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

[milhouse24]

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.

[milhouse24]

Obama went to a Christian chruch, i Know this because he had a crazy Christian minister.  It reinforced people that he was a Christian and did not attend a muslim church.  It was like reverse psychology or diverting attention from the muslim issue in a way.  I think people would be more skeptical of a muslim presidential candidate based on current circumstances.

[milhouse24]

What do you call "Christian?" You could say we already past that barrier with JFK. Yes, I am Catholic, but I am well aware that now, and especially then, a papist is not considered really "Christian" by plenty of others.

Americans in general, do not care of your denomination or faith specifically. They just prefer you believe in something. (Most exit polls point to this). So if the candidate is viable, then it could happen at any point. But since we are largely some form of Christian (especially our political class)  it is less likely. However an atheist we will not see for a long time. Both because there is only one or so openly atheistic politician on the Federal level, and because the majority of Americans (less then a decade ago, but still a majority) saying they would  never vote for an Atheist.

I think the problem of non-christian religions is that voters may be skeptical of allegiances to foreign countries, particularly catholics with the Pope, muslims with mid-east clerics, etc.  The great thing about the christian reformation was that it gave England independence from the Pope's power/influence, and it gives Americans independence from foreign entities.  They don't want foreign rulers pressuring an American president based on a shared religion either explicitly or implicitly.

[milhouse24]

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."

I think Obama benefited greatly from growing up in a white household instead of a poorer inner-city projects.  There is still a wide divide between white culture and african-american culture in the USA and communication and speaking styles.  Obama is an effective communicator because he can speak with familiarity to the caucasian audience and have them trust him with their country.  He won over middle-america and suburban parents who distrusted sharpton and jackson in the past.  So, its not race its cultural experience and connecting to voters in a familial way.

[milhouse24]

And if Obama was a Republican, the black community would denounce him as being half black.

Its not about race, its about being part of the group of Black Democrats that carried the Civil Rights legislation.  If a Black person turns against the Civil Rights movement, they are turning against the Black community and voters.  There are Blue dog democrats so its not an idealogical issue of taxes and corporations.  Its a social issue of allowing Blacks to mix in society with white society, vote, and not go into separate bathrooms or buses.  There is a great divide between black communities and white communities and that is brought about by economic factors and segregation factors.  Blacks were forced into Black communities and not allowed to mix with white scoiety in education, jobs, ect.  It is going to take time for races to assimilate into each other and bridge the problems of the sixties and seventies.

[milhouse24]

And if Obama was a Republican, the black community would denounce him as being half black.

Its not about race, its about being part of the group of Black Democrats that carried the Civil Rights legislation.  If a Black person turns against the Civil Rights movement, they are turning against the Black community and voters.  There are Blue dog democrats so its not an idealogical issue of taxes and corporations.  Its a social issue of allowing Blacks to mix in society with white society, vote, and not go into separate bathrooms or buses.  There is a great divide between black communities and white communities and that is brought about by economic factors and segregation factors.  Blacks were forced into Black communities and not allowed to mix with white scoiety in education, jobs, ect.  It is going to take time for races to assimilate into each other and bridge the problems of the sixties and seventies.

Democrats weren't in favor of civil rights until they learned how to manipulate black voters over it. Ever since then there has been more crime, out of wedlock births, and murders in the black community. Good job democrats.

It seems from this statement you equally hate Democrats and Black people.  And you wonder why Blacks don't trust Republicans.  Obviously Republicans were the only reason for Rich Wall Streeters manipulating the bubble and then causing the market crash!

[milhouse24]

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. 

[milhouse24]

We already do.

I would be inclined to believe that Obama is half-Muslim since his Dad was a non-practicing Muslim. 

[milhouse24]

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.

[milhouse24]

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?

[milhouse24]

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.

[milhouse24]

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. 

[milhouse24]

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.

[milhouse24]

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.

[milhouse24]

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?

[milhouse24]

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.

You seem to think that Catholics and Christians freely mix in society and are diminishing Christianity's role in American life, but do you also see the secularization of Judaism in American life because in my experience a lot of Jewish parents and mothers want their children to marry Jewish spouses.  Sure many Jewish singles marry non-Jews but it is still expected for the children to be raised Jewish.  So do you think that Judaism will also be diminished in the Jewish person's life?  what would be the difference between a secular protestant, catholic, or jewish person?

[milhouse24]

I think it would be politically difficult to elect a Jewish person in at least the next 10-15 years because of the middle east crisis.  But it could happen if the right candidate came along.  I think americans would be worried about religious favoritism to non-american states, and the evangelicals are very powerful political force that might fight tooth and nail against a non-christian.  Since Obama is half-christian and half-african muslim, he seems to quell uprisings, but he does support the nyc mosque, so he's making his african relatives proud.
Do you mean the US is becoming less Christian or less religious or are Jewish people also becoming less jewish and Catholics becoming less Catholic?  Are all religions in the US losing their importance including Judaism or is it just Christianity?  Dubya definitely played up his Evangelical Christian identity and it helped him win the election.  Do you think an Orthodox or an non-observant Jewish person could win the Presidency?  Do you think that all winning candidates in the future will be non-religious as well?

