[Colofornian]

You know as well as I do those Colorado City polygamists are a tiny minority and are not accepted by the mainstream LDS churches. The threat of polygamy being established in the U.S. is much greater from the gay rights and polyamory people than those nutburgers. So, since Jim Jones professed to be a Christian, are you going to refuse to vote for Christian candidates?

Okay, you're losing the train of thought here as to why we went down this conversational road to begin with. My point was never, "evaluate every group out there on the basis of the worst-case member of that group." Refocus here.

I didn't bring up fundamentalist polygamists to imply they are either mainstream LDS or that they are accepted by mainstream LDS. In fact, I brought them up to show exactly the opposite.

Let me retred the ground for you: You said pro-life atheists aren't likely, implying a straw man argument on my part. I said there are some, just like even tho LDS polygamists aren't likely, there are some.

The Village Voice, a leftist-slanted paper, has a vocal pro-life writer. (Tho I'm not sure what his religious affiliation is). Do you think the fact that pro-life atheists, albeit that they are to use your words "a tiny minority" exist, do you think they are "accepted by the mainstream" atheists? No. Just because I point out their presence doesn't mean I think they are representative.

Likewise do you think if the 20+% of homosexuals who voted for Bush came out of the closet and admitted they did so, do you think that would be "accepted by the mainstream" homosexual activists? (No way) So am I trying to build a case that it is representative of homosexuals? No way.

So do I think Jim Jones is representative of Christianity? No. But that wasn't my original point.

So let's get back to it and stop shooting off into rabbit trails because you don't want to answer the consistency question: Are you saying that if, let's say, a pro-life Village Voice religiousless writer matched the most number of "hits" that aligned with your set of ideals in a candidate, his religiousless is totally irrelevant to you?

[colorado tanker]

So let's get back to it and stop shooting off into rabbit trails because you don't want to answer the consistency question: Are you saying that if, let's say, a pro-life Village Voice religiousless writer matched the most number of "hits" that aligned with your set of ideals in a candidate, his religiousless is totally irrelevant to you?

I would also want to know if he agrees with the Declaration of Independence that our rights are granted by God and are inalienable.

If an atheist agreed with that and was pro-life and generally agreed with my other conservative values, then yes, I would be willing to vote for him. Not a likely scenario, but I would.