What religions would we accept in the White House?

Remove all ads!

The Pelosi thread has morphed a little, so I thought I'd start a new topic based on what has happened there. As has been mentioned in said thread, there has only ever been one Catholic in the White House (Kennedy). All of the rest of the Presidents have been Protestant, at least on paper. Now here's the question (or series of questions):

1: Why have there been primarily Protestant presidents?

2: If America truly values religious diversity and freedom, why is that not reflected in the White House's composition over the last 150 years or so?

3: Why is it that some religions incite such paranoia from people in terms of if a believer enters office? (the Mitt Romney / Mormon question is a perfect example)

4: Does any of this constitute a danger to freedom and democracy in the U.S. or is it a non-issue?

I'm interested to see how this one plays out.

 

1. Well, the reason that most (early) Presidents have been Protestant is because the vast majority of Americans in the early going were Protestant. Practically everyone was from Anglican decent and ergo, Protestant. Over the years, that has changed as immigrants from Catholic (and other nations) have increased, but typically, the people here the longest have the most impact on government.

According to the CIA at this site:

Religions: Protestant 52%, Roman Catholic 24%, Mormon 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 1%, other 10%, none 10% (2002 est.)

So at least 5 years ago there were way more Protestants than other religions present in the U.S. The Bible Belt of the southeast is still almost entirely protestant.

2. Same as #1. I think people are more likely to vote for someone of their own religion (all other things being equal) and so if more than half of the nation is Protestant, which is more than double the next highest category, it's no great surprise that they enjoy a large advantage over other groups. Although it should be pointed out that most of the current immigration into the US is from Hispanics, who are almost entirely Catholic, so this composition is sure to change as the years go by.

3. The simple answer is that people fear what is unfamiliar. In the Romney example in particular, most people think that Mormons still support polygamy, although the official Mormon church abandoned that practice about a century ago. It is only radical Mormon splinter groups who are not part of the official church who still follow that policy.

4. I think it would only pose a danger if by law you HAD to be of a particular religion to hold office. As I have said, with the influx of largely Catholic immigrants in the U.S., the ratio will likely swing away from Protestants in the coming years. However, the U.S. will still be largely a Christian nation, so I think we will have to go a long time before we see a non-Christian president. In fact, I'd go so far to say we'd have an athiest/agnostic president before we have a Hindu/Muslim/Jewish/any other religion president.

 

Very good points, Aldeth. I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

Nice. An "identify your particular brand of religious intolerance and bigotry" thread. Way to go, people.

 

Way to imply intolerance and bigotry where there was clearly none intended or even present. Nice, yourself.


@ LKD - Good topic. I think this will become more and more pertinent as the campaign rolls on. I don't think Romney has much of a shot, but at least his candidacy will make much of the country face and deal with their preconcieved notions about the dynamics of faith in our politics, and the nation as a whole.

@ Aldeth - wow, those figures are intriguing. I guess I had no idea how small a group both Catholics and Jews were. I would have thought 5-10% for the Jews, and at least 3% for muslims. Very interesting.

 

Well, those numbers are five years old (although the fact book has some numbers updated as of this year, and the last update to the site was conducted on 17 July 07., but given the immigration into the U.S. over that time has largely been by Hispanics, the only percentage I feel could even be slightly different is Catholics (which in turn would make Protestants somewhat smaller.) But given we have 300 million people here, even a few million immigrants would only change the numbers by a percent or two.

I also was surprised by the figures. For example, I never would have guessed that Jews only were 1% of the population, nor would I have predicted that there are about twice as many Mormons as there are Jews. Then again, I live in Maryland, and as is true for most of the Northeast/Mid-Atlantic region of the US, there are many more people of the Jewish faith than there are Mormons, so that may be a regional preconception that I have. I know dozens of Jewish people and exactly one Mormon around here. I doubt there are many Jewish people living in Utah though, and as I haven't lived in many areas of the country for any extended period of time, I can't possibly claim to be familiar with the religious demographics.

Um ... What?

 

No intolerance or bigotry intended or even present? Really? The title of the thread implies that certain individuals are not fit for presidency on the basis of their religion, rather than qualifications and platform—and you honestly think you can tell me that there is no bigotry going on here?

