Does Christianity have a lock on the presidency?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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

The issue is that even though Satanists don't literally worship Satan, they're still puerile and have poor enough taste and skewed enough perspective for their preferred terms of communication of anti-authoritarian views to be, well, 'Satanist'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

That's what I was thinking. If I'm wrong and Kenneth Anger was in fact some sort of Satanist, all right, I'd exclude him from the accusation of puerility (if not necessarily from other questionable traits, such as 'having written Hollywood Babylon'--note that I'm saying 'questionable', not 'unambiguously bad'), but I'm pretty sure he aligned himself with Thelema.