The recent controversy concerning President Obama's religious affiliation recalls a statement he'd made at the end of his Inaugural speech: he expressed toleration not only for those who follow a religion but "the non-Believers" as well. In a recent poll, a significant portion of the American public believes that the president is a secret Muslim, and in another, only one-third believe that he is a Christian. According to the official record on this matter, all but one American President has been a Protestant, the exception being John F, Kennedy, and his religious affiliation to the Catholic Church became a controversial issue during his candidacy. But dare I wonder: Why is it necessary for a president not only to have to "prove" his religious beliefs but have them at all? Does being a "believer" make a president that much more likely to be a good leader? An honest and humane person? Let's take a brief look at the early history of this question.
Some people assert that the United States is a "Christian nation." But what were the faiths of its founders? One of the most profound influences on turning a quarrel between Britain and the Colonies into a revolution was a book by an avowed atheist at a time when being one was almost unheard of. Tom Paine wrote Common Sense shortly before the Declaration of Independence was signed and influenced many potential rebels into committing themselves to making this country independent. The man most instrumental in writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, was not an atheist but he did not regard Christ as divine nor is there any mention in the Declaration of Independence of Jesus or Christianity. There is a reference in it to a "Creator" but for Jefferson this did not mean Jesus or a specific religious faith. Jefferson might have been a Unitarian, as some scholars assert, but when he refers to "Nature's Laws" in the Declaration, he is referring to a concept in which Christianity has no part.
The Constitution has no mention of any "Divinity" and certainly not a particular religion. And one of the most significant Founders of this country, Benjamin Franklin, was, by common acknowledgment, a "Deist," not taking any definite position on the issue of religion in his many writings. There is also considerable dispute whether George Washington, "the Father of His Country," was in any sense a conventional Christian and it was rare for him in speech or in his writing to refer specifically to Christianity. This was at a time in which most Americans were devout, Church-going Christians.
I wonder why, then, in a land that has prided itself on its toleration of "different" religions -- a sore point at the moment -- this nation wouldn't consider as an acceptable candidate for president someone who has no religious affiliation at all? ( I wouldn't presume to include atheists in this group because they do have strong feelings about religion.) I don't believe that this is an unstated requirement in other countries: in England, Clement Atlee, Labour Prime Minister after World War ll, was an agnostic as was, more recently, Bob Hawke, PM of Australia in the 1980's. But what kind of moral center does a leader of a country bring if not through religious belief?
As a member of Ethical Culture, I can assert that the center of my belief system is in acting ethically in a society in which ethical behavior is being constantly challenged by the actions of the corporate world and the government as well, particularly in how it's cutting needed social service in exchange for maintaining low taxes for the wealthy. As a secular Jew, I am an admirer of Jesus Christ, not as a divinity, but as a true revolutionary who tried to eliminate class distinctions, the emphasis on monetary transactions, the mistreatment of what was once referred to as "fallen women," and who questioned the exclusivity of a formal religious structure as a necessary intervention between the individual and spiritual enlightenment by declaring: "God is in you." But unlike in any formal Western religion, Ethical Culture believes that acting ethically does not need an "Eternal Reward"; that we must do good while we are on this earth since we have no way of knowing -- and most of us aren't that concerned -- what happens to us after death.
Having a president who was raised in the traditions of Ethical Culture -- or in any other of the many secular groups that are concerned with ethical behavior -- would eliminate any dispute about his or her religious origins or practices. After all, although only 15% of the American public do not regard themselves as affiliated with any religion -- a growing number -- that still constitutes a sizable constituency, more than enough to be among the largest denominations in the United States. With such a president, it would make it more likely that there would be no suspicion of their favoring one religion over another or having to "prove" a religious affiliation. Since "ethics" would be at the heart of such a President's belief system, that it is based on the same "Golden Rule" that is central to most world religions without any qualifications that one is "better" than the other, then it would be that much more likely that such a person would have a clear, unbiased view of the issues he or she faced since fairness, justice and equal treatment of all people would be considered exclusively of any sectarian perspective.