Religion is only relevant in the political discussion in that religion will help determine a candidate’s beliefs and opinions about the world and from there they will form their stance on issues facing the United States and the world. A candidate’s past performance in politics (or lack thereof) and their political platform should be what determines what gets someone into the Whitehouse. Deciding that a candidate is not fit for presidency based on their religion is tantamount to deciding that a candidate is not fit for that office based on race or gender. In fact, it would seem that the US president is the only job right now where religious discrimination is widely accepted as okay, rather than seen as a violation of one’s civil rights.

If this topic is not an invitation for discussing religious intolerance, then why not have these topics posted as well?
What races would you accept in the Whitehouse?
What genders would you accept in the Whitehouse?

 

Calm down.

First of all - you're reading bigotry in that isn't there. Don't put words in LKD's mouth. Obviously what was implied by the title is addressed in his opening passages, namely, a quest to examine the trend of protestants dominating the US presidency since time began, and its impacts now that a non-protestant has a serious shot at the office for only the second time in recent history (edit - third time...forgot about Kerry). The figures provided by Aldeth are helping to explain why. LKD has never expressed or implied a personal preference in this thread, nor has anyone else so far for that matter.

Ironically, the only person who brought bigotry into this discussion was the person who so disgustedly complained of its presence. That'd be you.

Since non-protestants have had virtually no choice but to vote for protestants (and conversely, protestants so rarely have to consider a non-protestant that they wig out when faced with it) in nearly every presidential race, it's certainly a valid discussion on the dynamics of faith in politics, especially in the "melting pot - all religions are welcome" US of A we live in. And discussing it isn't an invitation to bigotry unless you're a bigot to begin with.

Even if a specific preference has been stated in this thread - which so far it hasn't - merely admitting to a preference doesn't count as bigotry (hint: go look up bigotry). As was mentioned - all things being equal (i.e., two identical candidates) you're more likely to go with the guy you identify with - in this case, the guy who shares your faith. That's just a fact of human nature. It's only bigotry when someone says "I'll never vote for a damned (insert creed) for president!" Which, again, no one has done or clearly was invited to do.

 

I think that you are reading too literally into LKD's title. By "we" I assume him to mean "we as a nation [US]", not "we the members of this board", as the people of this board do not consititute the entire electorate, nor is everyone on this board of voting age - or even US citizens capable of voting for the US president for that matter (and that includes LKD who is Canadian).

Furthermore, beyond the title of LKD's post, I see nothing that even implies anything approaching religious intolerance from LKD or any other posters. If the four questions that LKD asked could be interpreted as asking people why they were religiously intolerant, then I think your statement would have merit. However, none of LKD's four question meet that criteria. It is a point of fact that all but one of the presidents were Protestants, and asking about why this is an issue for some people is not implying that the people of this board support religious intolerance.

Similarly when you say:

First, you are misquoting when you say "you" instead of "we". That was a major point I referenced above. Second, if you used "we" and meant it as a general "we" as I believe LKD intended, there is no problem with those topics, and indeed they are poignant, as it is likely that the Democratic nomination for the presidency will be either a woman or an African American. See the difference?

EDIT: DR beat me to it. The heck with it, I already typed it and it is a bit different that DR's - although the main point is the same - so I'm leaving it up there.

 

Well said, DR.

EDIT: ...and Aldeth.

[ July 31, 2007, 21:35: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]

 

I realize that I got a bit carried away and I apologize. There is none of what I fear will happen going on in this discussion -- yet.

However, the title of the thread invites the uneducated to come here and say "I'll never vote for a damned (insert creed) for president!", and there is not a forum on the internet that is safe from that. At least not one that deals primarily with video games.

Anyway, my apologies for even getting involved. As someone who has been discriminated against on the basis of gender and race, I guess I'm a little more sensitive than most. Discrimination in all forms is ugly and stupid. Enough said.

 

To wit - actually, your perspective in that case makes your opinion in this matter especially valid. As a midwestern white guy I haven't exactly had to deal with too much discrimination, but as a former mormon who grew up in Utah I've certainly seen plenty of it - coming from both sides. So I hope you stick with this, and if the bigotry you're concerned about does pop up, you can be there to counter it with a reasoned rebuttal.

