Such a promotion for Mr. Brennan would not only be unwarranted and ill-advised.  To the extent it would affirm and further institutionalize John Brennan’s willful blindness, or worse, towards the most serious threat of our time – the supremacist totalitarian politico-military-legal program authorities of Islam call shariah – it could prove catastrophic.

A pathbreaking new “Team B II” study sponsored by the Center for Security Policy and entitled Shariah: The Threat to America documents the publicly available evidence of Brennan’s dereliction of duty.  These include: his systematic failure to recognize what animates our enemy; his insistence on characterizations of our foes that interferes with, if not utterly precludes, effective countermeasures – especially against shariah-adherents’ use of stealthy techniques to achieve our submission; and the “outreach” he engages in and encourages to Muslim Brotherhood operatives.

Without access to classified information, and in the absence of the sort of congressional oversight and forensic investigation we can only hope will be forthcoming after November’s elections, it is impossible to say with certainty how bad is the cumulative effect of John Brennan’s tenure in a position largely cloaked in secrecy with respect to government deliberations and policy-making.

Still, recent events provide a chilling sense of the impact of what Team B member Admiral James “Ace” Lyons has called Brennan’s “see-no-evil, speak-no-evil” approach – one that is utterly athwart the time-validated prescription of the great Chinese strategist, Sun Tsu, that victory in war depends on knowing one’s enemy.  Consider three examples:

• Team B Member Patrick Poole revealed last week at BigPeace.com that, in adherence to the Brennan outreach mantra, the FBI provided a six-week training – and intelligence-collection opportunity – to a known Hamas operative named Sheikh Kefah Mustapha.  When challenged, a Bureau spokesman insisted that there was no problem with doing so because Mustapha “had never been convicted of any crime.”  Never mind that he was an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing trial in U.S. history or fired from a volunteer chaplain post with the Illinois State Police when his terrorist ties were exposed.
• We also learned last week that a man brought into the White House in April for a high-level Muslim outreach effort designed “to update members of the Arab-American community on issues of their concern, Hatem Abudayyeh, had his home raided by the FBI on suspicion of ties to terrorism in the Middle East and Latin America.  As Andy McCarthy makes plain in an important essay National Review Online, Abuddayyeh’s ties to unsavory individuals like friend-of-Obama Rashid Khalidi should be a concern on multiple levels.

• The Pentagon recently released its final after-action report concerning the Fort Hood massacre allegedly committed by a self-described “Soldier of Allah” named Maj. Nidal Malik Hassan.  This document became the latest in a series of strategy papers, policy documents and guidelines issued by law enforcement, intelligence, military and homeland security agencies that fail to use words like “Islam,” “Muslim,” “shariah,” “Muslim Brotherhood,” or “jihad.” In fact, John Brennan has expressly forbidden the use of the term “jihad” as he considers it to be a “legitimate tenet of Islam” whose correct translation is personal struggle, not holy war.

The practical effect of such direction is to leave the United States exceptionally vulnerable to the kind of warfare our shariah-adherent jihadist enemies have operationalized here in the United States – namely, the stealthy kind practiced by the Muslim Brotherhood which calls it “civilization jihad.” Brennan evidently neither understands nor is working to counter this threat.

To the contrary, to the extent that he is engaging in willfully blind behavior that is perceived by our shariah-adherent foes as submission (the literal meaning of the word “Islam”), he is setting the stage for our enemies to abandon the sub rosa civilization jihad in favor of the kind Mohammed principally practiced: the terrifyingly violent version of holy war.

Fortunately, one upside of the Ground Zero mosque controversy is that it has prompted lots of Americans to start asking hard questions, reflecting a growing awareness of shariah.  They want to know, for example, about the conflicting peaceful and warlike passages of the Koran, the horrible treatment of “infidels,” apostates, women and those who besmirch Islam and its followers’ “honor” or sensibilities.  Some of these were featured in two, hour-long specials broadcast over the weekend by ABC News.

Regrettably, the “20/20″ and “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” programs largely failed to answer these questions – most especially with respect to the stealth jihad.   But there is no question that a serious debate has begun and that there is a growing appreciation that the U.S. government’s stewardship with respect to this most urgent of national security imperatives is seriously deficient.

