Will God have a role in how you vote?

[falcon9]

Reality is proving itself on my facebook page, growing up Mormon, I have a lot of friends who remain in that faith (I do not) and are not shy about voting Romney in solely on his LDS religion.  To quote one of my fb Mormon friends "He is temple endowed, that means he is worthy and has my vote".  

Thank you for the ancedotal evidence of why church and state are constitutionally separated.

I guess the question could also be posed "would you re-elect Obama if it was proven he was a Muslim" as some claim...

www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp

[Abrupt]

The non religious bit was added later and more as a contrast to the religious (and being such it is still fits the bill of singling out based on religion).

How can contrasting a non-religious influence fit the bill of singling out a religion?  Are you implicitly suggesting that voting according to some religious belief is the same as voting without the contraints of such religious beliefs?

I did not say "contrasting a non-religous influence fit the bill of singling out a religion", so quit adding that extra 'a' that adds a totally different meaning to what I said (that is twice you have added that).  You need to stay focused.  The non religious bit was added as a juxtaposition to religious.  The word itself has no value without religion so it's usage always implies a direct comparison to religion.  I am saying that if you ask "did you vote in a religious fashion or a non religious fashion" that you cannot say that your question isn't being used to see if religion was used in their voting decision. 

There is an obvious (and flawed) point of view of the OP being that religious will vote republican through some ability to divine the will of God.  There is so much wrong about a conclusion like that, that the only thing one can deem from it is prejudiced person.

That does not follow; the way the thread's question is phrased leaves any respondants to answer "yes" or "no" without overtly considering 'divining the will' of any deities.  Your conclusion jumps the gun in estimating the intent of the question.  Although it does inherently presume that the voter either does or, does not believe in a "god", this doesn't necessarily influence the voting process.  Theoretically, a voter who believes in "god" can vote without that belief having any overt influence on their vote, (which is equivalent to a non-believer voting without a disbelief having any influence over their voting).

You need to go back and read again what he asked.  He asked "...because you feel God wants you to".  Do I need to explain what that question implies like I seemingly have to explain every other thing to your or can you comprehend it?

Considering that he has repeatedly accused me of being a racist and a homophobic because I believe in God I cannot really conclude anything else except that it is purely prejudicial against religion.

The irony of being "prejudiced" against someone who is prejudiced would be humorous were it not so prevalent.

I absolutely agree with you here.  Hate fueled prejudice is a terrible thing and it seems one of the easiest things to generate in people.  You even see that 'strange' anti type that actively defends those they are prejudice against (if you know what I mean), and that type always leaves me wondering.

[falcon9]

The non religious bit was added as a juxtaposition to religious.  The word itself has no value without religion so it's usage always implies a direct comparison to religion. 

Nominally correct however, the thread's question was not 'will _religion_ have a role in how you vote?'  To further distinguish between the terms, there are a variety of religions and 'gods' so, "religion" & "god" are not interchangeaable terms.

I am saying that if you ask "did you vote in a religious fashion or a non religious fashion" that you cannot say that your question isn't being used to see if religion was used in their voting decision. 

That wasn't how the question was phrased, despite your interpretation.

There is an obvious (and flawed) point of view of the OP being that religious will vote republican through some ability to divine the will of God.  There is so much wrong about a conclusion like that, that the only thing one can deem from it is prejudiced person.

That does not follow; the way the thread's question is phrased leaves any respondants to answer "yes" or "no" without overtly considering 'divining the will' of any deities.  Your conclusion jumps the gun in estimating the intent of the question.  Although it does inherently presume that the voter either does or, does not believe in a "god", this doesn't necessarily influence the voting process.  Theoretically, a voter who believes in "god" can vote without that belief having any overt influence on their vote, (which is equivalent to a non-believer voting without a disbelief having any influence over their voting).

You need to go back and read again what he asked. 

I mentioned the thread title's initial question, not subsequent questions within the thread.

He asked "...because you feel God wants you to".  Do I need to explain what that question implies like I seemingly have to explain every other thing to your or can you comprehend it?

I'd recommend against your attempting to be condescending from below however, how would be that be fun for me?  As for the question of whether or not some "god" has any particular political position or, whether such adherents do; is it necessary to explain the difference to you?

Considering that he has repeatedly accused me of being a racist and a homophobic because I believe in God I cannot really conclude anything else except that it is purely prejudicial against religion.

The irony of being "prejudiced" against someone who is prejudiced would be humorous were it not so prevalent.

I absolutely agree with you here.  Hate fueled prejudice is a terrible thing and it seems one of the easiest things to generate in people.  You even see that 'strange' anti type that actively defends those they are prejudice against (if you know what I mean), and that type always leaves me wondering.