Catholics are Christians. And you seem to have misunderstood my point. Over time, many Americans are becoming less and less afraid of a candidate shoving their religion down people's throats. Americans respect other people's right to believe what they want to believe, and as long as a candidate doesn't force anyone to conform to his/her beliefs, many Americans would be OK with voting for a candidate of a different belief than their own. There's a huge difference between wanting your kid to be raised Jewish and be unwilling to vote for any candidate who isn't Jewish. And we have steadily progressed in religious tolerance as a nation. In 1900, electing a Catholic President was unthinkable. We elected one just 60 years later. In 1937, only 46% of American voters said that they would be willing to vote for a Jewish candidate for President. In 2000, just 63 years later, 92% of American voters said that they would be willing to vote for a Jew for President.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/220153/wheres-anti-semitism/jonah-goldberg

This shows how much religious attitudes in the U.S. have progressed over time. I can only except this trend to continue with Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and people of other religions. Most voters now might say that they would be unwilling to vote for a candidate of any of those faiths, but 50 or 100 years from now I'm sure most voters would be willing to vote for a candidate from any of those faiths.

From my experiences, none of the young people I know say that a candidate's religion will be a factor in how they vote. A lot of older voters might still have some religious prejudices because religion and religious prejudice were much more widespread when they were growing up than it is today.

http://thebeattitude.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gallup-religion.gif

Here is some proof of the decreasing importance of religion. In 1957, 82% of voters said that religion can answer most of our problems. Now, only 57% of voters feel this way. In 1957, only 7% of voters thought that religion was old-fashioned and out of date. Now 29% of voters feel that way.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117409/easter-smaller-percentage-americans-christian.aspx

The U.S. is becoming less and less Christian. In 1948, 91% of Americans were Christians. Now that percentage is 77%. In 1948, only 2% of voters were non-religious. Now that figure is 12%. This shows that Christianity and religion in general is decreasing in importance as time goes by. Nowadays, this is partly due to globalization, the Information Age, the more tolerant media, and the increasing religious diversity in the U.S. Thus, I think that the U.S. will be ready to elect a non-Judaeo-Christian President by the end of the 21st century. That doesn't necessarily mean that we will elect one by that point, just that the American people would be willing to vote for a non-Judaeo-Christian candidate if the right candidate comes along.

[milhouse24]

You seem to want a Jewish president just for the sake of having a Jewish President, not counting his or her personality, policies, or resume.  I think that is just totally wrong.  I think that Lieberman would have been a disaster as VP or president, just reviewing his actions of the past ten years.  I think post 9/11 the American media is very much focused on Middle East relations.  I think the number of Jewish senators doesn't matter because Senators rarely win the White House.  If a Jewish person wants to prove he is ready to be Chief Executive, he will have to serve as a governor and someone like Spitzer or Rendell have a lot of credibility as executives.
There might not be any religious or ethnic favortism by a candidate.  Bush certainly never favored evangelicals.  If a Hispanic like Richardson ran for president, he would surely face criticism and scrutiny from mexican immigration critics, and if he would place another country's needs ahead of the needs of the US.  Lieberman has obviously been a strong supporter of Israel's policies and never criticizes their actions.  I guess that can be good or bad depending on someone's religion.
America is a religiously tolerant place, but I don't think it would be fair that Americans are religiously tolerant only because they are less-Christian.  Even if someone was a Conservative Christian, would that make them less accepting of a Jewish person.  Even if someone was a strict Catholic, would it make them less accepting of a Jewish person.  Even if someone was a strict Jewish observant, would they not vote for a Conservative Christian or Catholic.  Or is it a power struggle between religions, and a non-Christian America, means that more non-Christians will be voted into office, and a lesser number of Christians will hold office, and Christian groups will loser power, while non-Christian groups Gain power in America.
I was under the impression there were non-practicing Catholics, Jews, and Christians, and that this comprises of your non-Religious survey of the USA.  If Religion is playing less of a role in Christians lives, is Religion also playing less of a role in a Jewish person's life?  Will a Jewish person be more willing to marry a non-Jewish person, as many Catholics and Protestants have now inter-married?  Since we have a half-African Muslim president, perhaps the future we'll have a half-Jewish/half-Christian president.  There are certainly a lot of women and men have converted to Judaism or were not ethnically-born Jewish, or have married a Jewish person but have not converted.

