When will the U.S. have its first non-Christian President?

[Bo]

2040-2049

[Bo]

2009-2013

Obama is of partial Muslim origin, but he does not self-identify as Muslim. He self-identifies as Christian. I mean when will we have a President who will self-identify as something other than Christian (and Mormons self-identify as Christians, so they don't count)?

[Bo]

AFAIK Thomas Jefferson didn't identify as a "Christian", so...

He self-identified as Unitarian, who are Christians.

[Bo]

AFAIK Thomas Jefferson didn't identify as a "Christian", so...

He self-identified as Unitarian, who are Christians.

Unitarians who do not believe in Christ as divine or as savior do not generally claim to be Christians. I do not know that Jefferson even called himself a Unitarian, though he was a theist. William Howard Taft was officially a Unitarian.

According to Wikipedia, Unitarians are Christians. It also says that Jefferson identified himself with Unitarianism and with Deism. However, if this is a big issue for you, then the question should be rephrased "When will the U.S. have its next non-Christian President?"

[Bo]

Never, don't underestimate the Christian or Catholic Church.

lol. That's what people said in 1850 about ever electing a black President.

[Bo]

Never, don't underestimate the Christian or Catholic Church.

lol. That's what people said in 1850 about ever electing a black President.

Both blacks and whites are Christians in terms of majorities. You have apples and oranges there.

White people and Christians are both majorities in the U.S. right now. Someone 200 years ago would have said that we will never have a non-white President. Now we have one. Now you're saying we'll never have a non-Christian President.

[Bo]

Never, don't underestimate the Christian or Catholic Church.

lol. That's what people said in 1850 about ever electing a black President.

Obama is half-black and half-white.  He won because he's of mixed culture.  Religion is too powerful a political force for non-Christians to win in America.

That might be the case now, but I'm not sure that will be the case 50 or 100 years from now. Racism was a powerful institution in American politics before the 1960s. Yet right now, we have a self-identified black President. And to be honest, I don't think Obama would have lost any votes if he was 100% black rather than half-black. I don't think many people said "I'm voting for him because he's half-black, but if he was compeltely black, then I'd vote against him."

[Bo]

I think the first non-Christian president we have will probably be a reformed Jew, or maybe even an Atheist.  There is no way that a Muslim or practicer of an Eastern Religion would ever get elected in this counrty. 

To be fair, we already have Muslim and Buddhist Congresspeople. And Obama is of partial Muslim origin. I honestly think we will be ready for a Muslim or Buddhist President by the end of this century, or possible even by the middle of this century. That doesn't mean one is necessarily going to be elected that soon. Just that we will be ready to elect one if the right candidate appears.

[Bo]

I think the first non-Christian president we have will probably be a reformed Jew, or maybe even an Atheist.  There is no way that a Muslim or practicer of an Eastern Religion would ever get elected in this counrty. 

To be fair, we already have Muslim and Buddhist Congresspeople. And Obama is of partial Muslim origin. I honestly think we will be ready for a Muslim or Buddhist President by the end of this century, or possible even by the middle of this century. That doesn't mean one is necessarily going to be elected that soon. Just that we will be ready to elect one if the right candidate appears.

But you do have to admit that the American people whould take a Jew over a Muslim or a Hindu any day.

You're right in that regard. In fact, we almost had a Jewish VP back in 2000. However, I was pointing out that I think the country will be ready for a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist President sometime in our lifetimes.

[Bo]

Don't we have a non christian president now?

Obama is of partial Muslim descent, but he is a Christian in terms of his actual religion. The question can be reworded to "When will we have our next non-Christian President?"

[Bo]

Don't we have a non christian president now?

Obama is of partial Muslim descent, but he is a Christian in terms of his actual religion. The question can be reworded to "When will we have our next non-Christian President?"

So is Obama half-christian?  The Christian PACs are too strong to prevent losing power and influence.  Reformed Christianity is something that is uniquely American and differs us from the other countries.  I think it would be interesting to have a Unitarian politician. 

There were a few Unitarian Presidents.

Unitarians are Christians.

