Reality-based? Sez you! Why do you get to decide reality for all the people who hew to a religion? Call it “magic” if you like, but does your reality explain all aspects of the observable universe? Can it define consciousness, life, truth, or love?

As for your second question, you can’t elect representatives who mirror every conceivable subgroup of a society. We need athiests to represent athiests? Fine. Does a fair representative government also need baseball fans, gourmet cooks, amateur treasure hunters, left-handers, trombonists, and lobster boat captains?

Because magic, incantations, and spells have no place in a reality based society. As long as they believe in magic, how can they fairly represent people who do not?

If you want to say that magic is important to the conduct of politics, the First Amendment gives you that right.

I would like to move our country out of the Dark Ages some time in my lifetime. Is there a single subject that has caused more deaths than religion?

Why? Doesn’t the First Amendment say that religion is not to be an aspect of government?

I made a post in the forum, since this discussion would be better placed there.

Why? What difference does it make to you? You don’t believe in either one, so why waste time?

Not a popular concept in any part of the blogosphere I inhabit. You should get out more.

Well, we’re not talking about the blogosphere. We’re talking about atheists that want to run for public office and it is a popular concept in mainstream America. Cripes, I saw a few people get snippy about a local mayoral candidate because he referred to a small yappy dog as a ‘rat dog.’

And I don’t. How do we resolve this?

Why do you need it resolved? Why do you care so much that a person who represents you believes in God, Buddha or little green men from Mars? The question is, are they representing you well?

I see. As an atheist I have no right to cast aspersions on the beliefs of those casting aspersions toward me and everyone else whose form of worship does not exactly match theirs.

No, that’s not the case. The purpose of representative government is for all constituents to be represented. I find it just as repugnant for those who believe in God in one form or another to disparage those who do not believe or believe in a God different from theirs.

Bingo, and many don’t even compartmentalize morals and ethics into religious and secular spheres. Don’t believe in God? Oh, you must not have morals or ethics, because all morals and ethics come from religion.

I think it’s because most folks don’t compartmentalize their morals and ethics into public and private spheres. Religious conservatives certainly don’t–the drive to apply theology in public life is the animating force behind the movement.

Democrats have been painfully slow to counter religious conservatism on either level. They won’t say that religion has no place in public life, yet they’re reluctant to challenge the conservative brand of Christianity.

Where the heck are all the MLK Christians?

What I don’t get is why those beliefs determine how a person should vote. Why should it even matter in a secular government?

I may be “casting aspersions,” but I am not running for office.

I would expect an atheist candidate to ignore the subject of religion, and if asked, to say that according to the First Amendment religion is unimportant to the conduct of any public office and therefore not worthy of discussion. Then I would expect the candidate to ask whether the inquisitor had any substantial questions.

Perhaps there is no difference at all.

Personally, I know people who preactice each of these things–and I’d bet that someone among my acquaintances actually does both.

Before we dive down the rabbit hole of speculating about the nature of reality, the universe, consciousness, and the Diety, let’s finish the point at hand–the country is filled with voters who hold some form of religious belief, and they hold those beliefs dearly. Any candidate who derides those beliefs will receive a frosty reception on election day.

An atheist candidate who makes disparaging remarks about the religious is not likely to win, much for the same reasons why candidates largely try not to offend any significant voting bloc (that’s also why the GOP strategy to attack Hispanics will backfire).

Indulge me. Describe the difference, since apparently you believe there is one.

It has to do with concept that we were taught as children: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything.”

Not a popular concept in any part of the blogosphere I inhabit. You should get out more.

Whether you don’t believe there is a difference between casting spells and praying, doesn’t mean anything. Other people do believe there is a difference.

And I don’t. How do we resolve this?

As long as atheists such as yourself continue to speak condescendingly about others, then you’ll never realize your dream of getting an atheist into a major office.

I see. As an atheist I have no right to cast aspersions on the beliefs of those casting aspersions toward me and everyone else whose form of worship does not exactly match theirs.

This argument would be laughable if it were not taken so seriously by so many.

I think not. And so it’s a lose-lose situation for that atheist candidate. Which is why their tactics won’t ever matter until society in that district or state decides that their atheism isn’t relevant. (Hell, it’s the same reason that Keith Ellison’s victory was such a big deal…society in his area had finally agreed that being a viable candidate didn’t require him to be Christian or Jewish.)

It has nothing to do with explaining the difference between a spell and a prayer.

It has to do with concept that we were taught as children: “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything.”

Whether you don’t believe there is a difference between casting spells and praying, doesn’t mean anything. Other people do believe there is a difference. As long as atheists such as yourself continue to speak condescendingly about others, then you’ll never realize your dream of getting an atheist into a major office.

Help me out then. What is the difference between prayer and casting a spell?

I think that to you a “spell” would be a prayer to a god you don’t believe in, which is exactly what it is to me.

Keep in mind that their positions are far more ideological than they are political. For the record, Scalia is probably the conservative I’d most like to have dinner with.

There’s good reason to believe that political opposites really aren’t friends, or at least shouldn’t be. If a politician I supported told me that he or she is good friends with the same politician calling her supporters traitors and patsies for Osama bin Laden, I’d probably distrust the judgment of that politician. If you actually believe it, you’re a sleazeball who needs to be opposed. If you don’t believe it, you’re a liar and shouldn’t be rewarded with good company in private by saying, “oh, this is all in good fun. it’s just politics.”

But as for your comment about Edwards, yes, you’re right. The Senate Prayer Breakfast is by far the least ideological activity of the Fellowship, though it still tends to be very minority Democrat. Real fellow travelers, tho, don’t just go to the Senate breakfast; they meet separately with smaller cells (their word, not mine) of like-minded folks. Hillary had such a cell at one point, as we write. Edwards, to the best of my knowledge, didn’t. I’ve never spoken to Edwards, but I asked Bob Moser, who wrote a great profile of him for The Nation, about those religious connections. In Edwards’ case, he said, it really was just politics — which is fine.