[milhouse24]

You seem to want a Jewish president just for the sake of having a Jewish President, not counting his or her personality, policies, or resume.  I think that is just totally wrong.  I think that Lieberman would have been a disaster as VP or president, just reviewing his actions of the past ten years.  I think post 9/11 the American media is very much focused on Middle East relations.  I think the number of Jewish senators doesn't matter because Senators rarely win the White House.  If a Jewish person wants to prove he is ready to be Chief Executive, he will have to serve as a governor and someone like Spitzer or Rendell have a lot of credibility as executives.
There might not be any religious or ethnic favortism by a candidate.  Bush certainly never favored evangelicals.  If a Hispanic like Richardson ran for president, he would surely face criticism and scrutiny from mexican immigration critics, and if he would place another country's needs ahead of the needs of the US.  Lieberman has obviously been a strong supporter of Israel's policies and never criticizes their actions.  I guess that can be good or bad depending on someone's religion.
America is a religiously tolerant place, but I don't think it would be fair that Americans are religiously tolerant only because they are less-Christian.  Even if someone was a Conservative Christian, would that make them less accepting of a Jewish person.  Even if someone was a strict Catholic, would it make them less accepting of a Jewish person.  Even if someone was a strict Jewish observant, would they not vote for a Conservative Christian or Catholic.  Or is it a power struggle between religions, and a non-Christian America, means that more non-Christians will be voted into office, and a lesser number of Christians will hold office, and Christian groups will loser power, while non-Christian groups Gain power in America.
I was under the impression there were non-practicing Catholics, Jews, and Christians, and that this comprises of your non-Religious survey of the USA.  If Religion is playing less of a role in Christians lives, is Religion also playing less of a role in a Jewish person's life?  Will a Jewish person be more willing to marry a non-Jewish person, as many Catholics and Protestants have now inter-married?  Since we have a half-African Muslim president, perhaps the future we'll have a half-Jewish/half-Christian president.  There are certainly a lot of women and men have converted to Judaism or were not ethnically-born Jewish, or have married a Jewish person but have not converted.

I never said I explicitly wanted a Jewish President. I just said that you overestimate how hard it is going to be to elect one since over 90% of Americans have said that they are willing to vote for a Jewish President (and this was back in 2000, so it's probably even more now). If the right candidate comes along, we could easily elect a Jewish President. It doesn't matter if they're Senators, Governors, or have some other office. It just matter if they're experienced and if they run good campaigns. I seriously doubt Lieberman would have been a disaster as VP or as President. Lieberman wouldn't have had any power as VP and I don't see him doing anything that bad as President. So what if he supports Israel? Most politicians in the U.S. support Israel, and frankly, for the most part, Israel didn't really do much wrong in the last ten years. Even if the media was focused on the Middle East after 9/11, that still didn't stop Bush from being reelected despite the fact that most Arabs hated him a lot after he invaded Iraq. This gives me the impression that Americans don't vote based on how the Middle East and other areas of the world want them to vote. I seriously doubt there will be much accusations of religious favoritism if a non-Christian candidate runs for President. I don't think many people have accused JFK of religious favoritism, and that was half a century ago.

My point was that due to frequent intermarriage and increasing religious diversity in the U.S., Americans are becoming more religiously tolerant. You might not know this, but a majority of Jews in the U.S. have already intermarried with people of other religions.

Polls show that the younger generation is more religiously tolerant than the older generation, and thus this trend will only continue in the future.

By non-religious people, the polls mean people without any religion whatsoever. That % has increased in the last several decades and will continue to increase in the future. If someone becomes a non-practicing Christian, they're still a Christian unless they decide to abandon Christianity completely. Even many people in the U.S. who have a religion don't have nearly as much religious influence on their lives and views as they had several decades ago. I seriously doubt most Americans would view electing non-religious people as a power struggle.

They will just view it as a step forward for progress and religious toleration. Europe has already become pretty secular, and the U.S. would probably be like Europe in that regard in several decades.

And yes, as the U.S. becomes increasingly secular and non-religious, more non-religious candidates and candidates of non-Judaeo-Christian faiths will be elected to office (heck, a lot of current politicians might secretly be non-religious but refuse to say so in public) and religion will become less and less of a deal in how the American people vote. This will allow the U.S. to elect a non-Christian President (and even a non-Judaeo-Christian President) sometime in the future, most likely in the late 21st century or sometime in the 22nd century.

Because of inter-marriage, I think an ethnically half-Jewish president would be elected President just like Obama was half-white and half-black, and was able to connect with both White Suburban voters and Black voters.  A weakened Christian population will allow people of other faiths to rise in politics.

[milhouse24]

Again, ethnicity and religion are two different things. And I seriously doubt many whites voted for Obama because he was half-white. Obama self-identifies as black, and many whites voters voted for him due to his positions on the issues and his charisma, not due to this race. And I agree that as the U.S. becomes more secular and less Christian, we will become more willing to elect people of other faiths and religions (or people without a religion at all).

For Jewish people, they consider themselves ethnically Jewish and religiously Jewish, I thought you knew this.
Someone like John Kerry had a father who was Jewish and an blue-blood mother, but he was raised Roman Catholic.
Again, Obama IS half-white, and the results show he got the white votes that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton never got.  Obama grew up with his White Grandparents by the way, which helped shape his personality and education.  He may self-identify as Black, but he grew up in a white household.  My point is, why does Christianity need to be weakened for other religions to rise up, why can't we have a strong Evangelical and Catholic believers, and also allow for Jewish and Muslim politicians to serve in office.  We don't have to be a country of non-Christians and non-religious and wait for other religions to hold power.

[milhouse24]

We have a non christian president right now. Americans do not know Barack Obama's heartbeat.

I would say he is half-christian.