Forest for the freakin' trees...
My point was that YOUR RESPONSE centered on a claim of "valid" and "They are completely free to vote for any reason they want, including religion."
The obvious recognition is that you are trying to focus on legality, which is a red herring.
The point has nothing to do with illegality.
It has to do with recognizing prejudice.

Too often you respond with vague truisms that ignore the facts.
Sure. All people effectively discriminate when they vote.
Does that make any form of voting discrimination morally okay?
The answer is no.

If a person were to say they would vote only for white candidates, your reply above would be a possible reply from the racist.
If a person were to say they would vote only for a man, your reply above would be a possible reply from the misogynist.
But you don’t want to admit that refusing to vote for an atheist is not prejudiced…
Of course not. People who are prejudiced rarely admit to their prejudice.

And the racist and misogynist feels that whites and men are best for the country!
This isn’t rocket science.
You are saying NOTHING which excludes a simple recognition of prejudice.
Instead, you are trying to DEFEND the prejudice…

In your own way, you demonstrate PRECISELY the type of prejudice you whine about regarding the “anti-theists”, but you refuse to admit to your own reflection.

Joe, you are so funny at times.
I deny saying things I NEVER SAID.
I don’t deny saying things I ACTUALLY SAID.
See the difference there???

As for the prejudice, the evidence is there in the description itself.
It’s just that you will recognize that in comparable scenarios (whites only or men only) that the prejudice is obvious.
But when it comes to YOUR favored prejudice, you refuse to admit to it.

I can prove the point further and hang you with your own words. We’ve been down this path before…
The scenario stipulates that the candidate is generally well qualified.
Can you explain what, INHERENTLY, the Christian candidate will do that the atheist candidate cannot do whereby you will refuse to vote for the atheist BASED SOLELY on the fact that he is atheist…

As always, you never seem to learn that the victims of prejudice are not being prejudice when they refuse to be a doormat for the prejudice…

In MY scenario, THERE IS NO VICTIMIZATION. The ONLY thing we know about the candidate is that he is atheist, and based SOLELY on that you refuse to vote.
In YOUR scenario, you complain that I will vote based on a POLITICAL position (gay-related issue). For example, you would be trying to declare me as prejudiced if I refuse to vote for somebody who wants to make sodomy illegal.
The fact that I had to explain that just now should be embarrassing to you…

And by your logic, when the white man refuses to vote for the black man or the woman, those white male candidates better represent what the racist misogynist thinks is best for the country…
By your logic, NOBODY is a bigot when they vote for WHATEVER reason…

Joe, you never do.
In another thread, you claimed I was conceding because I didn’t respond to everything you said quick enough for you…
And now, you are hypocritically violating your own standard.
We BOTH know that you have cherry-picked what is convenient for you to tackle for as long as I have known you, so don’t try to pretend that it is my fault you can’t counter the arguments.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

Which you still haven't proven, after making the accusation.
Foundit, obviously in your upside-down worldview, apparently any rational opposition would be prejudice. Let me help you out and give you a hint on how to prove unjustified prejudice ... the test of unjustified prejudice is that of rationality or irrationality. There is nothing rational about opposing religion to the extent that the anti-theists who I call out do. There is nothing rational about YOU assuming by default that anyone who votes against an atheist is doing so out of prejudice. You see? Rationality is the KEY. If you actually took an HONEST look at some of the videos of Hitchens and Dawkins, it becomes very clear that they really ARE prejudiced. Which is ironic that you use the term for those who call out prejudice where it REALLY exists. Unlike you, I don't blithely use such a term, but reserve it for those for which it is clearly applicable.

The very fact that you think religious people voting for a religious person over an atheist is an example of prejudice is, in ITSELF an example of prejudice on your part. Only a bigot would think so narrowly as to not take values-based voting into consideration. IOW, you have no room to talk when it comes to prejudice, Foundit., because it's based on irrationality on your part. Furthermore, your pious moralistic grandstanding here whining about prejudice in VOTING is a non-starter. If you're going to accuse Christians of prejudice just because they don't vote for someone without their values (which is what is going on there), then either a.) you don't have a good understanding of religion, or b.) you don't have a good understanding of the way voting works in this country. Religion is IDEOLOGICAL. That's why your examples of black people or women don't fit. Issues-based voting is COMPLETELY valid, and frankly, your holier-than-thou attitude about it is full of it to begin with. Your prejudice of thinking it's prejudiced is YOUR problem--one of opinion and nothing more.