[/quote]


What of the oftentimes overt, (let alone implicit), prejudice of religious adherents against those who aren't religious or, of differing religious beliefs?

[sigmapi1501]

I wanted to know a couple of things. It seems like Mitt will be the nominee.  Wanted to know if people would see voting for a mormon as a problem.  Maybe someone might put an issue such as same sex marriage as their number one factor. Abortion is a very big issue for some reason in presidential races. I wanted to see if that would be a factor in some people's vote.

[Abrupt]

The non religious bit was added as a juxtaposition to religious.  The word itself has no value without religion so it's usage always implies a direct comparison to religion. 

Nominally correct however, the thread's question was not 'will _religion_ have a role in how you vote?'  To further distinguish between the terms, there are a variety of religions and 'gods' so, "religion" & "god" are not interchangeaable terms.

Why must you consistently try to draw everything out as if trying to generate enough ambiguity to conceal your errors.  I am quite capable of going back and retracing the dialog.  Your attempt at trying to morph the contested point into oblivion will not have any success and only shows your stubbornness and arrogance. You posited that religion was not being singled out as a basis for making a decision about voting.  I challenged you on this as your position is indefensible as you have proven with your continuous attempts at mitigation.  Now you are trying to argue the appropriateness of the muddling of the terms 'religion' and 'god' as if that had any bearing at all on the matter -- which it doesn't.  If you are so bored to debate, then start a topic yourself as I am sure you would have no problem of coming up with many interesting topics.

I am saying that if you ask "did you vote in a religious fashion or a non religious fashion" that you cannot say that your question isn't being used to see if religion was used in their voting decision. 

That wasn't how the question was phrased, despite your interpretation.

What question?  Your question where you attempted to alter the meaning of my earlier statement?  I am quite confident about the original point of this and I know that since I made the statement that led to your challenge that it is quite certainly in line with the above quote of mine.

There is an obvious (and flawed) point of view of the OP being that religious will vote republican through some ability to divine the will of God.  There is so much wrong about a conclusion like that, that the only thing one can deem from it is prejudiced person.

That does not follow; the way the thread's question is phrased leaves any respondants to answer "yes" or "no" without overtly considering 'divining the will' of any deities.  Your conclusion jumps the gun in estimating the intent of the question.  Although it does inherently presume that the voter either does or, does not believe in a "god", this doesn't necessarily influence the voting process.  Theoretically, a voter who believes in "god" can vote without that belief having any overt influence on their vote, (which is equivalent to a non-believer voting without a disbelief having any influence over their voting).

You need to go back and read again what he asked. 

I mentioned the thread title's initial question, not subsequent questions within the thread.

"BUT, Are you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?" is the first question within the thread.  I know you cannot possibly be suggesting the ludicrous notion of using the title as anything other than a topic indicator.  Even if you do though, it doesn't change the accuracy of my statement and only manages to show the failures in your observation.

He asked "...because you feel God wants you to".  Do I need to explain what that question implies like I seemingly have to explain every other thing to your or can you comprehend it?

I'd recommend against your attempting to be condescending from below however, how would be that be fun for me?  As for the question of whether or not some "god" has any particular political position or, whether such adherents do; is it necessary to explain the difference to you?

Condescending?  Your arrogance and conceitedness are blatantly obvious here if you confuse frustrated annoyance with condescension.  To claim you are not condescending is ridiculous, as that is the mainstay of 90 percent of your posts.  You may not even be familiar with what the term means though from your incorrect identification of it in my post and your tacit denial of your use of it in your weakly veiled threat.  You don't need to explain anything to me, except why you made the statement preceding your offer to explain the difference as if it was a position put forth by me. 

[falcon9]

The thread's question was not 'will _religion_ have a role in how you vote?'  To further distinguish between the terms, there are a variety of religions and 'gods' so, "religion" & "god" are not interchangeable terms.

Why must you consistently try to draw everything out as if trying to generate enough ambiguity to conceal your errors.  

Nothing was 'drawn out' except for repeating the question posed as the thread title.  Your attempt to "morph" it into a different question, ('will RELIGION have a role in how you vote?'), initiated any ambiguity now extant.



 

I am saying that if you ask "did you vote in a religious fashion or a non religious fashion" that you cannot say that your question isn't being used to see if religion was used in their voting decision.

That wasn't how the question was phrased, despite your interpretation.

What question?

As reiterated several times now; the question as phrased in the thread title, (not the alternate version you posited, which has an alternate intent).

Your question where you attempted to alter the meaning of my earlier statement?

