benlehman

The point a bit upthread about the espoused religions of congresspeople brings to mind an interesting distinction. Protestantism in particular tends to conflate personal belief and religious social behavior/community membership, but it seems worth considering them separately for this purpose.

So, in the US, it's politically expedient to vaguely claim to be some sort of Christian and possibly to attend church for a number of reasons, but notably, non of these reasons are related to belief, or even really require a thorough knowledge of religious material. But pretty much anyone can take advantage of this and "pass" as vaguely-theist or protestant-ish. The only people really disadvantaged are those who have a strong belief system to the contrary, or some kind of visible difference. Everyone else is willing to make the occasional Jesus (or whatever) reference if that makes their polling numbers go up.

My suspicion is that some kind of requirement/expectation of atheism in political figures would have similar results. . . those with strong or visible counter-beliefs would be marginalized, and everyone else would just sort of muddle through and say what they need to say to get the job they want, even if it's not exactly what they believe in their heart of hearts. I mean, it's politics, picking your battles is what you do. I'm not trying to say all politicians are horrible liars, but for many people in many cultures, religion is a social thing, and you say what you need to to get along.