HUH? There have been plenty of religious Presidents. probably the vast majority of them were religious. None of them caused us to live "under a religious government". (at least not yet). During the campaign between Kennedy and Nixon in 1960, there was a lot of negative campaigning done against Kennedy. Never before had there been a Catholic President. The Republicans (not all) tried to imply that if we had a Catholic in the White House, the Pope would really be running our country. Kennedy was elected, and of course his religion was never an issue at all. Peace, RS
Good points, except about the 51% issue. There has to be a mechanism to protect the minority (whether the viewpoints of a minority, or the rights of religious, ethnic or racial minorities) from the tyranny of the majority. Moreover, there still must be a voice and some kind of representation for the interests of this minority. That is why we have a senate (with 2 officals from each state) and reps (with 2 officials plus a number that represents the population), and that is part of the reason why there is an electoral college. This way, there are different ways for different peoples and views to gain a voice.
The European parliamentary system seems even more effective in representing the interests of minority viewpoints. Sometimes I wonder if the Prime Minister/Coalition government system would be an improvement for the U.S. Libertarians would have to be coaxed into a coalition, instead of ignored.
The problem with those systems is the chaos involved in constantly shifting coalitions and thus governments. Sometimes the tough things that have to be done require electing an official and letting him/her follow through. As is it now, nobody wants to deal with the economic and political troubles that face us in the near future. Any politician that raised taxes (mayor, governor, president), even if when necessary, almost always faces terrible unpopularity and, under a parliamentary system, would usually get tossed as soon as his coalition were weakened. Keep in mind that the US wanted to avoid WWII at all costs, until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Had not FDR helped the British with the "lend lease program," they may not have been able to hold out long enough until the US finally had the will to officially and seriously enter the war. While it is definitely good sometimes that a President feels the heat of public opinion, there are also times where it is important and for the public good that a President can do what is necessary, even if it will be unpopular in the short run. At one point, President Lincoln was not that popular. Thank goodness he was able to make the tough decisions without worrying about a shifting coalition. Fortunately for nyc, we have a mayor who is willing to make the tough financially decisions for an extremely cash-strapped city, despite the fact that he has a thankless job and that most people resent him now because everyone wants low taxes and great city services, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, regardless of the city balance sheet.
Sorry, that was poorly phrased on my part. I meant to say under a religious "president." You are obviously right about the seperation between religious views of the president and the government which he executes. My bad!