In his article, "Americans are Right to Resist an Atheist as President," Michael Medved makes what I believe to be a less than compelling case that no matter how competent an atheist may be, electing an atheist would not be in the best interests of America.
He maintains that "actually, there’s little chance that atheists will succeed in placing one of their own in the White House at any time in the foreseeable future, and it continues to make powerful sense for voters to shun potential presidents who deny the existence of God. An atheist may be a good person, a good politician, a good family man (or woman), and even a good patriot, but a publicly proclaimed non-believer as president would, for three reasons, be bad for the country."
The three reasons he mentions are:
1.Hollowness and Hypocrisy at state functions
2.Disconnecting from the people
3.Winning the War on Islamo-Nazism
If you are of the open-minded variety, please take a look at the article by Googling the title, and see if you think his arguments have any merit.
As for me, as many people do, I think that Mr. Medved is way off course in confusing the fact that atheism is not a movement but rather is a philosophy that is derived at by many individuals. There is no "one of their own."
If one's religion whatever it may be should not disqualify one from being president, neither should one's philosophy. Remember, good or bad, politicians are politicians no matter what their belief system!