[Bo]

We may have already elected him in 2008:

*All three of his names are Arabic
*He calls the Muslim Call to Prayer, "the sweetest sound on Earth"
*Neither of his parents were Christians
*None of his friends say that he was interesting in converting to Christianity
*He donated $1 million to a presidential candidate in Kenya who promised to establish an Islamic theocracy, much like that of Iran
*He was educated at Muslim schools in Indonesia
*He quotes from the Quaran in his speeches
*During his trip to Kenya in 2007, he visited several mosques but no churches, even when Kenya has a National Temple and far more churches than mosques
*In Turkey (2009), he visited no churches but several mosques

Interpret is as you will, but the evidence looks pretty damning to me....

Obama's mom is a Christian and he himself is a Christian.

[Bo]

Don't we have a non christian president now?

Obama is of partial Muslim descent, but he is a Christian in terms of his actual religion. The question can be reworded to "When will we have our next non-Christian President?"

So is Obama half-christian?  The Christian PACs are too strong to prevent losing power and influence.  Reformed Christianity is something that is uniquely American and differs us from the other countries.  I think it would be interesting to have a Unitarian politician. 

There were a few Unitarian Presidents.

Unitarians are Christians.

No they are not. The Unitarians themselves say so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism

According to Wikipedia, they are Christians.

[Bo]

We should be encouraging him then.

Right on. Libs want to supress conservative youth.

lol

[Bo]

Taft was also a Unitarian, though I consider that to be a Protestant demonimation.

Taft said, and I quote: "I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ."

So he can't really be called a Christian.

So not believing in Jesus's Divinity makes someone non-Christian? I think not. I think Taft would be nominally Christian. I'm Jewish, but I am skeptical that everything that the Old Testament says is accurate.

[Bo]

Taft was also a Unitarian, though I consider that to be a Protestant demonimation.

Taft said, and I quote: "I do not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ."

So he can't really be called a Christian.

So not believing in Jesus's Divinity makes someone non-Christian? I think not. I think Taft would be nominally Christian. I'm Jewish, but I am skeptical that everything that the Old Testament says is accurate.

Well, what do you concider a Christian to be?

Someone who self-identifies as one. If someone is a Unitarian, and the Unitarians are Christians, then that person is a Christian even if he doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ.

[Bo]

Muslims aren't a race like Jews are.

Jews aren't a race, they're an ethnicity.

[Bo]

2009-2013

Obama is of partial Muslim origin, but he does not self-identify as Muslim. He self-identifies as Christian. I mean when will we have a President who will self-identify as something other than Christian (and Mormons self-identify as Christians, so they don't count)?

What is this fascination and obsession with having a non-Christian President?  Its not like other countries are interested in having minority religion presidents.  There would never be a catholic PM in England (Blair just converted to Catholicism post-PM) because the Queen is the Religious Leader of the English Church.  I can see France having a Jewish President because they are very secular, but its also a very Catholic country.  I don't think Israel would ever allow a Muslim PM.  Russia has a lot of Jewish leaders. 

I can see Governors from secular northern states elect Jewish politicians like SPitzer or Rendell but its a far greater obstacle to appeal to all 50 states.  I just think religion is often too divisive and it would be far more difficult to win voters from the christian conservative states.  Even Bill Clinton was a church-going Southern Baptist.  Religion is too powerful an influencer in national politics.

The fascination with electing a non-Christian President is the same for why many Americans were interested in electing a non-white President. They want to see a religious minority elected President to demonstrate how far the country has gone in terms of religious tolerance.

[Bo]

Muslims aren't a race like Jews are.

Jews aren't a race, they're an ethnicity.

Can Jews be atheist or convert to Christianity or Unitarianism?

Yes. You can be ethnically Jewish and be Christian or atheist in terms of religion. And Unitarians are Christians.

[Bo]

2009-2013

Obama is of partial Muslim origin, but he does not self-identify as Muslim. He self-identifies as Christian. I mean when will we have a President who will self-identify as something other than Christian (and Mormons self-identify as Christians, so they don't count)?

