gay male. OTOH, until the first female is elected POTUS, an openly gay or bi female would be fighting 2 barriers at once.
*Please note - I am in no way suggesting that lesbians have an easy time in our society, only that straight society in general seems to express less of a “yuck” factor toward FF relationship.
[sub]ETA - I apologize in advance if any of the wording in my post offends, that is truly not the intention.[/sub]
If he/she got past the primaries, certainly yes. Party affiliation, for most voters, is far more important than religious affiliation.
Most Republicans would far sooner vote for an atheist Republican than a religious Democrat.
Most Republicans would far sooner for for an atheist Democrat than a religious Republican, and in fact atheist/agnosticism may soon become the majority position within the Democratic Party.
It’s going to seem to be a big deal until suddenly it isn’t just like having a black president. Ask most pundits in the 90s into the 00s if there was going to be a black president and most would say not for a long time.
Bear in mind, in the USA, people vote directly for the chief executive. In most other democracies, people vote only for their local legislative/parliamentary representative. The chief executive is the leader of the majority party.
Meaning… if Canada’ Liberal Party or Britain’s Labour Party chose a gay man or woman as its leader, it wouldn’t MATTER if the people as a whole approved of his/her lifestyle. People would vote for their PARTY, and a gay chief exec would be a side effect.
My impression is that society has spent a lot of time normalizing LGBT people. Popular entertainment includes portrayals of LGBT people on a regular basis. Gay marriage has become legal. So, I would say that a gay person would have an easier time due to overall visibility, and to a lesser degree, acceptance. That is unless, and it’s a big unless, there is a backlash coming from the intolerant wing of society against LGBT people, because they don’t fit into the vision of “Make America Great Again”. (Legislators in Texas is already starting the ball rolling backward on gay marriage.)
Whereas Atheists are essentially invisible, and consequently still too different and frightening to a large segment of society. You think the “gay marriage will destroy traditional marriage” argument got a lot of play? Just wait till people start on “atheism will destroy religion”. So, no, an avowed atheist would not get close to being nominated by one of the major parties for President. An avowed agnostic would be the same, because agnostic sounds too close to atheist to many people - they both start with “A” and mean people we don’t like. Like it or not, the USA may or may not BE a Christian nation, but it plays one on TV.