For there to be real change in policy, however, there needs to be real change in policymakers.  John Brennan should be encouraged to join the exodus from Team Obama’s senior ranks, not promoted to a position in which he can do vastly more harm.

The catalyst for these Capitol Hill hijinks was the new “Take Our Jobs” campaign launched this summer by the United Farm Workers union.  The ostensible purpose of the campaign is to draw attention to the crucial role that undocumented workers play in America’s food supply chain while debunking the notion that illegal immigrants are taking jobs away from American citizens.  When Comedy Central’s Stephen Colbert caught wind of the campaign, he  announced his plans to spend a day in the shoes of a migrant farm worker, and invited Representive Zoe Lofgren, Chairman of the House Sub-Committee on Citizenship, Refugees, Immigration and Border Security, to make a cameo appearance on his show, which aired on September 22nd.  Two days later, in a theatrical role reversal, Mr. Colbert made a cameo appearance of his own before Congress, having been invited by Chairman Lofgren to testify about his one-day experience as a migrant farm worker.

Reaction from Lofgren’s colleagues was mixed.  The move was roundly condemned by Republicans as an outrageous misuse of time and money, not to mention an insult to the American public.  Democrats were put in the odd position of trying to justify the stunt as technically legitimate while acknowledging that it may have been perceived as inappropriate.  Some, like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, threw concerns for party solidarity to the wind, making no bones about his disapproval of Colbert’s testimony.

Colbert’s invitation was not the first time an elected representative invited a celebrity to appear on Capitol Hill.  It was, however, the first time a prominent celebrity satirist has been invited to testify, tongue firmly planted in cheek, based upon “experience” gained during a comedy sketch.

Does Chairwoman Lofgren honestly believe that Mr. Colbert’s testimony was a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars?  Does she genuinely believe that it lent credibility to the cause of undocumented migrant farm workers or illumination to the immigration debate at large?  Does she believe that hosting a Capitol Hill comedy hour is a better use of her time and position than, perhaps, scheduling hearings to investigate the ethics charges pending against two of her Democratic colleagues?

These are the kinds of questions on the minds many Americans this week – Americans who are tired of the arrogance and condescension of politicians so mired in the Beltway Bubble that they think nothing of dropping $125,000 on a televised dog-and-pony show that accomplishes nothing and makes a mockery of the American political process.

Was Colbert’s testimony humorous?  Sure.  Was it appropriate?  Absolutely not.  Let no one accuse the American public of lacking a sense of humor.  We know how to take a joke.  When it comes to issues like the economy and national security, however, we’d just rather our elected officials not make jokes – literally – at our expense.  Members of Congress please take note.  Otherwise, come November, you may find that the joke’s on you.

The document transparently is designed to appeal to those Republicans, Tea Party activists, independents and conservative Democrats who are rallying to the defense of the U.S. Constitution at a moment when it is under assault, in the words of the congressional oath of office “from enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Just as the framers saw the need for the immediate amendment of the original Constitution with the Bill of Rights, however, the Pledge to America cries out for a strengthened national security plank.  Call it a “Bill of National Security Rights” or, better yet, “the Peace Through Strength Pledge.”

As it stands, the House GOP’s Pledge treats the Constitution’s obligation to “provide common defense” as a kind of afterthought.  Just 758 words – a little under two pages of the forty-five in its glossy blueprint for “a governing agenda” – are devoted to mostly hortatory statements about demanding policies, “getting all hands on deck” and passing “clean” troop-funding legislation.

The “Plan for National and Border Security” reads like focus group-tested themes embraced as a sort of issue box-checking exercise.  What the times require, though, must be a key element of a defining – and differentiating – platform for a would-be governing party.

There are considerably more pictures in the Pledge booklet than there are substantive commitments on why we need a different approach to national security than has been the practice under Democratic control, and to what end.

A modest suggestion would be to flesh out the Pledge to America with a real national security platform – one that has the advantage of addressing more comprehensively and more definitively the choices facing the country in this critical election.

