[PhilipBartew]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
You still don't understand what you're talking about, sadly. I'm just responding to your ignorant quote:
Are you kidding? Christianity is far less universal now than it was then.

Claiming that christianity is far less universal now then ever is plainly ignorant.
Unless of course you think that 'universal' means 'european'. But even in the middle ages people weren't as christian as people think they were.

Most of them were just christian because everybody was a christian. I doubt that the 'real' number of christians, who were it with full knowledge, was higher in those days then it is right now.

[AndreasLV]

Originally posted by Elok
Hahahahano. No freaking way. Surveys show that we in the USA would elect a gay man president before an atheist, and we're not even talking an outspoken atheist running on an "anti-religion platform," whatever that is. Someone actually conducted such a poll? ...........and lived?

[Texdolley]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
By contrast, at least two earlier periods saw powerful anti-Christian ideologies with some popularity in the US, including popularity among leading social figures. In the early Republic, there was a good degree of sympathy in some quarters for the goals and tenets of the French revolution, including its aggressive secularism. In the frist half of the 20th century, Communism (including American Communism). What quarter of society, or what influential group of elites in US society, is anti-religion today?

I can't speak for the first example, but you do recall what we did to the second, no? And the reaction the Christians had to those godless commies? Actually even before the French Revolution Deism, a rejection of the deity of Christ in favor of a nameless creator was moderately popular in the early days of the US. A number of the leading figures in the revolution, Franklin, Jefferson, Payne, were deists. After the revolution the Freemasons, which at that time were largely avowedly deist, became a growing influence in American society. In the 1820s and 1830s growing suspicion of the secret nature of the society, and some unsolved murders of its critics led to its decline until after the Civil War it resurfaced as no longer anti- (Protestant) christian.

[Z1IRo4Ap]

Simple answer to the OP is of course not, he or she would be crucified (figuratively, of course).

Hell, that comment would most likely cost the candidate MY vote, because AFAIK it has no basis.

-Arrian

[Theariwinna]

I generally prefer if their statements at least have some plausible basis.

But that's not all of it. How about:

Trolling the majority of registered voters is stupid for a politician and I don't like to elect stupid people.

-Arrian

[wizardasa]

edit: DanSed by Guy.

I'd appreciate the guts it would take to say such a thing, but if the guy was a raging looney on policies I care about... no thanks.

-Arrian

[Cengaeas]

Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?

[jobsfancy]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12
Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?

Oh yes, the poor persecuted evangelicals. My heart bleeds.

[mikajuise]

I feel like I should get some sort of distance education credit for winding my way through the various options in the poll.

I come to bury Jesus, not praise him. Still, sounds rather unfair to refer to him as a "Lie", "drunkard", or "evil racist imperialist". I'd challenge you to provide some sort of support for your statements if you were making them in a non-hypothetical way.

I personally make it a point to not support anyone running for office who is openly religious, but alas, there are many who take the opposite view, both here in the States and elsewhere.