# Modern US politics and mainstream religion. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 1, 2009, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444 "2009-09-01T04:03:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444/1 "2009-09-01T04:03:59Z")
This is a spin-off question from the GQ thread [Nations With Official (or Unofficial) Theocratic Tendencies](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=529694) (so please forgive a few messy cross quotes). **DrDeth** suggested starting a thread about “how Theocratic the USA” is, but I think something more interesting came up out of that thread (and I suspect the topic would mostly involve niggling over meanings of “theocracy”, etc). What got me interested is the less conventional religion of a number of the founders and early Presidents vs. the mainstream religion of more recent Presidents. > [@Nations With Official (or Unofficial) Theocratic Tendencies](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/20): > > Odd that. When the Atheists want to show a list of great atheists, they often include many US Presidents. Quite a few US President- while not perhaps “atheists” were not regular churchgoers or perhaps “deists”. > > Here’s a cite: [Religious affiliations of presidents of the United States - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_affiliations_of_United_States_Presidents) > … > [@Nations With Official (or Unofficial) Theocratic Tendencies](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/72): > > Absolutely. Early Presidents. How many recent ones would you class with the deists? > … > If a US presidential candidate said: “if you’re asking me if I’m religious it depends how you define religion\*”, and stated that he did not believe in life after death, would it have a positive, negative, or no effect on his election chances? > > (\*quote from current NZ PM John Key). > [@Nations With Official (or Unofficial) Theocratic Tendencies](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nations-with-official-or-unofficial-theocratic-tendencies/507921/73): > > Highly negative. I don’t think we’re going to see a US president who isn’t a Christian for at least another 50 years. An atheist/agnostic president? At least another century. Looking over the wiki link **DrDeth** provided the most recent US President with non-mainstream beliefs would seem to be **Taft** in the early 1900s as a Unitarian, having stated hat he didn’t believe in the divinity of Christ (but that he wasn’t an atheist). All of which leads me to the odd conclusion that the religious views of quite a few of the highly respected US founders and early Presidents would effectively disqualify them from getting elected today. Why is this? What has caused this change? (Or is this a misrepresentation of the facts?) ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444/2 "2009-09-01T04:35:36Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > All of which leads me to the odd conclusion that the religious views of quite a few of the highly respected US founders and early Presidents would effectively disqualify them from getting elected today. > > Why is this? What has caused this change? (Or is this a misrepresentation of the facts?) People know more about the candidates now than they did then, and we also know more about the views of past public figures than their contemporaries did, because we have access to their private papers. Look for instance at one of the Wikipedia quotes: > [@](#): > > Washington in particular maintained a life-long pattern of church membership and attendance, and there is conflicting testimony by those who knew him. Regardless of what Washington’s actual beliefs were, what the general public would know was that he “maintaned a life-long patter of church membership and attendance”, if they even knew that. Remember, we live in a 24 hour news cycle, where every candidate running for office is carefully scrutinized and profiled, and where every trait of the candidates, from positions on issues, to personal foibles, to favorite food, is easily accessible. There was no national newsman to ask James Madison who his favorite philosopher was, or to speculate on what kind of dog John Quincy Adams would get when he moved into the White House. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444/3 "2009-09-01T04:42:43Z")
Honestly, I think a lot of this is a holdover from the Cold War and McCarthyism, and the whole idea of “We stand against Godless Communism”. This stuff hasn’t gone away yet. ---
**Author:** ![FriarTed](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/friarted/32/1052_2.png) [@FriarTed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FriarTed)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444/4 "2009-09-01T08:41:01Z")
> [@Boyo\_Jim](#): > > Honestly, I think a lot of this is a holdover from the Cold War and McCarthyism, and the whole idea of “We stand against Godless Communism”. This stuff hasn’t gone away yet. Yeah, because in 1800, there was no concern that Thomas Jefferson might be an Illuminist & a Jacobin. (It didn’t help that he professed some admiration for both.) ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2009, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444/5 "2009-09-01T08:53:20Z")
