Recent announcements and actions by Zuck suggest that he's going to run for office one day.

1) Reveals he is no longer an atheist (http://nypost.com/2017/01/02/mark-zuckerberg-reveals-hes-no-...) 2) 2017 New Years goal to meet people in every 50 state (http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-personal-goal...)

etc.

It suggests he may be Buddhist. You can't really use a religion other than Christianity if you're pandering to Americans.

No atheists really are the worst. (Perhaps it would be better to say they would be considered the worst by the stereotypical stereotypical American?)

I, for one, would not put limits on the ability of politicians to pander in ways that I would find implausible.

But in the case of religion (even Buddhism), I find it plausible. Demographics and expectations about religion are changing. Religious belief and alignment does appear to be softening. See: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-...

More broadly, I think the models of cognitive dissonance and tribal behavior are sometimes more important than arbitrary labels. If enough voters feel comfortable with a candidate (on their own terms) they can dismiss any number of externally-imposed labels about their candidate.

Offering an anecdote with as little commentary as possible, but having gone to a small religious high school, I have friends who argue they'd "never vote for anyone who isn't Christian" but managed to do some mental gymnastics in order to vote for Romney, who during the primaries they seemed to oppose for being Mormon.

Now I feel ignorant, Mormonism doesn't count as a sect of Christianity?

There's a fairly common standard among mainstream Christian groups as to what constitutes the boundary of Christianity formed by adherence to certain understandings of foundational doctrines (basically encapsulated into the common Nicene and Apostle's Creed's.)

This is generally held to exclude (as I recall), for different (though overlapping) reasons, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians, among others groups that describe themselves as Christian. (In contexts where the definition in question is being used, these and similarly situated groups may be referred to as "pseudo-Christian cults".)

This definition isn't consistently important outside of academic theological contexts within the body of mainstream Christianity, though, as lots of regular believers use either a much broader definition in daily conversation, or a narrower one that amounts to agreement with the particular religious beliefs of the individual in question.

Particularly, in US political contexts, political groups organized around politically conservative policies justified by appeals to Christianity have very often sought to appeal across traditional theological boundaries to reach politically-significant populations, and this is absolutely the case with trying to draw in LDS members; so, in terms of conservative political Christianity, Mormons are usually accepted, even if there is an academic theological standard which holds them as distinct from Christianity.

Politicians in the US are mostly either Catholic and Protestant.

Jehovah Witness and Seventh Day Adventists are the same thing. Mormons along with Jehovah Witness are Restorationists so neither Catholic or Protestant.

Mitt Romney who ran against Barack Obama in 2008 was Mormon. There have only been 8 Mormons who have run for President in the history of the US. Mitt and his father were 2 of that only 8.

Bernie Sanders was the first Jewish candidate to win a Presidential Primary.

The US has never had President who wasn't either Catholic or Protestant. This article gives an interesting look:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/12/almost-all-u...

Thank you for the detailed response!

There was a fair bit of established orthodox doctrine laid down between 100-400 CE. Christian groups that follow this are generally considered Christian by each by each other. Mormonism deviates significantly from orthodox doctrine, so it is considered a heretical sect by Christians.

For analogy, comparing Mormonism to Christianity is sort of like comparing Chrome to Konqueror.

I see this as baby steps... he knows that being an atheist is a non-starter, politically. Better something than nothing. Watch him get more religious and move towards Judaism/Christianity as we get closer to 2020 :)

Exactly this. If you are already atheist, and people know about it, it is more tenable politically to convert to any religion that exists than to remain atheist. This includes religions that practice human sacrifice. And if you think that is too insane to be true, please remember what country we are talking about, here.

That said, there are some religions that are compatible with atheism, which wouldn't necessarily be recognized by the public as a religion that could have atheists in it, or would at least provide plausible deniability if you are smart enough to keep your mouth shut about religion on the campaign trail.

Unitarianism, obviously, is one of these. If I were ever to run for office, I would simply join a UU assembly and leave it at that. This would probably restrict me to running as a Democrat, though. If I wanted to run as a Republican, I would have to be more careful, and say "I was baptized in the Methodist church".

If Zuckerberg wants to give it a go as a Buddhist, secular Buddhism exists, and certainly no one on the west coast would bat an eye at it, but the other regions of the country would probably either have a problem with the religion itself, or that Zuckerberg would be practicing it as a white guy.

Looks like he's alluding to religion being a powerful tool to use.

Zuckerberg wouldn't be the first atheist to become more religious after getting married and having a child.

There is speculation based on how he structured facebook's stock as well as his new years resolution, to travel all over the US and talk to people about the issues they care about. It is the sort of step that someone would make before running for political office.

And don't forget the announcement where he said he's no longer an atheist and religion is important.

This[1] article from December points to a lawsuit reported by Bloomberg allegging that Marc Andreessen helped Zuckerberg push a measure through a special committee of shareholders that would allow him to maintain "voting control of the company, even if he sells most of his stock".

[1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/09/mark-zuckerberg-may-be-eyeing...

I suspect a lot of rich people have eschewed politics out of several concerns, including whether certain aspects of their personal history, business history, or business holdings nullify their chances of being elected.

It's pretty clear that the Trump election has changed the calculus quite a bit in this regard. I expect to see more celebrity candidates going forward, at least in the near term.