To this end, leaders of six preeminent national security-minded public policy institutions – including the Heritage Foundation, the Claremont Institute, the Foundation for Defense of Democracy and my own Center for Security Policy – came together earlier this year to define such an agenda.  As it is rooted in the tradition and vision of Ronald Reagan, we call it the Peace through Strength Platform.

This 10-item Bill of National Security Rights includes the following commitments:

• A robust defense posture including: A safe, reliable effective nuclear deterrent, which requires its modernization and testing; the deployment of comprehensive defenses against missile attack; and national protection against unconventional forms of warfare – including biological, electro-magnetic pulse (EMP) and cyber attacks.

• Preservation of U.S. sovereignty against international treaties, judicial rulings and other measures that would have the effect of supplanting or otherwise diminishing the U.S. Constitution and the representative, accountable form of government it guarantees.

• A nation free of Shariah, the brutally repressive and anti-Constitutional totalitarian program that governs in Saudi Arabia, Iran and other Islamic states and that terrorists are fighting to impose worldwide.

• Protection from unlawful enemy combatants.  Enemies who refuse to wear uniforms, use civilians as shields and employ terrorism as weapons are not entitled to U.S. constitutional rights or trials in our civilian courts.  Those captured overseas should be incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay, which should remain open, or in other prisons outside the United States.

• Energy security, realized by exploiting to the fullest the natural resources and technologies available in this country.  We Americans must reduce our dependence for energy upon – and transfers of national wealth to – enemies of this country.

• Borders secure against penetration by terrorists, narco-traffickers or others seeking to enter the United States illegally.  Aliens who have violated immigration laws should not be rewarded with the privileges of citizenship.

• High standards that protect the military culture essential to the All-Volunteer Force.  The Pentagon should implement sound priorities, policies and laws that strengthen recruiting, retention, and readiness.

• A foreign policy that supports our allies and opposes our adversaries.  It should be clearly preferable to be a friend of the United States, not its enemy.

• Judicial and educational institutions that uphold the constitutional responsibility of elected officials to make policy for our military and convey to future generations accurate portrayals of American history, including the necessity of defending freedom.

Some of these points are touched on in the Pledge to America; others are not.  But taken together, an amended and augmented Pledge would provide a far more firm basis for appealing to the American electorate.  It would also ensure that those elected this Fall have a mandate for leadership in this most important of portfolios, one that promises to stand the country in far better stead during the difficult months and years ahead.  One that would be worthy of broad-based political support – and likely to secure it.

To paraphrase President Reagan, if not we, who will offer the leadership necessary truly to meet the constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense?  And, if not now, when?

The reason: If everyone is forced to buy insurance, then the government must deem what sort of insurance qualifies as adequate to meet the mandate. This piece of Obamacare promises to turn every medical procedure into a major political fight, with special interest lobbying rather than objective medical expertise being more likely to determine what kind of health care gets covered and what kind doesn’t.

The problem goes beyond ugly politics, however, and into the realm of moral repugnance. The contention has already started, as the Catholic bishops have formally protested the pending inclusion of contraception and sterilization among items that must be covered in every American insurance plan.

Whether one agrees with Catholic morality is beside the point. The point is that this is no way to deal with a major economic sector in a free, pluralist society.

Some medical doctors think chiropractors are quacks; some chiropractors think medical doctors are quacks. Some people think marijuana is an excellent pain killer; others think it is an immoral drug. The goods and services that the 300 million people in this country consider to be effective—or objectionable—instances of health care vary, sometimes dramatically, according to geography, culture, religion, and ethnicity.

Now a single institution, the national government in the form of the Department of Health and Human Services, is charged with arbitrating which goods and services make the cut and which don’t. Those who lack the political clout to get their preferences included will pay coming and going: their insurance premiums will cover things that they don’t want and they’ll have to pay out of pocket for things that they do.

The variety offered by a medical market is a beautiful thing. Monolithic medicine mandated by a law that most Americans opposed is not.