What’s more, Freemasonry seems to have almost no influence in politics today (if it does, they’re keeping it very well hidden.) ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2009, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444/6 "2009-09-02T02:58:28Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > People know more about the candidates now than they did then, and we also know more about the views of past public figures than their contemporaries did, because we have access to their private papers. I hadn’t thought of the hindsight aspect (although it is rather obvious in… errr… after the fact). 🙂 But knowing more about candidates now in a current world of mass communication seems a reasonable piece of the puzzle. > [@](#): > > Remember, we live in a 24 hour news cycle, where every candidate running for office is carefully scrutinized and profiled, and where every trait of the candidates, from positions on issues, to personal foibles, to favorite food, is easily accessible. There was no national newsman to ask James Madison who his favorite philosopher was, or to speculate on what kind of dog John Quincy Adams would get when he moved into the White House. Which leads to the obvious question: “Is this a good thing?” Learning Madison’s favorite philosopher _might_ provide some insight into his thought processes, moral and ethical sense, etc… but Adams’ choice of hound is less likely to do so… and yet would still influence some voters. The nature of the mediums involved is likely to have an effect too I think… before photo reproductions were widespread it would have been the candidate’s writings that were the most persuasive… then photographs create a pressure for looking “good” enough – I have seen comments to the effect that Lincoln wouldn’t be electable today because of his awkward gait and less than photogenic features. With the advent to radio voices would become more important; there were silent movie stars who couldn’t transition to “talkies” because of the wrong sort of voices. The introduction of TV would bring different pressures. None of which quite explains the Presidential religious bent… unless it is simply that the wider the exposure the less desirable traits outside of the mainstream become… part of the suitability for President becomes a checklist: photogenic enough, tall enough, has a favorite sport, likes dogs, religious enough (but not too much), etc. With enough ill-informed people around willing to argue whether Catholics are Christians or not, it wouldn’t be hard to see Unitarian or Quaker as a red flag around the potential suitability of a candidate. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 5:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444/7 "2009-09-03T05:40:58Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > All of which leads me to the odd conclusion that the religious views of quite a few of the highly respected US founders and early Presidents would effectively disqualify them from getting elected today. They said the same thing about a Catholic. But yes, atheism is a small minority and there is little votes to be gained by being part of a small minority. ---
**Author:** ![furt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/439d5e/32.png) [@furt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/furt)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444/8 "2009-09-03T05:57:57Z")
For right or wrong: I tend to doubt that a guy in wheelchair, like FDR, could win today. I tend to doubt that a guy as ugly as Lincoln could win today. I tend to doubt that a guy as fat as Taft could win today. I tend to doubt that a guy who womanized as much as JFK could win today. I tend to doubt that a drunk alcoholic, like Peirce or Grant, could win today. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2009, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/modern-us-politics-and-mainstream-religion/508444/9 "2009-09-03T12:53:30Z")
Modern US politics appears to be defined by what people are calling a “culture war”: On the Right, you have your conservative, White, mostly Christian, middle and working class, Red State types with traditional values of Family, God, Country and Community. On the Left, you have your liberal, typically more ethnically, religeously and sexually diverse poor and educated urban Blue State types with more progressive values of Tolerance, Environment and Social Safety Nets. While there is a tendency to paint either side as irrational extremist, jackasses, I think this is a fairly neutral way to describe either side. Since pretty much forever, this country has been dominated by the White, middle class Christian types. Growing up, it was pretty much understood that most people were white. You might have a token Black or Asian in class but for the most part, minorities tended to live in the less affluent urban areas and were rarely seen. No one was gay. Other countries were just places on a map. The fact that I was Jewish was mostly sort of an interesting abberation. It was ok to show tolerance towards people outside the Right because they were generally small in number or mostly theoretical as you never really saw them. In other words, everything was ok as long as they were the undisputed majority and able to wield cultural dominance. Over the years and decades, however, the Left, or really the various groups who don’t fall into my description of the Right have grown or become more assertive of their rights. So what has happened is that the Right, mostly from more issolated rural and suburban areas typically in Red States are seeing vast cultural changes and these changes scare them. They worry about a world where Whites won’t be in the majority. Or where their belief in God is looked on as provincial and weird. Or that they won’t have jobs because of globalization, immigration and multiculturalism. Or they won’t know how to deal with their Black coworker or female boss or their son’s gay best friend. The Left, OTOH, just want what the Right want. The right to pray as they please, or not, raise families as they please, find jobs and have careers and just do what everyone else does. Basically what it boils down to is that a lot of middle class white people are worried about losing their sense of entitlement over being middle class and white. > [@furt](#): > > For right or wrong: > I tend to doubt that a guy in wheelchair, like FDR, could win today. > I tend to doubt that a guy as ugly as Lincoln could win today. > I tend to doubt that a guy as fat as Taft could win today. > I tend to doubt that a guy who womanized as much as JFK could win today. > I tend to doubt that a drunk alcoholic, like Peirce or Grant, could win today. I tend to doubt that a guy as senile as Reagan could win today. I tend to doubt that a guy who didn’t exhale as much as Clinton could win today. I tend to doubt that a guy as retarded as Bush could win today. I tend to doubt that a guy as Black as Obama could win today.