What is this fascination and obsession with having a non-Christian President?  Its not like other countries are interested in having minority religion presidents.  There would never be a catholic PM in England (Blair just converted to Catholicism post-PM) because the Queen is the Religious Leader of the English Church.  I can see France having a Jewish President because they are very secular, but its also a very Catholic country.  I don't think Israel would ever allow a Muslim PM.  Russia has a lot of Jewish leaders. 

I can see Governors from secular northern states elect Jewish politicians like SPitzer or Rendell but its a far greater obstacle to appeal to all 50 states.  I just think religion is often too divisive and it would be far more difficult to win voters from the christian conservative states.  Even Bill Clinton was a church-going Southern Baptist.  Religion is too powerful an influencer in national politics.

The fascination with electing a non-Christian President is the same for why many Americans were interested in electing a non-white President. They want to see a religious minority elected President to demonstrate how far the country has gone in terms of religious tolerance.

I think the US is the most religiously tolerant country in the world unlike most other countries.  But I'm arguing that in order to win a national election, you need to be inclusive and not a divider.  Religion is also one of the most divisive things in this world and its a choice to be divisive.  If you say you want a non-Christian to be President, some may see it as wanting an anti-Christian to be President.  Unlike Race, a person cannot choose his or her own race.  I'm not saying that a secular person cannot be elected president, but often times religion becomes divisive and we need a President who will be inclusive.

I agree that religion is a very divisive force in politics now, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be that way 50 or 100 years from now. Even if a person is free to choose his/her own religion, I don't think many people in the future will care too much about a candidate's religion, regardless of what it may be. I don't think electing a non-Christian President will be as divisive of a topic several decades from now as it is today, and thus I think it will be much easier to get one elected.

[Bo]

2009-2013

Obama is of partial Muslim origin, but he does not self-identify as Muslim. He self-identifies as Christian. I mean when will we have a President who will self-identify as something other than Christian (and Mormons self-identify as Christians, so they don't count)?

What is this fascination and obsession with having a non-Christian President?  Its not like other countries are interested in having minority religion presidents.  There would never be a catholic PM in England (Blair just converted to Catholicism post-PM) because the Queen is the Religious Leader of the English Church.  I can see France having a Jewish President because they are very secular, but its also a very Catholic country.  I don't think Israel would ever allow a Muslim PM.  Russia has a lot of Jewish leaders. 

I can see Governors from secular northern states elect Jewish politicians like SPitzer or Rendell but its a far greater obstacle to appeal to all 50 states.  I just think religion is often too divisive and it would be far more difficult to win voters from the christian conservative states.  Even Bill Clinton was a church-going Southern Baptist.  Religion is too powerful an influencer in national politics.

The fascination with electing a non-Christian President is the same for why many Americans were interested in electing a non-white President. They want to see a religious minority elected President to demonstrate how far the country has gone in terms of religious tolerance.

I think the US is the most religiously tolerant country in the world unlike most other countries.  But I'm arguing that in order to win a national election, you need to be inclusive and not a divider.  Religion is also one of the most divisive things in this world and its a choice to be divisive.  If you say you want a non-Christian to be President, some may see it as wanting an anti-Christian to be President.  Unlike Race, a person cannot choose his or her own race.  I'm not saying that a secular person cannot be elected president, but often times religion becomes divisive and we need a President who will be inclusive.

I agree that religion is a very divisive force in politics now, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be that way 50 or 100 years from now. Even if a person is free to choose his/her own religion, I don't think many people in the future will care too much about a candidate's religion, regardless of what it may be. I don't think electing a non-Christian President will be as divisive of a topic several decades from now as it is today, and thus I think it will be much easier to get one elected.

Well, I think religion would still be a problem especially if that person was Orthodox and seen as a radical religious conservative.  There might be a non-christian president when there is peace in the middle-east but for now it would cause too much international strife and distrust.  Maybe some non-threatening religion like Bahai, Buddhism, or scientology. 

We almost had a Jewish VP in 2000. I think we're definitely ready for a Jewish President. And I think there will be peace in the Middle East in the next five (or worst case scenario, ten) years. I don't think any world leaders complained about Lieberman's religion when he was picked as Gore's VP choice, despite the fact that the VP is second in line to the Presidency. To be honest, I don't think any world leaders would ever complain about the religion of a U.S. President.