Several factors have promoted this false perception: Obama’s family background, some of his public statements, his lack of church attendance, belief that his philosophy of life is more secular than Christian, and deliberate attempts to discredit the president. Pundits on the right including Ann Coulter, David Limbaugh, and Chuck Norris have vociferously questioned Obama’s claim to be a Christian.

Clearly, the Muslim influences upon Obama as he grew up make his religious background unique among American presidents. The only church to which he has belonged is Trinity United Church in Church, which he left during the 2008 campaign because of the inflammatory statements made by its pastor Jeremiah Wright. This, coupled with his infrequent church attendance as president, has contributed to considerable confusion about his faith and skepticism about his public professions to be a Christian.

However, Obama has repeatedly declared that he is a Christian, and in some cases he has made very straightforward affirmations of his faith. Obama’s profession to be a Christian is actually much clearer than that of George Washington. Some authors argue, and many Americans believe, that Washington was an orthodox Christian, but the evidence for this claim is not strong. Washington did attend church almost every Sunday while president, continually asked “an all-powerful Providence” to protect and guide him and his army and nation, professed belief in the power of prayer, and remained an Anglican/Episcopalian all his life.

However, Washington referred to Christ only a handful of times in his public statements or extant private letters and never once declared that Jesus was divine or his personal savior.

Obama, on the other hand, has explicitly stated that Christ is his savior. In an interview in “Christianity Today” in 2008, Obama declared, “I am a devout Christian. I believe in the redemptive death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.” “Accepting Jesus Christ in my life,” he added, “has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.” Obama also stressed that he had been a member of the same congregation for almost twenty years and asserted “I have never practiced Islam.”

At a breakfast for pastors and parachurch leaders held two days after Easter this year, the president stated that he wanted to “continue the Easter celebration of our risen Savior” and “to reflect on the work to which His promise calls all of us.” He discussed the lesson he derived “from Christ’s sacrifice” and the inspiration the story of the resurrection supplied. Obama celebrated the discovery that forever changed the world—the empty tomb and Christ’s resurrection.

Obama expressed gratitude for Christ’s “sacrifice … for the sins of humanity.” “As Christians,” he proclaimed, “we believe that … faith in Jesus Christ” leads to our redemption and brings “eternal hope.” He insisted that like “our Lord and Savior” all Christians should commit themselves to God and “act justly and to love mercy and walk humbly with the Lord.”

Again, compare this with Washington. The first president never directly discussed Christ’s empty tomb, bodily resurrection, or atonement for sin. Nor did he clearly and consistently affirm belief in an afterlife.

Obviously theologically conservative Christians disagree with many of Obama’s views, especially on abortion and homosexuality. Many of us also think that Obama wants to use the government to solve problems that can be best (or in some cases only) dealt with by individuals or private organizations. This is not, however, a valid reason for believing that he is not a Christian.

The actions of some other presidents, perhaps most notably Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, have led Americans to question their profession of Christian faith. But few presidents have had their faith so closely scrutinized or so completely misunderstood as Obama.

In making this argument, I do not mean to suggest that Obama is comparable to Washington. The nation’s first president deservedly occupies a unique place in American history and played an indispensible role in the creation and development of our nation. Moreover, I recognize that times and norms have changed greatly from the late 18th century to today. I am pointing out that Washington and Obama are being judged by very different standards. Looking at the evidence objectively leads to the conclusion that Obama’s profession of Christian faith is much clearer than that of Washington’s.

If Obama wants Americans to believe he is a Christian, he and his publicists could stop stressing that he reads a devotional that a staffer sends him on his BlackBerry every morning and instead disseminate his explicit declarations about the nature of his faith. The president might also be more careful and guarded in the statements he makes about Islam. And he could attend church more frequently. Doing these things would help put this controversy to rest except among those unwilling to take his statements and actions at their face value.

The relationship between the Tea Party Patriots and the GOP has been tenuous since the movement began over a year ago.  More than anti-Left or anti-Liberal, the primary motivating spirit behind the Tea Party movement has been anti-incumbent, anti-Washington, anti-establishment.  This spells bad news for everyone inside the Beltway regardless of party affiliation.  Initially, the Republican response to the Tea Party phenomenon was to pay lip service to the movement while working behind the scenes to ensure the continued hegemony of the GOP establishment.  However, this tactic has not proven very successful, as evidenced by recent primary upsets in six states including Florida and Delaware.