No, your alternate question, (replacing "god" with "religion"), in your lame attempt to shift context.  While shifting context often happens during the course of discussions, you've been fixated on trying to 'catch me in some error'.  Amusing as that is, the context-shifting is yours.


 

Are you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?" is the first question within the thread.

"Within the thread" - not the first question posed, (as in the title of this thread).  As for the secondary question mentioned; should it have been rephrased as, 'are you going to vote Democrat because satan wants you to?'

I know you cannot possibly be suggesting the ludicrous notion of using the title as anything other than a topic indicator.

For one thing, it isn't "ludicrous" just because you deemed it to be and especially not because a question in a thread title is often answered without any further context.  This means that the thread title is ofterntimes both the subject indicator and the content.

Even if you do though, it doesn't change the accuracy of my statement and only manages to show the failures in your observation.

Which statement are you referring to?  The one equating "god" and "religion" or, some other one related to non-religious decision-making processes?

He asked "...because you feel God wants you to".  Do I need to explain what that question implies like I seemingly have to explain every other thing to your or can you comprehend it?

I'd recommend against your attempting to be condescending from below however, how would be that be fun for me?  As for the question of whether or not some "god" has any particular political position or, whether such adherents do; is it necessary to explain the difference to you?

Condescending?  

No, an attempt, (as I stated).

[Abrupt]

Why must you consistently try to draw everything out as if trying to generate enough ambiguity to conceal your errors.  

Nothing was 'drawn out' except for repeating the question posed as the thread title.  Your attempt to "morph" it into a different question, ('will RELIGION have a role in how you vote?'), initiated any ambiguity now extant.

Now hold it a minute.  You were the one who brought up "a belief or, disbelief in various deities may have an effect on voting decisions" and I took it to the next natural level of "singling out religion".  Now you are foolishly trying to argue semantics and discard your statement and throw it all back at the title of the thread?  If you cannot keep track of the discussion you need to stay out of it, or limit yourself to simple yes and no answers.


 

What question?

As reiterated several times now; the question as phrased in the thread title, (not the alternate version you posited, which has an alternate intent).

You cannot qualify the title of a thread as being a restriction on discussion, especially when the original poster of the thread expands upon his statement/question indicated in the title.  Remind the readers what this "alternate version I posited" is...no, let me quote it here from the original post of the thread starter:

...
BUT, Are you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?  Please explain.

It is the only question he asked in his post and it is not nullified by the thread title, no matter how badly it hurts your ego to admit that.  Under your foolish idea he could have posted anything in his original post and made any comments and they would have to be entirely ignored and could not be commented on or replied to.  You are pursuing a completely ignorant path here with your persistence that only the title matters as to what can be discussed in a thread.  Your ego has you in a corner wearing a dunce cap.

Your question where you attempted to alter the meaning of my earlier statement?

No, your alternate question, (replacing "god" with "religion"), in your lame attempt to shift context.  While shifting context often happens during the course of discussions, you've been fixated on trying to 'catch me in some error'.  Amusing as that is, the context-shifting is yours.

I have illustrated this so called "lame attempt to shift context" that not surprisingly originated with you.  You may have already forgotten it and if so reread this post again from the top.  I am not fixated in catching you in anything.  I am quite simply pointing out your errors when you try to use them as a pick to chip at me.  Yes I find it very amusing that you consistently try to find fault in others for your tactics (not that it is unusual as one chooses the methods they are familiar with).

 

Are you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?" is the first question within the thread.

"Within the thread" - not the first question posed, (as in the title of this thread).  As for the secondary question mentioned; should it have been rephrased as, 'are you going to vote Democrat because satan wants you to?'

A title is never to be considered as any meat of a thread, and is only to be used to identify the topic.  Their are lazy sorts who try to simply use the title as a question but that is not proper format as it denies the direct quoting.  When one simply wants to ask a question and it can fit within the title the question should always to be restated within the original post.  A thread title can always be changed and this can obscure the thread flow discussion.  But once a post is quoted and replied to, the person can clearly show what they were replying to without it being lost.

Also, when someone asks a question and expands upon that question providing more detail about what they are asking or clarifying possible ambiguity, you cannot claim that their clarification or stipulation were to be ignored because they made a more generalized statement or query earlier in their post.

Additionally, because I am the one making a reply to a post of his pointing out his bias you cannot presume to tell me that I am only limited to what his thread title is for the purposes of what insight I gather about what he is proposing or asking.  Well I suppose you can do this, but will only look foolish and conceited for your efforts.

I know you cannot possibly be suggesting the ludicrous notion of using the title as anything other than a topic indicator.