[Bo]

2009-2013

Obama is of partial Muslim origin, but he does not self-identify as Muslim. He self-identifies as Christian. I mean when will we have a President who will self-identify as something other than Christian (and Mormons self-identify as Christians, so they don't count)?

What is this fascination and obsession with having a non-Christian President?  Its not like other countries are interested in having minority religion presidents.  There would never be a catholic PM in England (Blair just converted to Catholicism post-PM) because the Queen is the Religious Leader of the English Church.  I can see France having a Jewish President because they are very secular, but its also a very Catholic country.  I don't think Israel would ever allow a Muslim PM.  Russia has a lot of Jewish leaders. 

I can see Governors from secular northern states elect Jewish politicians like SPitzer or Rendell but its a far greater obstacle to appeal to all 50 states.  I just think religion is often too divisive and it would be far more difficult to win voters from the christian conservative states.  Even Bill Clinton was a church-going Southern Baptist.  Religion is too powerful an influencer in national politics.

The fascination with electing a non-Christian President is the same for why many Americans were interested in electing a non-white President. They want to see a religious minority elected President to demonstrate how far the country has gone in terms of religious tolerance.

I think the US is the most religiously tolerant country in the world unlike most other countries.  But I'm arguing that in order to win a national election, you need to be inclusive and not a divider.  Religion is also one of the most divisive things in this world and its a choice to be divisive.  If you say you want a non-Christian to be President, some may see it as wanting an anti-Christian to be President.  Unlike Race, a person cannot choose his or her own race.  I'm not saying that a secular person cannot be elected president, but often times religion becomes divisive and we need a President who will be inclusive.

I agree that religion is a very divisive force in politics now, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is going to be that way 50 or 100 years from now. Even if a person is free to choose his/her own religion, I don't think many people in the future will care too much about a candidate's religion, regardless of what it may be. I don't think electing a non-Christian President will be as divisive of a topic several decades from now as it is today, and thus I think it will be much easier to get one elected.

Well, I think religion would still be a problem especially if that person was Orthodox and seen as a radical religious conservative.  There might be a non-christian president when there is peace in the middle-east but for now it would cause too much international strife and distrust.  Maybe some non-threatening religion like Bahai, Buddhism, or scientology. 

We almost had a Jewish VP in 2000. I think we're definitely ready for a Jewish President. And I think there will be peace in the Middle East in the next five (or worst case scenario, ten) years. I don't think any world leaders complained about Lieberman's religion when he was picked as Gore's VP choice, despite the fact that the VP is second in line to the Presidency. To be honest, I don't think any world leaders would ever complain about the religion of a U.S. President.

I'm aware that orthodox Joe Lieberman almost became VP and endorsing McCain.  But I still think that Lieberman was a terrible VP candidate, not because of his religion.  Kerry would have been a far better VP pick and would have helped Gore win NH.  With Sept 11, and the war on Islamic Terrorists, it is far more touchy to have a Jewish President especially in diplomatic discussions with Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan.  But Rahmbo is doing well, so maybe I'm wrong.  What is your definition of Peace in the Middle east, that Palestinians will have a power sharing agreement in Palestine?  Of course no one cared about Muslims or Jews in 2000 but now it is the front-page news and we have war in the Middle East if you're not aware.  In fact, I would argue that Obama gained support from liberal voters because they saw his ethnicity as extending an olive branch to Muslim leaders.  A steamroller like Elliot Spitzer might actually make mideast relations worst.  I think that unlike race, religion is about power, not just over individual spirituality but power of the group and it breeds distrust amongst and against other religious groups.  Just like the Catholic Church, religion operates as a pseudo-govt entity that covers both the public and private lives of citizens.  I don't know if we can have a president who wears his religion on his sleeve as openly as GWBush because it is both divisive and inclusive.