Having gone on the record with sharp criticisms of prominent Tea Party candidates during the run-up to (and in some cases, the aftermath of) these primaries, prominent members of the GOP establishment now find themselves in the awkward position of trying to dispel accusations that they are undermining the movement while simultaneously trying to figure out a way to leverage Tea Party successes to the advantage of the Republican power-base in Washington.  Karl Rove, while declaring adamantly that he is not an “establishment” Republican, attempted to split hairs between his role as a GOP operative and a political analyst when pressed on his opinion of Delaware Republican primary winner Christine O’Donnell.  Trent Lott, former Senate Majority Leader and current K Street lobbyist, insists that there is no room in Washington for “a lot of Jim DeMint disciples” and that the GOP establishment must “co-opt” any Tea Party candidates who manage to actually win races and make it to Washington.

Recognizing the wisdom in the old adage “keep your friends close and your enemies closer,” the major operatives within the Grand Old Party know that the only way to maintain their grip on power is to find a way to keep the troops in line.  In the military such control is maintained by the strict adherence to the chain of command.  In third world dictatorships such control is maintained through intimidation.  In Washington, such control is maintained by money, the mother’s milk of politics.  Secure the Tea Party Republicans’ loyalty the old fashioned way, Lott argues – by buying it.  By doing so, the Establishment’s agenda will become their agenda.

This, sadly, is the way it’s always been done in Washington, and it’s a trap into which even the most conscientious, idealistic political newcomer can easily fall.  They come to our nation’s capital, electoral mandate in hand, full of big ideas and dreams for their constituents back home, only to find themselves caught in the web of establishment interests on the Hill.  Campaign contributions, fancy dinners, box seats, all expense paid trips – this has been the medium of exchange for years in the Federal City.  It is all very alluring. And it’s precisely why the voters are clamoring for a change.

The American people are hoping the Tea Party candidates – precisely because of their relative political inexperience will – help chart a new path for our government.   There is a desperate desire among the American people for a new and different generation of representatives – people who run for office not because they need the job, or the money, or the power, but because they are people of integrity and honor who truly feel called to serve their fellow citizens.

Instead of embracing the American people’s call for authentic change and welcoming the Tea Party’s influence, the GOP establishment appears hell bent on doing business the old fashioned way.  In the meantime, the likes of Rove and Lott are watching and waiting to see if America’s first Tea Party candidates have what it takes to prevail against the Democrats in a general election.  A bigger issue, however, is whether the Tea Party’s electoral vanguard has the character and fortitude to stick to its ideals and resist the lure of being co-opted by the GOP establishment.  For voters across the country who are sick of politics as usual in America, this is the million dollar question.

All four service chiefs opposed the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT), which bars open homosexuals from serving in the armed forces. In addition, over 160 top military officials advised against the repeal of DADT.

Over 1,150 distinguished retired Flag and General Officers of the military, including 51 four-star generals and admirals, strongly urge that the existing ban be maintained.  In a statement released last year, they expressed their great concern about the impact a repeal of the ban would have on “morale, discipline, unit cohesion, and overall readiness.”

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented: “Repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ would ultimately destroy our military. An all-volunteer military would quickly degenerate to an all-homosexual military, as heterosexuals would eventually refuse to volunteer.”

If the ban were repealed, LGBT operatives would infiltrate the military, and backed by a brigade of ACLU lawyers, would push the homosexual agenda to the point of paralyzing the primary purpose of the military—winning wars.

Military men and women, our sons and daughters, should not be subjected to an involuntary social experiment; and our nation should not have to compromise its national security in order to satisfy promises made to militant homosexual groups.

As a proud alumnus of the staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, it pains me to say that the Senate should not consider this seriously defective product of that panel’s deliberations.  No Republican or Democrat who cares about national security should vote for this motion.