So use yer' noggin, Foundit. You'll find it'll work out better for ya and ya won't find yourself in these indefensible positions you keep getting yourself into.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

I've laid out my argument quite clearly.
You are now doing your best to avoid addressing what I ACTUALLY said...


This would be a perfect example of you lying.
I clearly laid out that POLITICAL differences are clear justifications in a POLITICAL vote.
Examples that are obvious signs of prejudice? Voting to exclude gender, racial, religious, sexual orientation, etc groups.


Show me any bigot who thinks his prejudice is irrational or unjustified...


EVERY bigot thinks their prejudice is rational / justified.
All you've done is present an obviously fatally flawed test that is so subjective that it's useless.

Furthermore, I can even use your own "rational" claim against you, although you'll never admit to it...
I have been asking you REPEATEDLY a question you continue to dodge...

Can you explain what, INHERENTLY, the Christian candidate will do that the atheist candidate cannot do whereby you will refuse to vote for the atheist BASED SOLELY on the fact that he is atheist…


And your decision on "rational" is entirely subjective, making it useless.


So another person being prejudiced somehow proves you aren't...
Talk about irrational.

Look. Don't try this stupid "change the subject" tactic cause you know it won't work.


And now you blindly label me as a bigot cause I disagree with you...
Again, irrational.


I already addressed this.
I don't know how you forget so easily arguments which you cowardly dodged previously...

RACISM / MISOGYNY ARE IDEALS... DUH!
So if a racist insists on only voting for a racist, that means (by your simple-minded explanation) that the racist is not being racist...

The true exposure of your flaw is in the question you refuse to answer.
Can you explain what, INHERENTLY, the Christian candidate will do that the atheist candidate cannot do whereby you will refuse to vote for the atheist BASED SOLELY on the fact that he is atheist…

It's the fact that you dismiss the atheist BASED SOLELY on the person being an atheist which is the problem.
YOU DO NOT EVEN BOTHER to listen to the person's political stance...

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

And THAT'S the assertion you haven't proven.
Religion ≠ racism/misogyny, yet you prejudicially insist on using those analogies. Those analogies presume a guilt that begs the question to begin with, and you are using malevolent examples to analogize something neutral or benign. Your usual presumption of guilt before innocence without RATIONAL cause.

If you were relying on reason, you wouldn't be taking a guilt-till-proven-innocent approach when most people simply vote according to the ISSUES that matter to them. It only makes sense that a religious leader is better going to understand and identify with the values of most people than an atheist (who rejects their beliefs). Again, this isn't rocket science, and believe it or not, bigotry isn't under every single rock, Foundit--especially bigotry as YOU seem to define it. (And again, you exemplify it yourself by your automatic presumption of guilt-of-prejudice toward voters on their reasons, since there is no RATIONAL reason for you to do that.)

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

You're confused on what the proper analogy would be.
Sometimes I think a good understanding of logic (even a basic such as Venn diagrams) would help eliminate a lot of people's irrational conservatism.
Of course Religion ≠ racism/misogyny.

It would be more accurate to recognize that discrimination based on religion is akin to discrimination based on race or gender.
Refusing to hire a Jew is just as bad as refusing to hire a black person.
Refusing to vote for an atheist is just as bad as refusing to vote for a black person.


First of all, you failed to grasp the true analogy.
Secondly, the guilt has already been documented in the first place. Refusing to vote for an atheist is the discrimination.
NOT being Christian.


The problem with your failure to understand the analogy IS YOU.
Being Christian DOES NOT automatically equate to discriminating in politics.
Not all Christians will discriminate in politics.

And "it only makes sense" to a racist that a person of their own color will appreciate their racial issues.

You make an assumption regarding a person who is not your religion automatically not having the same values.

I keep asking you a question you keep dodging...
Can you explain what, INHERENTLY, the Christian candidate will do that the atheist candidate cannot do whereby you will refuse to vote for the atheist BASED SOLELY on the fact that he is atheist…
The problem is that you dismiss the atheist without even looking to see what he stands for.


