Sure, this is not 1945, not even 1989, when Christianity was accepted as the dominant way of life in the US and in the rest of the West by the majority of their residents, irrespective of their identities. The same does not hold any longer and now many people want to contest dominance of White Christians in the US. This is becoming a global trend. People of all identities now assert their contributions, they remind political elites that they are taxpayers too, they want their due share from the governments in the US and also want their due acknowledgement in American society.
But in any case, promoting atheism is not a good thing for any American administration, for whatever reasons. It should better leave it to the public to follow their beliefs and ideologies in whatever way they want. It should also not poke its nose into religious lives of the Americans. Let the private, individualistic and solipsistic hands of market operate. But despite of all objections, the US President should be a theist, a Christian and a straight person as well and he and she should state his and her beliefs clearly and frankly in public. Just because a Western head of state expresses his and her religiosity in public does not mean that he and she is offending others' beliefs. This is most certainly true about the US President.
The rest of the West follows lead from the US and there is almost a competition among almost all political parties, including among many political Right, except with the exception of those on the extremes, in the rest of the West to make non-Christians and non-Whites more and more vocal. The same is true about vocalism of LGBT community, non-Whites, females and underprivileged people. The more general trend in many parts of the West is to support minorities having radical or minimally extra-liberal views until they become a majority and thereafter assert the victory of this ?newfound? majority.
Such leads to diffusive behavior all around the nations affecting many lives all around the world, including those of conservative Muslims of the Arab world. This is a great way to induce changes in the world, otherwise not possible. In this way Westerners remain least affected. Economics can affect religiosity as well. One day the elections in the West could be fought over issues about the subsidies, affirmative actions and alternative sexuality, the parties would promise to public, and to say the very least the rest of the world would not remain unaffected by those policies.
But the life of Christians in the non-Western but Christian dominated societies is no less worse. They are fighting for their economic betterment and improvement in their social and political lives as in the case of Latin America and many African states. While they are more traditionalists but still are changing with almost the same rate as the Westerners are doing. Homosexuality and abortion are getting more accepted all over the Christian world. Russians are people with hybrid beliefs with lessening of the governments' role in public's social and religious lives with time and I think that cultural revivalism rooted in deep religiosity would strike back along with ultra-nationalism there.
Now let?s come to places where Christians are minorities. In Islamic world there is a contest between liberals and Islamists. Many local Christians are victims of this increasingly popular, vocal and powerful version of Islam. This is true of Druze Christians in Syria as well as Coptic Christians in Egypt. But to tell the truth Christians are good minority along with believers of Indic religions.
In India, Christians are usually at peace with the Hindu majority and they have virtually no conflict with other religious minorities. In China, Christianity faces some persecution in the hands of local and national authorities. But by the next decade or so China would have to agree for granting more rights for minorities and Christians as a quid pro quo arrangement with dissenters to calm down protests and opposition to its official one party rule. In Buddhism-dominated East Asia and North Asia, Christianity may be a fashion.
The fact is that Christians all over the world, be they majority or minority, are more liberal and more secular people than people of other religions in the similar positions. True, on one extreme this is only hypothetical because no religious grouping anywhere in the world can compare themselves with vitality and innovative ability of the Western Christians, particularly those of the American Christians. It needs to be added that race matters more than religion and this is true about all races and religions.
I don?t think that minority Christians deserves persecution in the hands of local majority as they are good nationals and contributors to the cause of their nations too. But then Republicans need to follow a more rational policy over the status of Christians where they are minorities. The fact is that sooner but rather than later all, including the conservatives in the US, would have to accept the rule by majority and rights of the minorities would have to be negotiated within a narrower domain, keeping in view this reality. Many new international treaties then would be written and many existing ones would be reviewed and renegotiated.
As a matte of fact consistency should be considered a property of big minds and when people of all identities can dominate the national scene and assert their identity too then so should be the case with American Christians. I keep the opinion that Christians can easily follow their traditions and express their religious views in public without suppressing or offending anyone and this is particularly true about American Christians. Therefore, theism should spread in the US but then it is other way round. May be this is a defense mechanism against uncertain political and economic situation in the rest of the world.
The fact is that power, influence and richness do and should make individuals more resilient and more accommodating but still no body should expect American Christians, particularly Whites among them, to be more tolerant than what they can be. The laws of distributions apply on each and every society in the world and therefore, the same applies to the US as well.