As,under the American Constitution,there is supposed to be a seperation of church and state?

Question

...Should all Presidents of the US be atheists?

Answer 1

This is where our Constitutional republic fails.

Ideally, the elected official represents the masses. Does that mean that, once elected, he is free to do as he likes as long as he does not stray from the Constitution? Or does that mean he must take into account what the people are saying during his term in office? Much can change between the beginning and end of said term. Are we supposed to be stuck with a bad choice? Is that the purpose of impeachment? Why is it so hard to impeach? Our legislative and judicial branches, then, must face the same sort of scrutiny. What should THOSE officials do? Do what they think is right or do what the people think is right?

If you say, "Do what they think is right," then the problems are:

-An entire country's opinion can change in a short time, while the official may not
-Not every possible issue is raised before voting; thus, the official may make choices later on that do not reflect general opinion
-Democracy is lost
-etc.

If you say, "Do what the people say," then the problem is:

Why have a republic instead of a full-fledged democracy? We say it's because it would just be impractical to have to vote on everything, but all of our complaints really stem from the fact that the officials do not do what we want. If the people who care enough go to the effort of rallying and rioting and speaking out in general, wouldn't they also want to responsibly confront each issue? The solution is direct democracy itself, whether the country rises or falls because of it. Of course, it IS still true that this is impractical, which only shows that both forms of government fail. And yes... our so-called "Constitutional republic" has failed in that it is no longer such.

In the end, every single government fails because every single government is controlled by a human or many humans.

To bring this all back to your point: whatever you say the president should be, you are taking a stance on what the official is supposed to be doing, and either position encounters problems.

Personally, I feel that the president should be atheist, simply because the only defining feature of an atheist is his lack of belief in a God. If you are a member of another religion, you will inevitably have other attachments to concepts of morality that you say are independent of what the majority may say. In this way, the atheist (or perhaps agnostic) is the best form of neutrality in government, though one must consider the other characteristics that are unique to him.

Of course, we never truly know what our officials will do, nor are the people of our country willing to fight back when the country is being stepped on by those in power, so we're really moving blindly.

I wish it weren't so. There is no solution, but if we could each at least take some responsibility in government, our country would improve. That, unfortunately, will not happen.

EDIT: And I have noticed some idiots saying that "separation of church and state" is not Constitutional. It is true that it is not written in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court decided that this interpretation is the true one. You want to dispute that? Take it to the Supreme Court, one of the three parts of the government that decide how the country run. YOU as an individual do NOT run everything, so get over yourself.

Furthermore, it follows LOGICALLY from our Constitution that there should be separation of church and state. Without freedom of religion, we are making an exception to freedom in general, which means we do not truly have freedom in the first place. The government should not advocate any particular religion in itself because it must function for the people as a whole, not JUST some who would enjoy it. While the majority may make decisions, the government itself is here for everyone (i.e. not just CHRISTIANS).

EDIT: It is also disgusting and ignorant how some would cite the words of a few presidents in more Christian "eras" to justify how the government should run THEIR way. Their opinions do not decide how everything goes, nor does the cultural background of the founding fathers have any bearing on what the Constitution actually means. The world changes, as much as you may dislike that. Besides, don't you know any history? Part of all of this was RELIGIOUS FREEDOM, which does not just mean freedom to practice a particular form of Christianity.

While I do agree that separation of church and state may go too far at times, it is imperative that the government be neutral to serve all peoples.

Answer 2

The separation of church and state refers to the thocracies that ruled Europe at the time of the framing of the Constitution. The Anglican, Catholic, and other orthodox Churches were interwoven with many governments: telling them what policies to set and such. Governments then were puppets of organized religion. Jefferson and others wanted to avoid that scenario here, so it was clearly spelled out in the late 18th and early 19th century.

In the US, we believe that people are entitled to whatever belief system that they choose to hold. Prior to the 1960's, almost every president had been a Protestant Christian (with a few deists and possibly a closet atheist or two), so there was a bit of an uproar when Kennedy, a Catholic, ran for the office. You see a similar thing today with Mitt Romney (a Mormon) and Barack Obama (early life ties to Islam).

I think what America wants to see is a president is someone who will hold to their belief system, so that leader can be predictable. Nothing in our Constitution encourages any particular belief system when running affairs of state.

Answer 3

No, that does not mean that a president should be an athiest, it does however mean that a president or other elected officials should not use their beliefs as an agenda, and they should not use their position to propogate a religion, or to put any one religious belief above any other. It would violate the rights of any person who wishes to become an elected official. If you are a believer in the first amendment rights of people, it should be for all people, not just for some. Just as you have the right to believe what you wish to believe, so does every other people including an elected official.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This includes making no law as to the religious beliefs of an elected official such as the president.

Answer 4

Probably, yes.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes: "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Answer 5

Nope. Seperation of church and state doesn't mean elected officials not having their own religious views. It doesn't even mean that they aren't influenced by those views. It just means that they don't use the government to establish their religion.

Now I'd be keen to vote for an atheist. But any religious test such as "No theists may be elected" would violate the spirit of sepeartion of church and state. That would be what enemies of the first amendment think we now do- establish atheism as the official government position on religion. We don't, secularism and atheism are by no means the same thing. We need to stay secular.

Answer 6

That is totally illogical.

As long as the government isn't trying to force matters of conscience upon anyone, then who cares what religion (or lack thereof) the president is?

As long as laws reflect the welfare of all involved, what does it matter?

Besides, the president doesn't have nearly as much say as the House and Senate, and there is little chance that all of those people are going to be of the same religious conviction. A good mix is a good thing.

Answer 7

NO. Separation of church and state refers to this----the state won't be able to enforce a faith it particularly is to be popular by potential of anybody yet you in simple terms made the comparable mistake as many others that have self belief that the church isn't area of the state. Do Christians vote? sure, so there is partnership between the two in this and different aspects.

Answer 8

Could you point out in the U.S. Constitution that brings up the separation of church and state? No? I didn't think you could. That was from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson.
What the U.S. Constitution DOES say in the FIRST AMENDMENT is: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
You people like to get things all twisted around to suit your screwed up thinking.
Go back to school and learn U.S. History. You don't know as much as you pretend to.
GONG..you lose.

Answer 9

That would be a violation of the first amendment, a better solution would to not allowed others to ask or a politicain to state a their religious beliefs. And that a politician be made to take a pledge or vow to not let his religious beliefs affect his judgement in office. This goes for president and any other political office.

Answer 10

WOW!!!......denying the President the right to have any personal beliefs, ...what means that the "President" does not have Constitutional Rights?????.........you're not thinking straight, schedule an appointment with a therapist.....