I ask because it seems for some that by having a President that is not of a Christian faith or of its denominations seems to be a big problem in this country. Why is that?

Let us say in the future there will either be an Atheist, Agnostic, Muslim, or even a Buddhist President elected to be our Commander in Chief of the Military and leader of the country. How would you feel about it?

If you are against it ...tell us why.

If you are for it...tell us why.

Thank you and good luck!

I think they are mostly labels. A good president would be one who is intelligent and caring of others. A president of the US should seek to help create/maintain an atmosphere of equality. If they do these things, whatever religious book they follow in their personal life is of no consequence to me.

I personally feel that a good quality in a leader is honesty. Therefore I think a president that is agnostic would be the most honesty, not only to everyone else, but even sincerely with his or her own self. And that kind of honesty rates high in my book.

I think everyone knows how I feel about the jealous-god religions. I certainly don't want a president that believes in a jealous-god. We already had one of those and he believed that god told him to invade Iraq!

The last thing we need is a president who is going to start wars using our young soldiers and military might based on what he thinks some jealous-god is directing him to do! A believe in a jealous-god was the incentive that caused the attack on the world trade centers to begin with.

Something like Buddhism is hard to say. That philosophy, although spiritual in nature, can actually be quite 'secular' really. Viewed properly it's really nothing more than a reverence for all life and the entire ecosystem of our planet. I see nothing wrong with that.

