Many scientists are atheists or at the very least not strictly religious. It seems that you currently have to believe in God to be elected. Is this keeping many of them from even running?
Some states forbid Atheists from holding public office. Looking at current supreme court decisions where they differ everything back to state, these laws may stand if challenged. Only thing that has precedent is forcing religious tests, you can't force people take an oath as requirement for the spot.
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina Article 6, Section 8:
The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Just ... wow. Whatever your religious stance, the United States rests on a continent that was colonized with flight from religious persecution as one of its FOUNDING reasons. I'm surprised that such requirements are listed, period. It seems like they danced around http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause with their wording by simply declaring an entire binding philosophy of people [a]theist and [a]gnostic (where the letter in []'s is optional). Wow.
It makes some sense. America was founded on the belief that we (or at that time at least white, male property owners) were endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. It was only by appealing to a greater power that we could essentially describe human rights and the need for limited government and individual liberty.
The last study on this I read said that only 20% of scientists believe that science and religion are in constant conflict with each other. So the pool is not as small as you might think, if that is your requirement.
Even if it's true that only 20% of scientists believe that science and religion are in constant conflict (citation?), it does not follow that the remaining 80% believe in a supernatural overlord or are members of any mainstream cult.
The second link indicates that the study found out that about half of those scientists surveyed express a religious identity, yet only 15% say they are always in conflict. My guess is most of those in the middle count themselves as 'deists'.
I never stated the viability of the entire thing, just that many scientists do consider themselves religious, regardless of compatibility. I personally don't think they are completely compatible unless you are looking at your religion as more of a cultural identity than a book of 'truths', or if you are Buddhist (http://tricycleblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/einsteins-quote...).
And scientists aren't very good liars. If you could science your way through a campaign then there would be more scientists going for it, but unfortunately that doesn't work.
You know what else scientists aren't? A group that can be generalized about that easily. Are you seriously willing to put forth scientists 'can tell no lies'? Do you have any evidence to support this generalization?
As an earlier poster has said, being a scientist doesn't make you any less human and subject to everything that goes along with that - emotions, irrationality, ego, and so on.
"not good liars" does not mean "can tell no lies"; in this case it means "has not had years of professional training and experience in debating/argument tactics and how to manipulate irrational audiences".
Heh. I did, actually. :) That's why I added the "irrational audiences" bit; an academic environment does train you to argue and debate effectively, but with other academically-minded, vaguely rational people. Playing politics with a broader audience requires two related skills that communicating in an academic require doesn't require as often or as strongly: communicating with people who have a much larger inferential distance from you (http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Inferential_distance), and dealing with people who don't subscribe to logic at all.