The reason why a filibuster mounted by that committee’s ranking Republican, Senator John McCain, should be sustained is that the defense bill is being used as a vehicle for several extraneous political agendas.  These include”: language allowing military hospitals to be used for the first time in decades as abortion clinics; an amendment Majority Leader Harry Reid says he wants to attach that amounts to an amnesty for young illegal immigrants; and repeal of the 1993 statute prohibiting openly homosexual individuals from serving in the U.S. military.

The last of these is of special concern as it would, in the words of 1167 retired generals and admirals “break” the U.S. military.  In time of war, do any U.S. Senators – and most especially those like Sens. Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln who are battling for reelection in conservative states – want to be responsible for such an action?

To be sure, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) activists insist that there will only be upsides for the military if the law adopted nearly two decades ago after extensive hearings and debate – neither of which has happened this time around – is repealed.  They claim the armed forces will not have to dismiss LGBT individuals who come out, or are forced out, of the closet, easing the difficult job of filling the ranks with qualified personnel.

A seven-page memorandum prepared by the superb Center for Military Readiness and provided last week to a Pentagon commission studying the impacts of repeal illuminates myriad ways in which this social experiment would prove incredibly complex, distracting and debilitating for the all-volunteer force in the event the Senate votes down the filibuster. This is especially so if, as the homosexual activists demand, the military adopts a “zero-tolerance” policy towards anyone in uniform who deviates from full acceptance of the LGBT agenda.

A few illustrative examples make the point:

• If LGBT individuals are allowed to serve, on what basis could heterosexual male and female personnel be kept apart in accommodations, lavatories and other circumstances in which privacy is limited or non-existent?

• Would officers in command of units be given career-ending negative fitness reports if they truthfully advise their superiors that there are real problems implementing the new LGBT policy – for instance, by disclosing that consensual or non-consensual behavior is undermining morale, discipline and morale?

• How many military chaplains will be penalized for not complying with the new LGBT policy that their religious beliefs tell them is immoral (including performing same-sex marriages, conducting diversity programs that promote LGBT conduct as equivalent to heterosexual conduct, etc)?

• How will housing of same-sex couples be handled on military bases in states that do not recognize such relationships with marriage or civil unions?

• How will transgender personnel be accommodated in housing, lavatories, etc.?  Will sex-change operations be a covered health care benefit for the military?

• How will the military contend with personnel known to be at greater risk of HIV infection – namely, males who engage in sexual conduct other with men – with regard to medical services and medication, exemption from deployment, emergency transfusions, etc.?

• Most importantly, what evidence is there that repeal of the 1993 law will strengthen and improve the combat capability, discipline, morale and overall readiness of the All-Volunteer Force?

The absence of such evidence is the most important reason for supporting Sen. McCain’s filibuster.  It is outrageous that one or two senators’ votes may make the difference between an initiative that will be, at the very best, a new and difficult management burden for a military already overtaxed with its warfighting responsiblities, and that may well actually prove to be devasting for the military.

A sense of just how problematic this initiative may be can be found in a statement reportedly made by Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick in Europe last month. According to the Washington Times, the general, who is the Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for personnel and a top member of the Pentagon repeal review, described critics as “racists and bigots” who need to get out if they can’t get with the program.  Gen. Bostick denies making the statement but the Times stands by its account.  In any event, the remark was really just a more extreme version of one by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen back in March that opponents of repeal should “vote with their feet.”

The fevered swamps of a pre-election season are no time to be taking such portentous steps.  Senators: Don’t break the military.  It’s the only one we have.

Senator Reid’s action betrays all the men and women defending our nation; over 1160 retired military generals and admirals, as well as the current four service chiefs oppose it.  We must not allow partisan politics to control our national defense.

YOUR VOICE MUST BE HEARD

The majority of Americans do not support the repeal of DADT.

We cannot allow Congress to force another controversial issue on the American people.

YOU MUST DO THE FOLLOWING IMMEDIATELY:

1. Call, Fax, or E-mail your Senators and ask them to vote “No” on Cloture on the Defense Authorization Bill.

2. Call, Fax or E-Mail Key Republican and Democrat Senators Listed here.  Information on how to reach all Senators is available here.

