A poll reported by the Salt Lake Tribune at the end of December highlights a worrisome trend: two-thirds of Democrats and nearly 90 percent of Republicans want Presidential candidates to be Christians. Article VI of the Constitution declares: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Yet, according to the Tribune, "Voters have all but established a de facto litmus test for national office-seekers."
80 percent of Americans are Christians, but that doesn't mean that America is a Christian nation or that political leadership is only for Christians.
If one examines immigration trends over the past 40 years, it's clear that the U.S. is becoming increasingly diverse. In the 1970s, the majority of foreign-born Americans hailed from Christian Europe. Today, the majority of newcomers originate from Latin America, Asia and Africa, bringing with them less familiar belief systems. As a result, our country is host to a growing minority of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and a broad range of other religions.
The U.S. Constitution zealously guards the rights of minorities. The Founding Fathers were careful to eschew formalizing the notion that America is a Christian nation. According to a thoughtful article on religion and politics in the December 17, 2011 issue of The Economist: "Madison, Washington and Jefferson... worried... about political disputes which were 'religious' in their intensity. They wanted to create a state and political system to which people with utterly different ideas about metaphysics... could offer unconditional loyalty." Out of their vision sprang the most determinately pluralistic nation in the world.
But, during times of stress, America sometimes chokes on its pluralism. I believe such a time is upon us, evidenced by social tensions around the widening wealth gap, immigration, the economic downturn, and recent and ongoing wars. One could argue that these stressors are fueling a movement against pluralism that began in 1979 when the Reverend Jerry Falwell stood on the steps of the Capital flanked by seven Congressmen and declared: "The key to U.S. strength is Christianity."
Consistent with the Falwell model, many political candidates tout their Christian faith, implying that it is a qualification for public office. This is dangerous and leads to a political atmosphere of exclusion. How is a Hindu voter to take this? Or a Jew? And what about the growing number of individuals who claim to be unaffiliated or are non-believers? In a nationwide Gallup poll released just last month, 15 percent of respondents identified in the none/atheist/agnostic category. Our current politics are already destructively partisan without introducing religious divisions into the mix.
And, who can really claim to speak for Christianity? According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, there are more than 4,600 Christian denominations in the U.S., dramatically demonstrating the enormous diversity within Christianity.
When stressors such as the ones we are facing today have occurred throughout our history, we have often heard calls for a return to "the good old days" with their "old time religion" and morality. However, those good old days weren't really good for all. They were rife with exploitation, slavery, lynchings, crime, brutality and bigotry. Old-time moralism often intertwined with anti-Catholicism, anti-Semitism, racism, anti-urbanism and xenophobia.
Consider the Ku Klux Klan, which was established in 1866, by Confederate soldiers as a backlash against newly freed slaves. It surfaced again in 1915 with the lynching of an innocent Jew, Leo Frank, for the murder of a young gentile girl. In The Politics of Unreason, Seymour Martin Lipset and Earl Raab describe the KKK as having taken on the form of a fundamentalist crusade to "punish drunks, adulterers and other violators of the traditional moral code." As we all know, this turned into a campaign against blacks, Jews, immigrants and Catholics.
This is a time to be vigilant against reverting to those times in our history when we divided ourselves on the basis of religious belief.
Today's conditions have put us at a tipping point. Anti-immigrant sentiment is on the rise. A 2007 Pew poll showed that three-quarters of U.S. citizens want to further restrict immigration. Conventional wisdom holds that American voters resist immigration because of fear of competition for scarce jobs. However, a study, reported in 2010, by political scientists Jens Hainmuller of MIT and Michael Hiscox of Harvard, shows that the overriding factor is culture. And, religion is one of the largest components of culture. We're a nation in the midst of profound conversations about traditional religio/social mores -- freedom of reproductive choice, gay rights, definition of marriage and individual responsibility. This is time for great caution about the mixing of politics with one religious tradition to the exclusion of others. It is a time to be alert, lest we tip into the intolerance.
Returning to the Tribune poll with which I began: Independents, "who by definition tend to be less dogmatic about their politics, apparently are less rigid on issues of faith as well." Less than half stated that they want their presidential candidates to be Christians, while 48 percent said "it wasn't important at all." According to the Washington-based think tank, Third Way, "The importance of Independents has grown over time ... [and it is likely]... that Independents will make up a bigger portion of the electorate...than in any election since 1976."