As for the boards, while no board is safe from idiot eruptions, ours is the best I've ever seen. Our mods kick ass, and they go to great lengths to keep the discussions on point and free of the "OMG YOU ARE TEH GAY HAHAHALOL!!" kind of stuff you find on most boards. They typically put a stop to it before you can say Jack Robinson.

edit - Thanks Dins and Aldeth.

 

I think that there is a fair amount of repressed bigotry, as it were, in North American politics, though not on the board. As I have stated in the past, I don't think that Obama has a chance at the presidency because many Americans will refuse to vote for him based on his race. That doesn't mean I think that's right or fair, but I think that's what'll happen.

I think the same thing about the religious question. All voters SHOULD look at the platform of the candidates and their past political record. But the sad truth is that few voters do that (in fact, few voters actually frigging vote, but that's another thread). They vote on reflex for the party they've always voted for or they have knee jerk reactions to a trait in the candidate they don't like (race, gender or religion).

I read an article in Time that suggested that people from orthodox (small "o" there) religions that have a hierarchical structure (like Catholics and Mormons) have a tough time getting elected because the voters fear the candidate will take orders from their religious leaders. That's a valid fear, but it should be based on actual fact and track record. otherwise it amounts to discrimination ("You've never done this, but you MIGHT, so I therefore convict you pre-emptively!")

What scares me is the thought that being a certain religion might de-facto rule you out of the chance for office. That's not what separation of church and state is supposed to be. I'd be willing to go further and say that such a situation gives an unfair advantage to atheists, and the whole point of separation of church and state was to make sure no single religious viewpoint overpowered or overshadowed the other.

 

The numbers quoted in that report surprise me. I actually thought that Catholics were a majority. I suppose that's because where I live there is a large hispanic population that is largely Catholic. Anyway, it makes sense that people would vote for a person with whom they can identify. I don't think its a bigotry issue at all. I think it's simply demographics. People will vote for someone who they feel represents them (whether it's misguided/uninformed or not).

[ July 31, 2007, 22:10: Message edited by: Dinsdale ]

 

This is a very small community of members - at least those who post regularly - and it is made up of fair-minded and pretty smart people. It may not be the largest, or most provocative board around, but it's a pleasant and civil enough place to hang out. The members themselves get a lot of the credit for that.

As to the topic - I think Americans like their presidents to be Sunday Protestants. It's nice to see them walking into a well-appointed chruch, on a sunny afternoon, with their cute wives drapped on their arms, and their children at their sides. It's all very reassuring.

But for the rest of the week no one really cares if the prez is very religious or not (the current Bush aside). America is really a secular society and even the most "pious" suburbanites dwelling along the "Bible Belt" would rather the prez get the "message" from the military Central Command, the CIA or the FBI, rather than the Gospel and the Sermon on the Mount.

That's why all those suburban soccer moms are all against abortion - that is until it's THEIR sixteen year old daughters that turn-up with an unexpected "surprise." Then watch how fast they quitely pack them into the family SUV for a trip down to the local clinc. Somehow a baby doesn't quite fit into all those dreams of college campus-life and all those fun filled weekend trips for the "big college game."

Cynicism aside, my larger point is that Americans are a practical lot, and the idea of a real religious zealot in the White House would scare the Hell of them. I'm not saying that Protestants are not serious about their religion - they are - up to a point.

 

Romney would not be a "Zealot", but last I heard, he was winning over the Evangelical support which has been strongly in the republican camp.

I'd love to see Romney (Mormon) vs Obama (Black) to see just how intolerant America really is. While I believe that the majority will overlook religion or skin colour, I also think that third pary support will be at an all time high. Perhaps the difference between what other parties normally get as opposed to what they get with Romney vs Obama could be a crude measuring stick of this intolerance...

Honestly, I don't see religion as that big a factor. While most of the candidates have been protestant, that will swing around as other faiths provide members with political aspirations in a democracy.

