Must a candidate be Christian to be elected President.

Like a snowball in hell!!!


Seriously though, the US of A is a country made up primarily of Christians. It is also quite a bit more religious than many European countries. I really don't think that anyone who was not of the mainstream Christian faith has a chance at the presidency. Funny, I always considered the Mormon faith as a subgroup of Christianity.

I think a jew could now win the presidency. Presumably, the folks who would not like him because he's jewish are pretty much the same folks who wouldn't vote for a black or a woman.

Muslim, Hindu, athiest...zero chance while american culture retains this level of infantilism.

American culture doesn't look all that infantile to me.

How can you say such a thing Bernie. It was ridiculous.

Phoenix



The Mormans consider you a "gentile".

A tad presumptuous.

Or I could have said...

"See how it feels. Nya nya nya."

England had a Jewish Prime Minister some 150 years ago and the Empire managed to survive. I wouldn't have any problem with voting for Senator Lieberman (please forgive me if I spelled his name wrong) for President.

Being a Christian means many different things to many people. Mr. Bush professes to be a Christian, yet I believe he has been a disaster for the United States. Mr. Clinton had no problem going to church or carrying a Bible when it was politically expedient, yet I have my doubts if he has any faith in anything other than himself.

In a nutshell, I base my vote on the policies of the candidate, not on party affiliation, gender or professed religious belief.

Outside of your cliched slur of Clinton, that sounds about right. Of course, the question is about the US generally.

Historians generally (and likely wrongly) claim that John Adams was a Deist or a Unitarian- neither of which would have made him a Christian.

Jefferson is generally thought of as a Deist.

Blatham - I do not understand many of you Lefties.

You have no problem castigating Republicans and Conservatives, whether deserved or not. But you will never, under any circumstances ever hold Democrats and Liberals accountable, no matter how deserved.

Listen to Bill Maher and he'll quickly and bluntly explain why it is wrong to have people of religious faith in office. But, my thoughts on your question would be this~~ Can we pretty much unanimously agree that this country is in a mucked up state? If your answer is yes, then I would say it is because the only ones being elected in are under religious attachments. I agree with Bill when he said we need someone outside of religious belief to run this nation. But it's unlikely to happen nowadays. Too much mix up of religion and politics to turn back now.

Many American voters probably aren't ready for a Muslim president, as they once weren't ready to elect a Catholic to the highest office. But there are now believed to be more than 2 million Muslim Americans in the United States, and one of them is a member of Congress. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) won election without hiding his religion and did, in fact, swear the oath of office on the Koran. This tolerance of religious diversity is a founding American principle, and one that we hope will continue to distinguish the United States from theocracies such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-obama3dec03,0,1732645.story?coll=la-opinion-leftrail

I am ready for any president regardless of religion who keeps his religion at home and in his house of worship and not in his political office. Religion should play little or no part in decisions made in the oval office.

Call me a values voter, but I am one of the (I believe) large group of people who vote more for people based on their religious integrity than their denomination. I will vote for the man I trust the most to make decisions based on universal truths rather than temporary expediency and relativism. I'd have a hard time voting for any actively agnostic person of any religion, and especially for an atheist; but again, if he were to convince me that he has a lot of internal integrity, maybe... But a discussion of ethics has never dissuaded me from the need for morals. Frankly, that's why I'm a Romney supporter. Most polls show people like him because they trust him, and despite ocassional platform differences, out of the 14 candidates on both sides I wouldn't trust very many of them with my money, my social security number, or my kids... besides Romney, McCain, Dodd, Huckabee, and maybe Obama.

I am, without steering the focus away from my original point too much, hesitant of Barack Obama because of his perceived Muslimism and his name. Yes, you can laugh at me for that, but again I think a lot of people have that concern. Voting for a Muslim named Obama when we're at war with an Islamofascist named Osama is just too much cosmic irony for me.

On Huckabee and religion, the devil's clearly in the details
Tuesday, December 4th 2007, 4:00 AM

What could be called "The Huckabee Moment" occurred Sunday morning when ABC's George Stephanopoulos asked the former Arkansas governor, suddenly and ominously the front-runner in Iowa's GOP contest, if Mitt Romney is a Christian. Mike Huckabee knew precisely what was being asked of him and he also knew, because he is a preacher, what the right - not the clever, mind you - answer should be. But Huckabee merely smiled that wonderful smile of his and punted. This, with apologies to George W. Bush, is the soft demagoguery of low expectations.