This would bode well for a nation in which believers and non-believers of all stripes should have a welcome place at the political table. And, in which, we can envision a person of character -- who falls on any place along the religious spectrum -- serving nobly and successfully as leader of this great and pluralistic nation.
Follow Georgette Bennett, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TanenbaumCenter
Eric Simpson: Is All Marriage Sacramental?
Pledge of Allegiance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
One Nation Under God - McNaughton Fine Art
One Nation Under God - Proudly Bringing Faith Into the Voting Booth
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
How would we know he has wisdom?
1) The Preamble would be his platform with the Articles and Amendments would be the means of achieving it.
2) He would, as Article 2, section 3 require, "ensure the [constitutional] laws are faithfully executed" and eliminate the unconstitutional ones in ensuring it.
3) His primary concern would be to seeing that the citizens' needs are being met.
4) He would be open to entertain the people without living in the prison the White House has become and needing protection for the rest of his life.
5) After serving his DRAFTING he would become just another citizen.
Where can we find such person?
http://www.change.org/petitions/eliminate-capitalistic-military-regime has listed the only one I know of.
We have a representative form of government. We don't vote on issues, we vote for people who who vote on the issues. Nothing of significance was ever changed by citizen vote. Not the abolition of slavery. Not women's rights. Not gay rights. Not civil rights. Slavery wasn't voted-out, it was resolved at the end of a rifle. If voting really worked we wouldn't need Occupy Wall Street. Nice thought, though...
A person who touts his/her religion as a reason to vote for said person is not likely to be a good president. The current group who are using God as their political football are simply horrible, one and all. The are also committing blasphemy and taking God's name in vain.
The solution is based on the most important statement in the history of humanity. The solution also embraces those who in all sincerity might not believe in a Supreme Being for an individual's understanding of all that exists does not change the nature of God since the emphasis is not on God but the mankind itself:
The Universal Church of the LORD Almighty
Church = All that Exists
All Wars Are Civil Wars.
The Second Coming of Christ, Mahdi, or a Redeemer is a metaphor for the awakening of the whole of humanity – now exceeding 7,000 million & counting – and accepting the responsibility of transforming this Precious Earth, our only home so far, to the Paradise for us, as it is for other creatures unaffected adversely by humanity, by means of utilizing our individual and collective freedom of choice without violating the rights of others among us to do the same.
The word "Church" in this context has the most inclusive and universal meaning. It does not mean just Christianity. Christianity is a part of it as is Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and any other philosophy of life that has an element of eternal truth beneficial to the whole of humanity.
As a matter of fact the US is a plutocracy.
The US president is just a remote controlled figure head
He is manipulated and controlled by a group of tiny, tiny but filthy and powerful
rich guys and corporations whose aim is to make as much profit for their
shareholders as possible by continuing the piracy around the world.
The entire economy, finance and monetary policies of the world are totally one sided and
absolutely favourable to the rich and powerful western nations
Yep, all those Latin Americans and their "unfamiliar belief systems".
The Catholic Church in the United States should do what Henry VIII did but for much more important reasons.
Maybe someday we'll get to the point to realize every religion basically is saying the same thing, just in different ways.
At the end of the day we are all human, not robots. Human beings feel the most comfortable with people they can identify with. Why would a mostly Christian Nation not want a fellow Christian as their representative?
I think one thing not honestly spoken of is how hispanics are mostly Christian as well and being as they are our largest growing segment I do not believe we will be lowering the number of Americans who are Christians, if anything the number should grow.
What does the writer believe? That we should only select a President who does not share the moral values and beliefs of most of his or her constituency?
Just curious, you do know the only reason the masses learned to read and write in most areas of the world was religion right? Look at the majority of the hotspots around the world and while there are endless debates in the UN about if they will help, usually you see a Chrisitn group already there trying to help (think darfur).
If all there is in life is the clinical and cold numerical science behind it......then that kind of life can be lived by a computer. If we feel other things hold value, then things like faith become important. Why are we capable of hopes, dreams, and feelings if these things are not important? Line up like a bunch of robots if you want, but don't try to make everyeone else be a robot too.
The servant is not greater than his Master.
a prayer to Jupiter! Because Enlightenment DEIST Founders modeled early US to a large extent on the Roman Republic. They also rejected the notion of a state Church-as found in Europe. There is a Church of England. Is there a Church of the US of America? No. Majority of population
being Christian makes US a nation with a Christian majority. That is not the same thing as a Christian Nation. The State is a Secular Foundation and there really IS separation of Church and state. Arguments and examples can be multiplied