I need not probe too deeply into the past history of the United States to point out that if it were a "Christian Nation" it would, in my humble view, have a lot of explaining to do in terms of the teachings of its spiritual and ethical founder. The taking of the country from its first inhabitants, the persistence of slavery until well after it had been abolished in most other Western countries, lynching, intolerance and exploitation of "other people," a national mental illness which is raising its virulent head once more in the new wave of xenophobia we must fight against: none of these blots on our past would be judged acceptable to "The Prince of Peace." Of course, there is much to be proud of in our history as well, the most significant being the opening of doors to immigrants who were given an opportunity to thrive. But commercial success and virtue do not necessarily compliment one another.
I am hoping that one day religion will not be an issue in the candidacy or legitimacy of any elected official. Ethical behavior and religion do not always, unfortunately, go together, as recent scandals in various denominations have revealed. But in order to govern wisely, justly and effectively, wisdom from all sources should be welcomed. An Ethical or other Secular Culture President, I believe, would provide a leader with all those qualities without having to justify him or herself through the limitations of a specific religious affiliation.
Eddie Glaude, Jr., Ph.D.: Islamophobia and Religious Pluralism: America's Real History
Boehner ducks Obama religion question
Why doesn't Obama wear his religion on his sleeve?
Glenn Beck sticks 'liberation theology' label on Obama's Christianity
Warning from Down Under: Obama's shaky ground
The position sums up like this - when thinking of those that disagree with me I will always choose the lowest common denominator to represent them, it makes my position easier to maintain.
"I wonder why, then, in a land that has prided itself on its toleration of "different" religions -- a sore point at the moment -- this nation wouldn't consider as an acceptable candidate for president someone who has no religious affiliation at all? ( I wouldn't presume to include atheists in this group because they do have strong feelings about religion.)"
Why'd you have to go and call atheism a religious affiliation? We HATE that!
I also used those that kill abortion providers and bomb abortions clinics as an example that so called Christian Morality is all in the eye of the beholder. These people feel they are doing God's work, yet the majority of mankind would say that they committed murder.
I have always hated it when somebody said, "That is not very Christian of you." Why is Christianity the final arbitor of good and evil?
I would definately vote for an atheist or agnostic if I believe their policies are best for the country.
This is where you lost me. You would rather have people who are vague about religion than those who prefer to leave religion out of it and rely on common sense, even though you admire Thomas Paine and his "Common Sense"?
You are "dismayed" by atheists who try to convince people there is no God, because you think belief in God helps some people be good. If it's good for some people to believe in God (and "dismaying" for them to be led away from belief), it follows that a good leader will encourage belief in God, by his own example. A leader with no religious affiliation is merely neutral on this scale, neither good nor bad. Anyone who thinks as you do should prefer a candidate with positive religious affiliation over a neutral one.
But the truly stunning part of your reply is your complaint that atheists "appeal to reason as an alternative to irrational, necessary faith." I honestly don't know how to respond to that. You're saying reason is *not* an alternative? That irrational faith is necessary? Given that I lack the irrational faith you say is necessary, does that mean you see me as flawed, or handicapped, perhaps learning disabled?
Presumably it would be pointless to *reason* with you to the contrary, so I'm at a loss for a response. Indeed, I don't see why you bothered writing this essay at all, if you discredit the use of reason to persuade people to change their beliefs.
In the HuffPo edition of your blog, these words are absent. In their absence, your words imply you think ALL atheists have negative attitudes towards religion, and you use this intolerant "presumption" to exclude them as candidates for the presidency. Is this, in fact, what you are trying to say?
If so, as an atheist who has no particular opinion on the moral fitness of any one religion over any other, I find such prejudice and intolerance not simply disingenuous and hypocritical, but abhorrent, ignorant and vile. It is also at odds with the Constitutional provision that no religious test be used for determining fitness for candidacy.