Until just recently, the expectations have indeed been low for Huckabee. He is more famous for losing more than 100 pounds than for any towering political accomplishment. But he is an ordained Baptist minister, and Romney is a Mormon - a member of a church that some conservative Christians consider heretical. Huckabee has presented himself as the un-Mormon.

Pardon me for saying so, but that is the chief difference between the two. On about all the social issues you can name - abortion, stem cells, gun control - Huckabee and Romney are in sync. So their religious differences are not about morality. They are about belief - religious belief, precisely the issue that is not supposed to matter in this country. Huckabee, though, clearly thinks it ought to.

The reason I started with Stephanopoulos is that he provided the perfect opportunity for Huckabee to make some ringing statement in support of religious tolerance. He might have made some reference to the ugly anti-Catholic campaigns run against Al Smith (1928) and John F. Kennedy (1960) and how they had both been spearheaded by prominent Protestant clergy, Methodist Bishop Adna Leonard in the former's case, the renowned Norman Vincent Peale in the latter's. (Peale later went on to receive a Presidential Medal of Freedom from Ronald Reagan.)

In other words, Huckabee might have preached. Instead, he said Romney had to answer the question for himself of whether he's a Christian.

Romney has now scheduled a speech for Thursday - at the George H.W. Bush presidential library, of all places - to confront the religious issue. This is what JFK did back in 1960, but Kennedy had it easy. All he had to do was shoot down the canard about Vatican control, while Romney has to deal with reality: Mormonism is a significant departure from conventional Christianity. The Book of Mormon, like the Bible itself, is scripture to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints - downright heresy to some conservative Christians. This is not a gap that can be easily closed.

It is absurd that Romney feels compelled to deliver a speech defending his beliefs and that Huckabee does not have to explain how, in this day and age, he does not believe in evolution. But it is singularly appropriate that Romney's speech be delivered at the Bush library. For it is the 41st President's underachieving son who put such emphasis on religious belief - and has shown us all, with his appalling record, that faith is no substitute for thought. A mind honed on the whetstone of doubt might have kept us out of Iraq.

The Republican presidential field has some feeble minds and some dangerous ones as well, but none has done as much damage as Huckabee already has. Religion does not belong in the political arena. It does not lend itself to compromise.

Inevitably, Romney's speech will be compared with JFK's. But when it comes to being beholden to a religious doctrine, it is Huckabee and not Romney who has some explaining to do. What's more, Huckabee is the one who is capitalizing on religious intolerance. He says he's a Christian leader, but the evidence proves otherwise. He's really a shameless follower.

It's interesting that you say this, b/c obviously, on an intellectual level, you know that there's nothing behind such a worry; unless you believe that he's just secretly a muslim?

Cycloptichorn

No, quite the contrary. I'm pretty sure Obama is an agnostic inactive Church of Christ member who is a former Muslim. But teaching in the inner city, I'm surrounded by a "if you've got one drop of black in you" mentality--I'm the most caucazoidal cuban you've ever laid eyes on, and I have students who think that makes me black. Muslims see themselves similarly--if Barack's a Muslim-turned-Christian, he'll either be seen in the middle east as a Muslim sympathizer or a heretic; and maybe that's not a bad thing. I just can't believe future generations won't laugh at the irony of the US, whilst fighting a war with Hussein and Osama, hiring a Commander named Hussein Obama.

But, like I said, I trust him, and I'd still vote for him before I'd vote for many of the candidates.

I prefer Presidents that have practiced Capitalism, rather than Protestantism, Catholicism, or Judaism, or some other religion.

By being a believer in Capitalism, I would think the President would defend America's capitalistic interests around the world. "Capitalistic interests" is a synonym for "ally."

I think much has to do with charisma. Charisma trumps religion. I believe John Kennedy, without his charisma would have had his religion become an issue (like for Al Smith, I believe).

That's why, I believe, if the Governor of California was born in the U.S., he'd be on the ticket for sure. Hopefully, he'll still be in the next Cabinet.

To answer Blatham's question -

Yes.