Does Christianity have a lock on the presidency?

[Never]

It would seem Christians have a lock on the presidency due to the fact that the majority of Americans identify as being Christian, and that probably won't change for a very long time.

I agree with the other posters who believed that the first non-Christian President in America will likely be Jewish. Practically no one would care if a Jew were nominated by either party. Just look at Joe Lieberman's vice-presidential candidacy in 2000, in which his religious identification only seemed to pop up since it was the first time either major party had a Jewish running mate.

The impact of an atheist presidential nominee is more difficult to determine. I would take into account that like Christians and Jews, atheists do span the political spectrum, and their attitudes about religion differ. While the religious right in America might view atheists as very hostile to the Christian faith, it seems much more complex than that. For example, even though mean-spirited atheist candidates would probably be off-putting to the majority of Americans, I think atheist politicians who present themselves as ambivalent or friendly to other religious groups would not have difficulty winning. In fact, an atheist politician who is nominally pro-life would probably be able to corral more support from conservatives who oppose abortion, while a candidate who identifies as Christian, yet supports abortion (like many Democrats today) probably wouldn't be able to defeat that kind of atheist. I think in the next generation or so (about 20 years), America will be ready to elect a particular brand of atheist.

[Never]

Every president so far has been a Christian, as are most politicians. Do you think voters are, or ever will be, ready to vote for an atheist, Jew, or anyone that isn't a Christian, especially a Republican? I plan to run as a Republican for office one day, but I am also an atheist.

Every President has been nominally a Christian.

Typically candidates outside of the Deep South don't make a big deal about their religious beliefs. 

If you're looking to run for public office, just nominally take up the banner of some Christian denomination.  You don't actually have to go to services or belief the stuff that's spewed from the pulpit, but voters will feel more at ease knowing that you "believe" that there's a God in Heaven.

If your parents subscribed to a particularly non-offensive brand of Christianity, like Methodism or Presbyterianism (Episcopalianism or even Catholicism may be okay in CT) you can just claim that you do too!  No one can accuse you of being opportunistic; after all, you were raised that way for crying out loud!

However, if your parents are non-religious or if their type of Christianity is "not okay" in CT (i.e., Pentecostalism), then you should just find a nice girl who is a Methodist or a Presbyterian, fall in love with her, convert to her faith, and then marry her.  Even the nonreligious get chocked-up when they hear conversion stories like that!    

Not a bad idea. But I plan on going to NH. It is most friendly to my Libertarian views, and the party fusion system won't make me decide which of my two parties to go with. How about a Satanist president? I know for a fact that satanists don't worship fire and the devil, but the majority of the general public, even non-Christians, still believe that

I've met Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wicca, and about every variety of Christian -- the few Satanists that I have met have been very nasty people.  It's Zoroastrians who have the fire temples; I have yet to meet them, but they sound OK. Satanists that I have met are horrible people. Although any religion can be perverted into something ugly, a tendency that worships evil for its own sake can get only bad results.

If I would never offer anything but contempt to a mobster or a fascist tyrant because such people leave behind cadavers and ruined people, why would I worship an entity that would destroy the earth if it got the chance?

Exactly, I agree 100%!

Anyhow, a Satanist will probably never become president in America as we know it. But still, crazy things happen, the Germans ended up with Hitler, after all.

I've met a few Wiccans here and there, and the ones I know seem like nice hippies (not to stereotype them), so I could see one of them being elected President way before a Satanist.

[Never]

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln were all deists/theistic rationalists while the Adamses and Taft were Unitarians.

Washington was either a Baptist or an Anglican.

Obligatory Washington was a firm Christian post (and history tends to agree with me on this one)

Both John Remsberg and Gregg Frazier (the latter of whom teaches at a Christian college) disagrees with you on this one: http://infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Religious-Beliefs-Americas-Founders/dp/0700618457

Its true he nominally was an Episcopalian church member all his life, so not sure where the Baptist part comes from.

This is strange, you are the second Democrat I've agreed with tonight (at least I agree with you on Washington)

It does seem pretty clear that Washington was an Episcopal.

It seems like some people either think that the Founding Fathers were all holy rollers or non-Christian in their beliefs, when in reality the picture is muddier. I think that some of the Founding Fathers were clearly devout Christian (Hamilton, at least later in life), while others were deists (Jefferson, Franklin).

I thought this Encyclopaedia Britannica article summed up things on the subject nicely.

[Never]

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Lincoln were all deists/theistic rationalists while the Adamses and Taft were Unitarians.

Washington was either a Baptist or an Anglican.

Obligatory Washington was a firm Christian post (and history tends to agree with me on this one)

Both John Remsberg and Gregg Frazier (the latter of whom teaches at a Christian college) disagrees with you on this one: http://infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/
http://www.amazon.com/The-Religious-Beliefs-Americas-Founders/dp/0700618457

Its true he nominally was an Episcopalian church member all his life, so not sure where the Baptist part comes from.

This is strange, you are the second Democrat I've agreed with tonight (at least I agree with you on Washington)

It does seem pretty clear that Washington was an Episcopal.

It seems like some people either think that the Founding Fathers were all holy rollers or non-Christian in their beliefs, when in reality the picture is muddier. I think that some of the Founding Fathers were clearly devout Christian (Hamilton, at least later in life), while others were deists (Jefferson, Franklin).

I thought this Encyclopaedia Britannica article summed up things on the subject nicely.

Thomas Paine may have been the only atheist among the Founding Father's but that's still a better ratio than atheists have today with Kyrsten Sinema being the only without a religion. Almost every member of Congress is an Abramhamist, although there are a few Hindus and Buddhists. I suppose there could be some that identify as being Jewish for cultural reasons but not religious reasons.

Perfect representation probably won't happen in America when only 535 congressmen and senators speak for 310 million people on Capitol Hill.

[Never]

Kenneth Anger was not 'puerile'.

Is Thelema really Satanism, as such? I guess it could be considered that but it's not typically an equivalency I automatically make or presuppose.

For classification purposes, it would seem reasonable to separate Thelema from Satanism. The former seems to be a modernized version of ancient Egyptian religion, not directly associated with the promotion of the individual as seen in Satanism.