3. Call Senator John McCain at 202-224-2235 and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell at 202-224-3135. Encourage them to continue the fight to defeat this betrayal of our military.

God Bless America,

Richard Thompson
President and Chief Counsel, Thomas More Law Center

It is extremely unlikely an avowed atheist could be elected president of the United States. Substantial percentages of Americans say they would not vote for such a candidate. In a 2007 Newsweek poll, 62 percent of respondents said they would not vote for a candidate who admitted being an atheist. This position was taken by 78 percent of Republicans, 60 percent of Democrats, and 45 percent of independents.

Moreover, in a 2003 Pew Research Center poll, 52 percent of Americans expressed a “mostly unfavorable” or “very unfavorable” view of atheists. A 2006 Fox poll reported that Americans were more likely to vote for a Mormon or a Muslim for president than an atheist.

If these polls are accurate, an overt atheist could not be elected president. This question, of course, is asked in the abstract. Would Americans actually refuse to vote for an atheist candidate if they liked his or her policies and personality? I suspect that in 1980, if Americans had been asked the generic question—would you vote for a divorced, former Hollywood actor for president—sizable numbers would have said no, but that year Ronald Reagan decisively defeated Jimmy Carter.

However, in the United States today, being known as an atheist is such a political liability that an individual espousing this position could not gain a major party nomination for president or probably even the Senate. Only five members of Congress refuse to indicate their religious affiliation, and none have no affiliation.

While declaring oneself an atheist would be a huge political liability in this country, it did not prevent Gillard from defeating a devout Catholic—Tony Abbott—to become Australia’s prime minister in August. How was she able to win?

First, a little background: Gillard, who is 48, moved with her family from Wales to Australia in 1966. She was elected to Parliament in 1998, appointed Minister for Health in 2003, and became deputy to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in 2007. When Rudd’s popularity waned, Gillard challenged his leadership, ousted him as party leader in June, and then prevailed in a general election in August.

So, why was an overt atheist able to win in Australia, but presumably could not in the United States? Here are some indicators:

A smaller percentage of Australians (64) than Americans (about 80) identify themselves as Christians. A substantially higher percentage of Australians say they have “no religion” or declined to identify their religious affiliation (31 versus 16). More significantly, about 7.5 percent of Australians attend church each week, compared with 40 percent of Americans. In many ways, Australia is more secular than America.

Moreover, while affirming that she is an atheist, Gillard frequently declared that she greatly respected the work of religious groups and is “a big supporter” of various church efforts.

Rather than unanimously opposing Gillard, the religious community in Australia was divided. Some religious leaders professed respect for Gillard’s candor about her worldview, liked her personally, and supported her policies. Many Christians as well as the Australian Christian Lobby were more alarmed about the policies of the Green Party, especially its support of euthanasia and gay marriage, than Gillard’s atheism.

Christian leaders in Australia expressed different opinions about Gillard’s atheism. A Catholic archbishop claimed it would cost her votes, declaring: “Many Christians are concerned that someone who does not believe in God may not endorse the Christian traditions of respect for human life, for the sanctity of marriage and the independence of churches, church schools and church social welfare agencies.” Anglican Archbishop Roger Herft countered that any statements which portray the Christian faith as being “the sole arbiter on matters of moral integrity and just policy-making are unhelpful and untrue.”

Pastor Danny Nalliah of Catch the Fire Ministries urged Australians not to vote for Gillard because “she is an atheist, and she refused to take an oath on the Bible.” However, fellow Pentecostal leader Mark Conner, pastor of Melbourne’s biggest church, CityLife, professed to be unconcerned about Gillard’s atheism.

Finally, Gillard’s Labor Party won only 38 percent of the vote in a multi-party election and had to form a coalition to govern. In the United States, presidential candidates typically need at least 51 percent of the popular vote to gain enough electoral votes to be elected.

Despite what happened “down under,” do not expect an overt atheist to become president of the United States any time soon. While the new atheists, led by Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, have become more outspoken in the United States, it appears that too many Americans would refuse to vote for such a candidate.