In 1960 when JFK was running for president, Catholics were still considered a minority group, with mainstream Christians not being quite sure what to make of them. They didn't have it anywhere near as bad as blacks or Jews, but the idea of a Catholic man like JFK becoming president of the United States aroused significant unease, especially in the Protestant, evangelical south. But for all their religious tribalism and hysteria, one of the major concerns raised by many Christian voters happened to be a very legitimate one. Would Kennedy, if elected president, be beholden to the pronouncements of the Pope when those pronouncements conflicted with the interests of the American people?
This concern relates to one of many lesser-known, seldom-publicized nuggets of Catholic doctrine. The Pope, any pope (past or present), is completely infallible. No pope is ever wrong. If JFK had been a truly devout Catholic and was committed to following church law to the letter, then the American people would have had much to be concerned about. However, fortunately for everyone involved, JFK was like 90% of Catholics in that he was a blaspheming, prophylactic-using, fornicator.
Mormon's are a whole different story. It's true you can find the odd Mormon, who drinks, swears, and engages in premarital sex (all prohibited by Mormon law), but these people are in the minority, and a small minority at that. This is why concerns over where Mitt Romney's allegiance would lie if he were to become president are totally legitimate. Like Catholics, the figurehead of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is infallible. That's why, to this day, Romney refuses to concede that his church was wrong for systematically discriminating against Blacks for a full decade after the end of the civil rights movement.
And herein lies the problem with religion in general. It encourages its victims to believe unflinchingly in propositions that are not only demonstrably false, but that are actually harmful to humanity (the Catholic prohibition of condoms comes to mind).
Fortunately, with Obama, Americans don't have that problem. Many atheists, myself included, believe that Obama is secretly one of us. For me it's pretty obvious because every time he is forced in an interview to discuss his "faith", his responses become incredibly awkward and contrived. According to Obama's own writings, religion was never a part of his upbringing, and his father, despite being born a Muslim, left the faith (which is punishable by death under Muslim law) and became an Atheist before he died. It's much more likely that Obama simply joined the church because it was essential for building connections with the African American community in which he worked.
The irony is that, throughout the 2008 campaign, racist conservatives kept trying to paint Obama as a closeted Muslim, which is so obviously untrue. Meanwhile, if they'd tried to paint him as a non-believer, which is a plausible accusation, this could have been much more effective in alienating him from the electorate. In American politics you can be a lot of things and still get elected. You can be a woman, you can be black, you can be gay, you can be an adulterer (no problem), you can be a self-proclaimed socialist, and you can be a Muslim (the current United States House of Representatives has at least one person from each of these groups). But you cannot be an openly unbelieving atheist.
In spite of this, it's nice to know that Obama probably is an atheist, albeit a closeted one, and that he almost certainly isn't the first atheist to hold the office of the presidency. Still, I look forward to the day when a candidate running for national office in the United States can come out of the closet while in office. But if I can't have that, I'll be happy to see Obama pull a John Amaechi and come out after retirement. Better late than never.
You seem to blatantly rely on stereotypes rather than fact in this article. Mormons are not a racist, drunk group of religious outsiders, and Catholics are not a group of cultists who will take what the pope says over common sense. Do you even know why the pope is never wrong? He is never wrong because as a christian one believes that God, whom he is an example of, is never wrong. And the reason God is never wrong is because God represents utmost good. Everyone agrees that it would be bad to take what the pope says over the true mind of the people, and likewise the pope would never make any instruction in the United States as God would never be evil and tamper with our freedom.
You're saying that religion is bad, but it is not. The themes in many religions carry far good than what atheism carries. If you actually were devoted to a religion, and actually studied its messages rather than relying on a senseless belief that God is a product of man's faulty mind, you'd see that religion carries several themes that allow an individual to acquire important virtues of kindness and leadership, such as reverence and prodigious benevolence. Is giving a homeless man a dollar hurtful to the economy? Is practicing good will towards all men undermining to the prosperity of this country?
Sure, sure, religion and politics shouldn't be mixed. But what about the themes of religion, not the customs? Individuals like yourself look at religion as nothing more than a form of worship to a God, when religions such as Christianity were instituted to improve the lives of others, and thus yourself.
i don't know if he's atheist... he's probably like Gore, an agnostic who has to pretend he's a lot more devout than he actually is. i bet in his heart of hearts he believes in some sort of abstract god, but probably doesn't waste a lot of time thinking about it.