An Atheist in the White House: Secularism and the American Presidency

[rug]

April 17, 2016 at 9:00 am
By Lizzy Schick

What does it take to be electable? The answer to that question underlies the successes and failures of any democracy, and the United States is no exception. The demographic makeup of America’s elected offices has slowly diversified over the years, with one exception: religious affiliation. Almost the entire Congress identifies as Christian, as has nearly every president and vice president to date. Article Six of the Constitution mandates that no religious test or qualification can render a candidate ineligible for any public office, yet it is plain that government remains somewhat hamstrung by religious values. In fact, voters oppose an atheist candidate more than one that has committed adultery or one that has no experience in Washington. Atheism is not only unappealing in a candidate but also a barrier to entry in some cases; in seven states—all in the Bible Belt—legislation bars atheists from running for office, though these acts are technically unenforceable.

This election season, the question of whom the American public considers electable has become particularly salient. During the current election cycle, the major candidates from both parties have expressed their deep commitment to faith—some Christianity, others Judaism—demonstrating that religiosity remains a de facto requirement for office. Is an atheist president electable in 2016? More importantly, should secular practices and values have a more prominent place in our government?

Bias Against Atheists

Americans tend to dislike atheists, an attitude based in traditional biases. Atheists seem particularly threatening to Christian morality and value systems, even when compared to other stigmatized groups such as American Muslim and LGBTQ+ populations. This fear of secular immorality has psychological roots. Matthew Baum, an expert on public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, told the HPR that, in many cases, religion serves as a sort of heuristic or mental shortcut that can communicate a candidate’s likely values and policies to voters. America’s comparative religious fervor, which forces candidates to disclose their personal religious views, is thus prompted—at least in part—by a need to know candidates at a glance.

Because of the pressure to hold a religious identity, particularly of a Christian religion, politicians often feign religiosity. Donald Trump’s “Two Corinthians” gaffe exemplifies these often-farcical efforts to court evangelicals and other religious groups during elections. The practice of cultivating a religious persona occurs on both sides of the aisle as Democrats . Only certain religions possess this appeal, of course. Rumors that President Obama was Muslim captivated his opponents and enraged his supporters during his campaign for Senate in 2004 and for president in 2008. Still, polls suggest that Americans by and large would prefer a candidate of any mainstream religion to a secular one.

http://harvardpolitics.com/united-states/an-atheist-in-the-oval-office-secularism-and-the-american-presidency/

[Fumesucker]

1. Of course Senator Obama isn't a Muslim

As far as I know.