Well Jewish, Islamic, Atheist, etc. It baffles me that it appears if you identify your self as any of the above there's no being president for you.
That's true of many groups, not merely religious. Fiscal conservatives, FI, have had zero candidates make it in any major party (and thus, have had no chances to gain real power) in the last 30+ years. They have been suckered in by candidates who then turn out to not be fiscal conservatives, of course.
They are definitely changing, which is a great thing, It just surprises me in a country that has this whole "separation of church and state" thing that you have to be christian to be president.
Separation of Church and state does not dictate who the people will put in office, but that the U.S. government should not dabble even remotely in theocracy. The separation is actually very narrow, and one-way. You just hear a lot about it because egotists and hicks want to subvert it, and turn the U.S. into exactly what the Separation of Church and State is there to protect us from becoming.
Those that came up with and supported the idea were themselves primarily protestants, deists, and atheists. Their concern was not the spreading of godlessness, but keeping the government, who's job is to protect
all the people, from swaying to the whims of one church or another. Do recall that the Anglican church's existence and nature was a big deal, way back then.
So my point still stands, it didn't really talk about any candidate except to acknowledge that they are all religious, and to rant about how his atheist view can't comprehend them.
More like he comprehends them better than many comprehend themselves. How is it consistent to believe in a miracle, by word of mouth, from 2000+ years ago, if you wouldn't believe in one today?