If there is any fear based on religious creed, it is, as someone pointed out, fear of the unknown. They fear that they may be subjected to some religion they may not buy into. Mormon doctrine actually forbids that. They don't want to see any particular religion write the laws. They speak on issues, not candidates. The Church will not specifically endorse Mitt Romney...

 

Or that it may be a woman....

 

Yeah! Quit horning in on my purview!

mmmmm, maybe a pragmatic lot? That's been my experience - maybe derived from their 'frontier' origins; just as there's something unconscious trickling down from the days when settlers' only 'law enforcement' was the shotgun hung over the door influences government and policy and law to result in the Second Ammendment and a culture that needs a mostly-armed populace, so does the 'I'll go to church and worship every Sunday, but don't have it interfering with day-to-day secular affairs'?

Aye, a zealot of any faith would make most of the electorate "both apprehensive, and uneasy."

Your argument, though quite valid, doesn't necessarily go towards all Protestants...maybe "the Protestant segment of the American voting public"?


Anyways, on to your argument as a whole; wouldn't that 'shifting stance' on issues be natural or even more enlightened? There's always some set of circumstances that would be accepted by just about ANYONE with a 'strong' stance on an issue like welfare, crime, capital punishment, abortion, involvement in overseas conflict, etc. etc.

I.E. people may well 'draw a line' on the scale between fully agreeing with a topic and fully disagreeing with it, but it's all to frequent to find a situation that makes that rigid line look out-of-place, even to the drawer.

After all, Mother Nature doesn't do things so digitally - she's 'analog' all the way, with gradual changes through long processes and often without any indentifable 'breaking point'.

Take boiling of water. At 'sea level' of one Atmosphere, water will phase change from liquid to gas at a temperature of one hundred degrees Celsius...

...but what about all that steam that was rising before enough heat was applied to your sample of water to reach 100? Evaporation does occur at almost any temperature, but it increases noticeably as temperature increases...

Essentially, 'borderlines' and 'boundaries' increasingly are being found to be imposed by the observer of the process.

Take evolutionary theory, for another example. It is currently held that modern day reptiles and contemporary birds had a common ancestor, whose population diverged into two (or more - hard to tell how many other 'dead branches' are around with the meager fossil record we have) slightly different subspecies, one of which developed characteristics that permitted its descendants the power of flight. Of this 'branch', people often try to find the point where 'they stopped being birdlike reptiles, and started being reptillian birds' - they miss the point; there is a smooth gradual transformation from one state to the other. One can still draw the line, but really it depends on that one person's individual opinion as what characteristics go to the 'reptile' side and what ones go on the 'bird' side, thus meaning that there's probably as many different lines in different places on the 'scale' as there are deciders...

...and so wouldn't this also apply to a controversial issue, like say religious behaviour in a secular leader? How much is too much? Where do we draw the line?

The answer, I think, would VARY WIDELY and depend on not only the individual being scrutinized for high public office, but also the deciders - the public and all their beliefs, opinions, the culture they create (and which creates them); essentially ALL the circumstances around the individual situation.

All of this tends to lead to an argument that this would mean 'set in stone' written laws, acts, policies, etc. etc. are rather too rigid and require flexibility to be fair, just and equitable in all circumstances, and I'm not really certain how I feel about that...

 

Yes, it can vary widely - and as long as the prez is a Protestant, it seems.

My point about the soccer moms and abortion, that the individual situation and circumstances are what really matters. This IS reflected in the culture as whole. I thnk the word was pragmatism - or was it practical?

Perhaps their "Puritanical" origins as well.

 

Actually, this is one way where America differs from pretty much every other country in the western hemisphere. I think a canidate who was an atheist would get extremely LITTLE support. In most of the rest of the western world, a politician talking religion is strickly taboo, but in the US, it seems we WANT our canidates to at least be (as Chandos puts it) Sunday Protestants. In fact, if you want to make it inclusive for everyone who has ever had a realistic shot at the White House we can be a bit more general and say Sunday Christians.

The point I'm making is while I think it is certainly possible for a non-Protestant to be elected to the Presidency (it has happened once before and likely will again) I do not think someone with no religious affiliation would be able to drum up enough popular support to win an election. I think selecting no religion would hurt a canidate just as much as being from a non-Christian religion.