Although a secular agnostic who basically believes in the "Human Spirit" and recognizes the value of nurturing the environment and ecosystems of the world be just as good as a Buddhist. No label required, it's a reverence for life in general that's important.

~~~~~

Having said all of the above, I personally don't believe that a president of the United States can really do all that much. Our society is based on competitive economy, and that's the real problem. A single president would be hard-pressed to change what our society has become over the centuries. Although it is feasible that such a person could come to power. But that person would need to exhibit extreme wisdom and charisma to even have a chance. Because the very agenda that he or she would need to present during the election campaign would be rather radical and not along the lines of the standard economic competition that we're used to.

Can a single person ever truly have a chance at making such a radical change in a modern society like ours?

I think it's possible, but extremely unlikely.

I could suggest how we could go about such a radical change in a meaningful and obtainable way. But I can assure you that I am never going to be the president of the United States.

well, they went through all the trouble of separating church and state, so why should a president have a religious affiliation? especially one that is not a mainstream religion here?

each side tends to only consider one half of the text

'"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....",


Respecting OR PROHIBITING


every US citizen has the right to decide for themself , even if that citizen runs for president, he must simply know where to draw the line between personal values and what the 'constituency' wants


I might be a naturalist(Im not), but that wouldnt mean I couldnt be a fashion designer and clothe others,,,

likewise with any job, people can seperate what is PERSONAL from what is PROFESSIONAL

I agree with everything posted in here, yet I can't help to wonder why religion seems to be important for the majority of people in this country when it comes to electing a president.

Examples would be from the Bush Administration of justifying a war on the "axis of evils" to the Obama administration of saying he is a Muslim radical or what not.

Then if you observe these Presidential elections you have people judging a person on religion and not on what he or she beliefs is important for the country. I am not saying everyone does it, but the issues always pops up as if the religion determines the morale standards of beliefs on how one should live a life.

For example: When one says I am Christian, tend to a family, go to church on Sundays, and worship Jesus Christ and God as the creator of our world then you will have alot of people say that is a great president for he has good ethics and morale that we as Americans should follow.

Now if the presidential candidate says I am a Muslim then we get many people in the country already frowning or a bit insecure of the mans intents or belief system. Will he destroy our country? Will he have the best interest at heart to improve the countries interests. Will he influence Congress to vote on important measures needed for the people and so on. Does he live a good life or is it too radical and so forth....

Now let us look at an atheist. Let us say the presidential elect claims proudly he is an atheist but accepts other religious views as long as they don't harm others in the process. How many actually would vote him in? Let us say he has the ultimate solutions to rejuvenate our economy, find peace and prosperity for the common man, and help reduce the deficit that the majority of the population agree on, yet he is an atheist and they refrain from voting him in because of that? That doesn't sound logical does it, but for those that strive on faith and believe one should follow a certain belief system will do just that.

I mean I understand why the forefather's instilled a law to keep religion and government separated, but do we as a people (majority) actually do it as a whole? I do it and really do look at the presidential candidate, his or her history, and belief on what is right for every American, but how many don't and just vote because the man follows a certain religion or plays a instrument very good!

For example the republican candidate Mitt Romney who I believe is a Mormon. He is very popular amongst the republicans, yet how many just vote him in because they are Mormons also. You see what I mean.

I think the Christian / Catholic and all of its denominations have a big influence in our presidential campaigns for the people seem to wanted it included regardless of how the grounding fathers think. I say this for the majority in this country belief in this religion and when a president swears oath on inaugration day doesn't he swear with the holy bible? I am just wondering...for if not why do so many have to swear on the holy bible in a court session when they can just say they swear on their word instead.

There also seems to be a great confusion on what the grounding fathers believed in. Some say they were Christians and others gnostic or just believed to be deists. So there we will have the back and forth debate on what they were instead of what they believed in and how they tried to tackle the issue of having a good government for the people by the people. Do you see what I mean?

Anyway I may not make any sense here, but I do contemplate about these presidential elections and how people vote these days, but again if I understand correctly only 80 million actually vote?? Is this correct? I know that only 20% actually vote in any case so we will never really know what the entire population really thinks unless it gets so bad here that every person will actually care and will vote.

In a representative form of government, the president should represent the majority ideally, but still be honest with the obligation to protect the minority as well. Religion and US politics have gotten along pretty well over the years.

When you say majority ideally ....do you mean in political issues or in religion also? I agree in political issues but what if he or she (presidential candidate) practices a religion or not for personal use shouldn't be judged to the extent to determine the vote. I mean we can of course if we like, but that wouldn't be a wise decision to making that vote. Do you see what I mean?

You also say "obligation" to protect the minority. Do you not find it as a *duty* to protect the individuals belief system as long as it doesn't harm others?

I mean imagine a president with stark values in a religion and when elected influences Congress to make it illegal to not believe in a god...better said be an atheist. Suddenly those with such values have to leave the country or face jail.

I wonder if in Saudi Arabia if there is such thing as a Atheist allowed or do they have to leave the country. Do you see what I mean?

Yes so far we have managed as a people to tolerate different religious aspects that people bring to the country, but how far would we have gone without this prejudice of which religion we should practice or honor? That is the question!

Should this truly even matter anymore?

We know what a FREE DEMOCRACY means. That's really all we need to try to preserve. The idea of individual freedom and separation of church and state, etc.

Anything else in the details is basically a moot point really.

The grounding fathers of this nation had absolutely no way of knowing the problems that would face us in these modern times. The questions we need to address are basically from a world that was totally alien to the grounding fathers.

The main thing that we need to try to preserve is FREEDOM from fascism. Preservation of individual freedom and trying to provide a means for everyone to achieve their dream whilst simultaneously being responsible for protecting and nurturing our MOTHER EARTH.

That's what's truly important. Freedom insured along with a sense of responsibility. Freedom does not equate to just doing whatever people want with total irresponsibility of the environment or other citizens.

But other than that who cares, what religious values the founding fathers may have had? If it doesn't support a free democracy and protect the environment then it's an unworthy concept anyway.

A Healthy Planet, Responsibility for all citizens, and Individual Freedom are the key issues that need to be preserved. And they need to be preserved in that order! A healthy planet first, then responsibility to our fellow inhabitants of this planet. Whatever freedoms can be enjoyed after those criteria have been fulfilled is as free as we can be. We can't be any freer than that without killing our planet and ourselves.

I was speaking in general terms. If 99% of the US was Mormon and an Islamic radical was elected as president then he wouldn't represent the views of the majority of citizens. He also wouldn't have much chance to be elected.

America has a system that is supposed to rule by the majority but protect the minority. That is the basis of the "By the people and for the people" statement. Sometimes the minority simply cannot be protected due to too much conflict with society.

If your religion consists of devil worship that needs fresh babies to sacrifice, you wouldn't get much sympathy. But since freedom of religion is a basic right of the people, most religions are free to do whatever they want. I don't know how one protects an "individual belief system" in any way other than what the US has already done.

For some people it really matters what our grounding fathers thought for they hold up to those premises or reflect back on how they created this country. I mean for me personally I value the same things you mention above, but the problem is that many vote on religion idealogies as the grounding laws or (in occurrence with our instilled laws today) to make that decision. They combine the two to make a valued decision. Just look at the idealogies of Democrats and Republicans. Look at the statistics also. Even though the government and religion is seperated as a whole many don't do it and combine the two together to make the decision on who they will vote for. This goes not only for the president but everyone who is elected in Congress included.

So how many of the millions actually vote based on this belief? I would say millions. It surely is worth looking into and seeing that perhaps we need to instill education on what our forefather's thought and what we believe today and how to make it work so we can have a more educated opinion on our votes in the future to ensure represenatives that truly serve the people.

And it is not limited to what our forefathers thought, but also on what we think today is best to improve our voting system if possible.

Many of the grounding fathers left England because of religious persecutions. Others because they didn't like the laws or the monarchy state of being of the country. There are many reasons and I think we as Americans have forgotten it.

So you would agree that religion has a big role in votes. I mean I personally look at what the candidate has to say in terms of growth for this country and resolving issues that we face today, but many use either a combination of both for political debate, some only religion, and others just politics.

I would agree that religion has a VERY big role in votes. Most elections are won by only a few percentage points. A single religious minority (or any other minority) can swing the vote. Sadly, most politicians say what voters want to hear instead of the truth.

I can't speak for Americans but in Canada religion is not important for our Prime Minister and religion is not even a factor for voting and the topic is never brought up.

the president has a job to do, if he can do that job well, his personal life should not matter, that is my belief

I vote on the issues that have to do with the presidents job, and the role of government, I think people naturally bond based upon similarities though,,,so whether they 'relate' better to someone who shares their religious beliefs or those who share their political beliefs,,,,,,,there is a certain popularity(one of us) type of mentality that happens across the board alot of times when people are viewing candidates