The Best U.S. President would be an Agnostic

…In other words, someone who is religiously neutral. Does not either believe or dis-believe that there is a God…only that he/she does not have enough information to confirm or deny.

I’ve come to this conclusion based on my early years as a devout Christian and after witnessing the last several years of the current Presidency.

It seems, to me, that if you are convinced that you must believe in certain things or deities in order to get into heaven, you will not be a President who makes fair, level-headed, secular decisions. By your belief, you would overtly or subconciously discriminate against those who don’t believe the same things you do.

I believe there is a fine line between devoutness and fanaticism. Webster’s defines fanaticism as “marked by excessive enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion”. Do we really want to risk having a fanatic run the White House?

Be honest. If an Islamic terrorist and Christian both have beliefs in their religious system strong enough to fit the Webster definition of “fanatic”, who is most likely to be called “devout” and who is most likely to be called “fanatic” (by Americans, that is).

Religious Presidents have admitted turning to their religion for help in making critical decisions. Isn’t that a bit scary? That our top leader is basing an important decision affecting millions on an answer through prayer on a deity that exists through faith only?

Agree/Disagree?

“Religiously neutral” isn’t an accurate description of agnosticism. You can be an active member of a congregation without being sure if God is real.

Why would agnostics be exempt from this normal human behavior? I don’t think they are.

You might be right if all other things were equal, but since this is reality, that isn’t the case. And I think you’ve placed too high an importance on a President’s religion.

Sure, but nowadays that would take a miracle from God. This ain’t Abe Lincoln’s America any more.

The problem, of course, is this; what is the <religion of choice here>ists are right? I mean, that’s what they believe, after all. As an agnostic, i’d much prefer an agnostic as my Prime Minister, since that’s what i’d consider the “correct” position, given the evidence. But for a religious person, that agnostic has wrongly judged the universe; why would I want a person who can’t understand the universe correctly to be my leader?

The average American would probably say (and they might have a point, depending on what you mean by agnosticism): No way! I don’t want a president who doesn’t know what he believes, or worse, who doesn’t believe in anything, or stand for anything. I’d never know what to expect from him.
I seem to recall a GD thread from a while back discussing good ol’ George W. Bush and his religion, in which several Dopers, myself included, weighed in with the opinion that the problem with GWB wasn’t that he was too religious, but that he wasn’t religious enough (and/or not Christian enough). If he were really trying to follow Christ’s teachings, wouldn’t he be more benevolent, more honest, more concerned for the poor and disadvantaged, more peace-loving, etc.?
I get the impression that the OP hasn’t seen many examples (or hasn’t noticed them, or has forgotten about them) of people who were devout in a good way, without being fanatical. I have, both in history and personally, so I’m not nearly as distrustful of religion per se, though I readily admit that there are some belief systems to which being fanatically devoted is indeed a dangerous thing.

That’s a really selective definition of Christian, though. It might also be a really good one, but just the same…

So maybe the important thing to find out is, not what name a person attaches to their beliefs, but what they actually mean by that name.

Sounds good to me. The issue you really raised (since I couldn’t figure out how to say it before) is not how Christian Bush is, but what kind of Christian he is.

I don’t interpret agnosticism to be the same as wishy-washyiness…Only that you have an open mind as to God, the way to heaven, and the afterlife itself. It means that you would make a firm decision based on concrete evidence/proof, not just because a document or person says so or that it feels good to say so.

I believe that someone with an open mind like this would look at sensitive issues from all perspectives to find the most practical solution(s), not the most religious-based solution. Examples include the Israel/Palestine issue, stem cell research, and abortion.

My only concern is that I don’t want anyone devout in office (as I perceive Bush to be). The reason: I will never trust their underlying motives for major national decisions. Are they taking this particular action because it’s best for the nation or because it’s morally superior per the New Testament?

You know, there was also a former Catholic priest, Charles Chiniquy, who claimed a friendship with Lincoln until L’s death (C had been a legal client of L), who wrote that A.L. was a devout Evangelical who shared Chiniquy’s concern about Catholic plotting to take over the U.S. I doubt his veracity also.

