Sass, are you saying that the atheists are affected by religion more that a Christian? Wow...

I would think that the atheists would be basing their vote more on fact.

Who is being more discriminatory?

No, just pointing out an interesting coincidence.

It's not a matter of discrimination anyway. I have rationally based reasons for being suspicious of certain faiths, which I've alreadt set out a couple of times here and in other threads. You can feel free to disagree with my reasoning, but I don't think you can fairly say that I'm being prejudiced.

Don't most religions have their "crazy beliefs", whether it is that the animals were saved by hanging out in a boat in pairs until the flood waters receded, that a woman gave birth to the son of G-d through immaculate conception, or that every word in a sacred book was actually said by a prophet? It's interesting that believing that those things happened between 1300 and 5500 years ago and were passed down correctly is more reasonable to us than believing that other impossible things happened about 200 years ago, which must be the work of a fraudster. That all makes sense, except that occam's razor would suggest that all of these things are equally preposterous. Just thinking aloud -- I don't mean to offend anyone.

Well yes, that's clearly true. I can't quite explain why it is that I have more scorn for adherents of the more recent nonsense faiths than I do for the older, more estabished ones. It's possibly just the plain fact that we have recent documentary evidence in great abundance to show that the likes of Smith and Hubbard were con artists, which isn't really the case when you start talking about Jesus or Mohammed.

But I never said I wouldn't ever vote for a Mormon. I certainly wouldn't vote for a Scientologist but I might consider voting for a Mormon if he were a better candidate than the alternative, I just have significant doubts about their capacity for reason based on the willing suspension of disbelief that's required to practice their faith, which I'd argue goes above and beyond what you need to believe in other faiths.

But what do I know about such things, I'm an atheist...

Not sure it matters who it is that's bothered, frankly. And as a third atheist, I'll say right now that I don't care which candidate in an election is more 'Christian' (or Muslim, or Hindu or godless), because it will come down to them as a whole and what their policies and positions are.

I don't actually agree that Christians all have the same political views (not even on social issues like abortion or the death penalty), although I do recognise that many will ascribe their positions to their beliefs. Even so, I don't worrry so much about why someone has a view, so much as what that view is and what they intend to do with it.

And not being a Christian, I don't really care for tests of how 'Christian' Obama or Romney are. Even if you think Mormonism somehow more risible than other religions, it's not something I want to get into a debate about (pretty much all religions started off as cults built around pretty remarkable/fantastic claims.

Sassenach wrote:

the LDS Church is more comprehensive than any Christian church I've ever attended. There is almost something to do (or somewhere to go, or a program for your family on Monday night) every day. The result is that it is a cultural identification more deeply held than most religions.

This is why I said I'd have been more concerned about Romney if he was a convert to the faith. I get that Mormons have a strong cultural attachment to the church and may not necessarily buy into all the wacky beliefs.

Of course, Scientologists are pretty close-knit as well....

Yes, but Scientology is the Hotel California: check in anytime you like, but you can never leave.

I've probably interacted with more Scientologists than most people (used to serve them with lawsuits, which took a very long time, no surprise). They are bizarre compared to your average Mormon.