I'm not sure Kerry would have helped Gore win NH. A lot of Muslim leaders aren't anti-Semites, just anti-Zionists. Thus, if the U.S. had a Jewish President, I seriously doubt they would want to run their good relations and decrease their aid from the U.S. In case you don't know, Iran actually has a small Jewish population (about 30,000) who is treated pretty well within Iran. I honestly don't think the leaders of any country would care too much publicly or want to ruin relations with the U.S. due to the religion of the U.S. President. And by Mid-East peace, I mean the creation of a Palestinian state in a peace treaty with Israel, thus leading to normalized relations between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world. I honestly think Mid-East peace will occur within the next five years. I knew there was a war in the Middle East for all of my life. To be honest, I don't think Obama's (partial) Muslim origin was a large factor in Democrats voting for him. I think a desire for change and honesty was a much greater factor. I don't think people in the U.S. perceive religion as about power. Our Supreme Court will have no Protestants after Elena Kagan is confirmed, despite the fact that Protestants form a majority of our population. You don't hear Protestant anywhere complaining about losing power or being discriminated against. And to be honest, I don't think most Presidents would shove their religious beliefs down the throats of the American people and the rest of the world, and thus I don't think a President's religion would be a problem or much of an issue.

[Bo]

I'm not sure what the future holds or how a candidate would use his power.  I know Lieberman was strongly pro-Iraq War and against muslim terrorists.  He also sided with McCain so I'm not sure what his chances of being President are.  Cantor might have a chance if he becomes Governor or Senator.  But I also think it might add fuel to terrorists that think we have unwavering support for Israel against a Palestine state.  For me, a selling point for Obama vs McCain (who was pro-Iraq surge) was that Obama understood international displomacy and the Muslim world and could talk with Muslim leaders and convince them to stop attacking Americans.  I think a lot of Christian leaders are worried about pro-choicers on the bench that are non-christian.  I wouldn't say a president would shove their religious beliefs, but would subconcsiously or consciously favor a certain religious viewpoint at the expense of the majority of Americans desires.  That he would not listen to voters from a different religion would be perceived fear. 

I'm not sure Kerry would have helped Gore win NH. A lot of Muslim leaders aren't anti-Semites, just anti-Zionists. Thus, if the U.S. had a Jewish President, I seriously doubt they would want to run their good relations and decrease their aid from the U.S. In case you don't know, Iran actually has a small Jewish population (about 30,000) who is treated pretty well within Iran. I honestly don't think the leaders of any country would care too much publicly or want to ruin relations with the U.S. due to the religion of the U.S. President. And by Mid-East peace, I mean the creation of a Palestinian state in a peace treaty with Israel, thus leading to normalized relations between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world. I honestly think Mid-East peace will occur within the next five years. I knew there was a war in the Middle East for all of my life. To be honest, I don't think Obama's (partial) Muslim origin was a large factor in Democrats voting for him. I think a desire for change and honesty was a much greater factor. I don't think people in the U.S. perceive religion as about power. Our Supreme Court will have no Protestants after Elena Kagan is confirmed, despite the fact that Protestants form a majority of our population. You don't hear Protestant anywhere complaining about losing power or being discriminated against.

And to be honest, I don't think most Presidents would shove their religious beliefs down the throats of the American people and the rest of the world, and thus I don't think a President's religion would be a problem or much of an issue.

I seriously doubt most Americans in the future will perceive a non-Christian candidate for President to be anti-Christian or subconsciously prejudiced against Christians. Back in 1928, Al Smith lost a lot of voters because of his Catholicism and fears that he would take orders from the Pope. However, just 32 years later, in 1960, JFK (a Catholic) was elected President. 44 years after that, in 2004, Kerry's Catholicism wasn't even that much of an issue. That shows how far our country has gone in terms of religious tolerance. The percentage of non-Christian and non-religious Americans has increased over the last several decades, and considering young voters are more secular than the older generation, I can only except this trend to continue. Older voters had much more religious influence in their lives as they were growing up. Many younger voters don't have that kind of religious influence because religion isn't as important as it once was. Attitudes about religion will change over time and I think that in several decades, we will be ready to elect a non-Christian President. In fact, I think that a non-Christian President will be elected sometime in the 21st century (2001-2100), probably in the later half. (And before you bring up the Middle East again, I think there will be peace there in the next 5-10 years.)

