Do You Need to be a Good Christian to be a Good President?

[SecularMotion]

A poll reported by the Salt Lake Tribune at the end of December highlights a worrisome trend: two-thirds of Democrats and nearly 90 percent of Republicans want Presidential candidates to be Christians. Article VI of the Constitution declares: "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." Yet, according to the Tribune, "Voters have all but established a de facto litmus test for national office-seekers."

80 percent of Americans are Christians, but that doesn't mean that America is a Christian nation or that political leadership is only for Christians.

If one examines immigration trends over the past 40 years, it's clear that the U.S. is becoming increasingly diverse. In the 1970s, the majority of foreign-born Americans hailed from Christian Europe. Today, the majority of newcomers originate from Latin America, Asia and Africa, bringing with them less familiar belief systems. As a result, our country is host to a growing minority of Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and a broad range of other religions.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/georgette-bennett-phd/one-nation-under-god-do-y_b_1202307.html

[mr blur]

1. Well, as a foreigner, I'd have to say, "No",

But then I don't think religious beliefs should ever be a factor in assessing suitability for public office - unless they lead the candidate to claim that gay people, scientists or any other group in society are evil.

Does that mean that a "bad" Christian would be a bad president? Or an atheist? No doubt there are many Americans who would think so, although it would seem that your Founding Fathers weren't among them

A statement such as "God told me to invade Iraq", for example, should be cause for great concern, no? The only rational response to that, surely, would be, "You weren't elected to do what you think your god wants".

[cleanhippie]

2. A Good one? No, but you DO need to be A christian to be elected.

One cannot be elected to nearly ANY office in this country unless one is a christian of some sort. There are very few other religions represented in public office (yes, in some pockets of the country there are, but that is the exception) and NON-believers are virtually non-existent (at least the ones that let their constituents KNOW that they are non-believers).

[Thats my opinion]

3. No religious tests means no religious test.

But that doesn't mean that the individual voter is prohibited from having an opinion about the importance of religion, race, gender or anything else.

I would not vote for a person because he/she was a Christian, or against them because they were not. However, regardless of their religion or lack of it, I would hope they might embody the ethic that I find in Jesus regarding equity, justice, peace, acceptance of the outsider etc.

[SecularMotion]

4. When candidates identify as Christian in today's politics

it has little to do with religious beliefs. Christian has become a code word for homophobia, racism, and greed.

[Thats my opinion]

6. And many of us in the Christian world are horrified that what you say is often true. nt

[2ndAmForComputers]

8. The individual voter can have any opinion. They can believe anybody taller than 6' is not qualified.

Doesn't make their opinions right or even deserving of deference or respect.

[Viva_Daddy]

5. Perhaps the question should be...

Can a "Good Christian" be a "True American" and uphold the Constitution?

[Jim__]

7. No. But people can vote based on whatever criteria they choose.

There is no doubt that under certain circumstances, democracy leads to less than optimal results. The question is, can democracy save us from catastrophically bad decisions. As much as I hate many of the political results in US elections, there does seem to be a restraint on how bad it can get before people vote for change. So far, it has worked to save us from total domestic failure - democratic voting does not seem to be a reliable restraint on foreign policy. Citizens United is going to test how much of a restraint democracy actually is.