Only then will the truth be revealed.
I really enjoyed this post. However I don't necessarily agree with your statement here about atheists. Those who do have faith can more than easily afford the writings of Richard Dawkins or Hitchens. It isn't like they are be forced by them to view their opinions. If they choose to seek out that information then that would be a different story. I hardly see writing a book or doing TV interviews or guest lectures as standing in anyone's way of their beliefs.
There are atheists who do actively pursue discussions with theists but I have a hard time seeing any problem with that, just as I have no problem with the theist seeking non-believers to discuss religion with.
Nothing wrong with that, but it becomes a problem when those in power use their religious beliefs to affect change on the rest of the country.
Religion is the one "sacred" area of our life where we are not permitted to call into question its irrational claims. If I told you that I believe pink unicorns exist you would say that I'm crazy and rightfully so. So why does the irrational belief that Jesus Christ was a real person that performed miracles get a pass?
Someday those that still believe in religion will not be taken as seriously as those today that continue to believe in astrology.
There is another conflict going on between the zealots of belief and the zealots of Atheism. It is the war towards imposed secularism in this country and throughout the world. The two sides read the Constitution to ends that are polar opposites. The former sees our laws as designed to keep religion safe from government, the latter believing it is designed to keep government safe from religion. While both are true, of course, the practical implementation of these laws changes immensely based on whether you believe or do not. The faith of the President would reflect that.
What I have found here is some Atheists that have blindly read the Bible as they would any other piece of literature assuming that Theists do the same. We don't. The other extreme is those who were raised in strict Fundamentalist or Catholic settings who were either discouraged from reading the text or asking questions of it who have since rejected that type of faith. There are few Atheists here that were raised in typical Christian homes where reading of the Bible and asking questions of it was encouraged. At the very least your point is debatable. The author of this article assumes things about religion that are in fact debatable.
With the first amending of the constitution we have, in 1, *Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;* and that is the last mention of religion in the Constitution. The constitution allows the practice of religion without legal ramifications and prohibit religion from having any barrier on people in any office of public trust.
Everyone in the United States' democracy should be made aware of that which suggests the president can be a confirmed atheist.
The primary reason for hhis desire for religious belief is the same reason so many hold the erroneous belief that Obama is a Muslim. We want our President to reflect our values or at the very least understand them. The author of this piece had suggested a number of things about the religious which I feel are simply not true just as he believes that a number of things believers feel about Atheists are not true. It seems that if the majority of people hold a position that includes belief that will be reflected in who we pick, and the other side will be forced to live with some discomfort about it.
The issue becomes more pronounced as the issue between sides involves more tension, especially when the zealots on both sides become more irrational, and more extreme. While there is no war with Islam, the group at war with us is Muslim. This makes the prism through which we view this conflict immensely important. The fact that the non religious have so many misperceptions about religion is vitally important while interpreting the actions of religious people. Atheists have generally shown a fairly poor grasp of Christianity. It's even more doubtful they can grasp
To establish Justice is to ensure all laws are obeyed by everyone equally, government officials are not an exception. Everyone has to have access to their elected officials while major corporations and lobbyists shouldn't. The elected officials, once they have fulfilled their duty to the state, no more than 12 years, should be required to live by the laws they made.
I don't remember the constitution requiring protection for ex presidents but I do see where Article 2.4 require the president *shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.* Yet, Bush was totally ignored and allowed to serve 2 terms after committing most of them.
Those are the values we should be concerned about, not a religious preference.
I agree with most of what you have to say but I would like to add that, in my opinion only, many of the founders of the country were Deists only because this was a time before Darwin. There would have been simply no way to reconcile the abundance of nature seen all around them without calling in some sort of God to explain it.
Darwin relieves the modern person of that answer-less conclusion.