I have already well qualified how I define the discrimination / bigotry.
You refuse to address what I am actually saying.

By your definition, if a person refuses to hire a Jewish person, is that bigotry?
Your explanation would clearly apply to an employer who wants to hire a candidate who has the same values as he has...

If a person refuses to vote for a Jewish person, is that bigotry?
If a neo-nazi refuses to vote for a Jewish person, would you refuse to acknowledge that action is a sign of his bigotry?

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

I disagree--being Jewish is also an ETHNIC identity. Religion is simply an ideological position. That's why your analogy doesn't work.

It's an irrelevant question. But I'll bite anyway ... a religious leader can identify with the needs and views of most of the country better than atheist in terms of religion.

Of course, but being Jewish is often an ethnic identity. IOW, a person can identify as Jewish but not even BE religious. There's a guy on 4Forums right now that identifies as Jewish but is agnostic. So I think you might want to consider rethinking that analogy.

The point of all this is that you shouldn't assume bigotry just because religious people aren't as likely to vote for someone who doesn't even believe in God. This is someone waaaay outsold their ideological framework. Would you consider it bigotry if someone refused to vote for someone who was on record saying patriotism is a bad thing?

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

Jewish CAN BE an ethnic identity.
And your dodge was predicted, and now noted.


As is often the case, you DO NOT answer the question.
You say a religious leader CAN IDENTIFY.
CAN being the operative term.
I asked "the Christian candidate will do that the atheist candidate cannot do"
You haven't given anything that the atheist candidate cannot do...

The problem is that you DO NOT EVEN LOOK to see if the politician involved will meed the needs / views of most of the country.

And as I pointed out earlier, if those "views" involve favoring Christianity, then you are no better than the "anti-theists" you complain about.


QUIT trying to move the goal-posts.
The issue isn't "aren't as likely".
The poll question gave a generally well qualified candidate from the person's own political party, and asked if that person would be excluded SOLELY based on one factor.

Calling it "aren't as likely" is like saying that sun "isn't as likely" to rise in the west.


You have got to be freakin' kidding me with that question...

patriot: A person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.

Ergo, CLEARLY A POLITICAL issue.

__________________
"Try to become not a man of success, but try rather to become a man of value."
Albert Einstein

It wasn't that it was "dodged", it's that your question is pointless. You're trying to compare apples and oranges since Jewish people are often an ethic group.

If you can prove these religious people are operating out of bigotry, go right ahead. It's your burden of proof since you're making the accusation. But you haven't so far, that's for sure. So far you're just asking meaningless questions rather than giving proof to your assertion. (No surprise there.) Stop asking stupid questions and pony up and prove your case for once.

Prove it. Prove all these people are just operating out of prejudice when they don't vote for atheists rather than doing what they think is better for the country. For once, PROVE YOUR CLAIM. Not ask more pointless questions but prove something, for once.

It's a silly assumption for you to make. If they believe a religious person can better identify with needs of the country, why should they NOT vote for them?

I wasn't answering the poll question, but rather YOUR question. Foundit, one thing you have never seemed to understand is that the reason people often don't bother answering your questions is that you pull junk like this and it often turns out your questions aren't honest ones to begin with. You ask a question with a very narrow acceptance of what the answer should be and are close-minded to the fact that you aren't asking the RIGHT QUESTIONS to begin with. The "goalposts" shouldn't be the assumption-of-prejudice-by-default, to begin with. That's nobody's schtick but YOURS.

Yep, an ideological one rather than one of innateness of ethnic/racial identity (the only comparisons you insist on using). That's why it applies. Of course, you hypocritically didn't answer MY question, yet you constantly berate for not having you OWN answered.

__________________
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand???

I am agnostic and look at it like this; if there is a Bible there, I do not read it. Why do I care? What is next, saying that the US Army can not have chaplains?

__________________
"In Honor There Is Hope"

Canada born, Georgia raised.

The deal is that the military has as much business providing bibles as they do providing Superman comic books. If a prvate organization wants to do it thta is fine. Should the military provide preachers of every faith? I mean think about it. Is there a Cherokee medicine man? Or do you only cover the most popular religions?

__________________
Truth, Justice and the American way