Still, even if Lincoln had been a skeptic or “infidel” in former days, he sure didn’t campaign for President or speak & govern as President as a skeptic/agnostic/infidel - so either he was a true “politician” or had developed some sort of a faith in the meantime.

Again, your view of agnostics is unrealistically charitable. And your view of religious people is probably unnecessarily harsh.

That’s just about the least of my worries with regards to Bush. I’m more inclined to ask myself, for example, “Is he taking this particular action because it’s best for the nation or because it will benefit his cronies in big business?”

FWIW, from what I’ve read I have the distinct impression that, of all recent presidents, the one who most fits your accusation here—i.e. who let his actions be dictated by what he thought was the right thing to do, as informed by his Christian faith, and not necessarily what was most to the USA’s pragmatic advantage—is Jimmy Carter. He wasn’t a particularly effective president, but I’m still not sure whether his Christian beliefs/ethics hurt or helped him here.

Is it true that Brittish elections don’t stress religious affiliation? If not, what do thet think of our present state of affairs?
Have to admit ,when you have a wild youth, claiming to be born again gives you a clean slate.

As an atheist, I’ll vote for someone of any religion as long as they have values I respect and understand that I am electing them to serve in a very particular capacity in our government. Unfortunately, too many Christian Nationists seem to think that being put in a position of power democratically is basically the same as being elected pope, and they are now in charge of leading the nation in religious obervances. That isn’t part of the job description kids.

Not really, but it’s a understandable misconception. Like your system, we do not vote directly for our Prime Minister; in your case the Pres. is voted in by the Electoral College, and under ours it depends on the party of the majority of MPs. The race for PM him/herself doesn’t stress religious affiliation, although it must be pointed out that generally all candidates are Christian. I would imagine, though I cannot say for certain, that a Christian vs. an Athiest would not be the certain result it would be in the U.S.

On the other hand, however, religion is often stressed in local elections, for MPs. Generally an MP is much more likely to be elected if their religion matches that of the majority of their electoral district. Again, however, it is not in the same fashion as the American state of affairs; it would be rare for a candidate to say he is the more moral of the two because of his religious beliefs (indeed, morality is seldom addressed; the closest equivalent that’s emphasised I would say is truthfulness) nor would religion be made the central part of the campagin (at least overtly).

That’s just my own analysis of the situation, though. What do I personally think of the current state of affairs over there? Well, I think it’s understandable. A considerable portion of your country is heavily religious, and your past reflects this; this is taken into account by Presidential candidates. And of course it makes sense that a religious person would want to be in a position of power; what better place to help change the world for (what they see as) the better? As an agnostic (but athiest when it comes to Christianity) it obviously worries me. It could easily be better, but it could easily be worse, too.

I understand in some areas, the majority religion is Islam. Do you have any Muslims in Parliament?

Yes, but I can’t find a source saying how many MPs there are of particular religions, so I can’t say how many.

Ok, I tried Wikipedia, and it lists Sadiq Kahn, Khalid Mahmood, Shahid Malik, and Mohammed Sahwar as current Muslim MPs. There are also four Muslim peers (Members of the House of Lords) Baron Ahmed of Rotherham, Baron Alli of Norbury, Baron Patel of Blackburn, and Baroness Uddin of Bethnal Green. There isn’t really that much information on the 'pedia, though.

This is the mistaken assumption you’re making, in addition to using the term “devout” without defining it. So, let’s define “devout” and then prove that such a “fine line” exists.

Surely you are not saying that picking any random agonstic out of the country will produce a better president than some other method. So what is it about a person’s religious inclination that makes the most important factor? You also have to define what makes one president “better” than the next-- I hope “better” is not just a way of saying that the guy has political beliefs that match yours.

I for one don’t care what religion the president is, so long as he makes decisions based on data and what if of benefit to the country, uninfluenced by dogma. Kerry’s view of abortion is a great example.