[Bo]

1800.

I mean in the future.

[Bo]

I'm not sure what the future holds or how a candidate would use his power.  I know Lieberman was strongly pro-Iraq War and against muslim terrorists.  He also sided with McCain so I'm not sure what his chances of being President are.  Cantor might have a chance if he becomes Governor or Senator.  But I also think it might add fuel to terrorists that think we have unwavering support for Israel against a Palestine state.  For me, a selling point for Obama vs McCain (who was pro-Iraq surge) was that Obama understood international displomacy and the Muslim world and could talk with Muslim leaders and convince them to stop attacking Americans.  I think a lot of Christian leaders are worried about pro-choicers on the bench that are non-christian.  I wouldn't say a president would shove their religious beliefs, but would subconcsiously or consciously favor a certain religious viewpoint at the expense of the majority of Americans desires.  That he would not listen to voters from a different religion would be perceived fear.  

I'm not sure Kerry would have helped Gore win NH. A lot of Muslim leaders aren't anti-Semites, just anti-Zionists. Thus, if the U.S. had a Jewish President, I seriously doubt they would want to run their good relations and decrease their aid from the U.S. In case you don't know, Iran actually has a small Jewish population (about 30,000) who is treated pretty well within Iran. I honestly don't think the leaders of any country would care too much publicly or want to ruin relations with the U.S. due to the religion of the U.S. President. And by Mid-East peace, I mean the creation of a Palestinian state in a peace treaty with Israel, thus leading to normalized relations between Israel and the Arab/Muslim world. I honestly think Mid-East peace will occur within the next five years. I knew there was a war in the Middle East for all of my life. To be honest, I don't think Obama's (partial) Muslim origin was a large factor in Democrats voting for him. I think a desire for change and honesty was a much greater factor. I don't think people in the U.S. perceive religion as about power. Our Supreme Court will have no Protestants after Elena Kagan is confirmed, despite the fact that Protestants form a majority of our population. You don't hear Protestant anywhere complaining about losing power or being discriminated against.

And to be honest, I don't think most Presidents would shove their religious beliefs down the throats of the American people and the rest of the world, and thus I don't think a President's religion would be a problem or much of an issue.

I seriously doubt most Americans in the future will perceive a non-Christian candidate for President to be anti-Christian or subconsciously prejudiced against Christians. Back in 1928, Al Smith lost a lot of voters because of his Catholicism and fears that he would take orders from the Pope. However, just 32 years later, in 1960, JFK (a Catholic) was elected President. 44 years after that, in 2004, Kerry's Catholicism wasn't even that much of an issue. That shows how far our country has gone in terms of religious tolerance. The percentage of non-Christian and non-religious Americans has increased over the last several decades, and considering young voters are more secular than the older generation, I can only except this trend to continue. Older voters had much more religious influence in their lives as they were growing up. Many younger voters don't have that kind of religious influence because religion isn't as important as it once was. Attitudes about religion will change over time and I think that in several decades, we will be ready to elect a non-Christian President. In fact, I think that a non-Christian President will be elected sometime in the 21st century (2001-2100), probably in the later half. (And before you bring up the Middle East again, I think there will be peace there in the next 5-10 years.)

Is Catholicism now considered the same as Protestant Christianity?  Is Catholicism now considered the same as Judaism?  Is America ready for a non-Judeo-Christian president?

Those religions and denominations are not the same, but Americans are caring less and less about religious differences. Being black is not the same as being white, which is not the same as being Latino. However, even though race separates and divides us, we have learned to overcome race and get beyond it by electing a black President, something which was considered unthinkable 100 years ago. We haven't learned to fully overcome and go beyond religion yet and thus I don't think we're ready for a non-Judaeo-Christian President yet. However, the increasing secularization of American politics will allow us to get beyond religion in the next 100 years as its role in American culture, society, and public life will diminish. This will create the atmosphere necessary for the election of a non-Judaeo-Christian President in the late 21st or possibly in the 22nd century.