For one thing, it isn't "ludicrous" just because you deemed it to be and especially not because a question in a thread title is often answered without any further context.  This means that the thread title is ofterntimes both the subject indicator and the content.

I have already mentioned the de facto standards and guidelines regarding thread posting earlier.  It is also rather simple of you to assume that a reply is to the title and not the original post.  According to your reasoning, a first post could never be replied to and must be entirely ignored. 

Even if you do though, it doesn't change the accuracy of my statement and only manages to show the failures in your observation.

Which statement are you referring to?  The one equating "god" and "religion" or, some other one related to non-religious decision-making processes?

You are the one questioning the statement I made, if you forgot what it is I suggest you go back and read again.

Condescending?  

No, an attempt, (as I stated).

You are suggesting that I wouldn't have the ability to be condescending to you, but honestly since you misidentified what I said as an 'attempt' to be condescending it demonstrates you really really don't understand the word.  Typical condescension is subtle explanation or patronage and the statement you considered for condescension doesn't even come close to qualifying and nobody familiar with the word would ever think it was.  Sarcasm is not condescension though.

[falcon9]

Now hold it a minute.  You were the one who brought up "a belief or, disbelief in various deities may have an effect on voting decisions" and I took it to the next natural level of "singling out religion".  Now you are foolishly trying to argue semantics ...

My subsequent reply was to your alteration of the thread title's question into singling out religion, (as opposed to the initial thread title question).  While "god" and "religion" are inherently related, they aren't the same thing and the distinction is not a matter of "semantics", no matter how you try conflating the terms.

 

What question?

As reiterated several times now; the question as phrased in the thread title, (not the alternate version you posited, which has an alternate intent).
[/quote]

You cannot qualify the title of a thread as being a restriction on discussion, especially when the original poster of the thread expands upon his statement/question indicated in the title. 

Reference to the thread title's question does not restrict a discussion, it merely indicates that this was the initial question raised for discussion and provides initial context.  That question was _not_ 'will religion have a role in how you vote?'  You are certainly free to bring up alternate questions and comments during the course of discussion, (even changing the question), however it remains that the initial question was altered and shifted from "god" to "religion" by you. 

You are pursuing a completely ignorant path here with your persistence that only the title matters as to what can be discussed in a thread. 

Since I haven't stated or implied that "only the thread title matters", (only that it was the initial question), your assertion is false. It is entirely possible to post a thread title and have subsequent responses go off on related or, unrelated tangents.  If someone posted, "do you like fruit?" and you replied 'why are you singling out oranges?', you'd have been shifting the initial context tangentially.


 

Are you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?" is the first question within the thread.

A title is never to be considered as any meat of a thread, and is only to be used to identify the topic. 

There are several threads in these forums which the title question is the operative "meat" and not merely an identifier of the thread.  This evidence, (which can be made available through message IDs), contradicts your assertion regarding consideration.

When one simply wants to ask a question and it can fit within the title the question should always to be restated within the original post. 

It was, ("Are you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?"), and it still didn't ask 'will you vote republican because you feel  a _religion_ wants you to?'

Also, when someone asks a question and expands upon that question providing more detail about what they are asking or clarifying possible ambiguity, you cannot claim that their clarification or stipulation were to be ignored because they made a more generalized statement or query earlier in their post.

Since I didn't claim any such thing, your comments are a non sequitur.  Further, the subsequent question expanded the initial question by asking whether "...you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?" and not ''will you vote republican because you feel a _religion_ wants you to?'

Additionally, because I am the one making a reply to a post of his pointing out his bias you cannot presume to tell me that I am only limited to what his thread title is for the purposes of what insight I gather about what he is proposing or asking. 

Your "insight" regarded evident discomfort about the bias of the subsequent question, (which specified "republican" but, still didn't mention "religion").  Had the question been "are you going to vote republican because you feel your religion wants you to?", that question would have a different emphasis, (e.g., voting for Romney because a voter is mormon, etc.).

I have already mentioned the de facto standards and guidelines regarding thread posting earlier. 

Your preferences are not de facto standards and guidelines.  I've already mentioned the existence of several threads which consist of a question posed in the title and the content being simply replies to the title question.  Reference message IDs remain available as evidence.

It is also rather simple of you to assume that a reply is to the title and not the original post.  According to your reasoning, a first post could never be replied to and must be entirely ignored. 

My comments contained no such "reasoning"; both the thread title question and the expanded version in the first post asked whether "god" affected voting, not "religion".  The distinction is made so as to not conflate the two.  There's a subtle difference between 'will satan have a role in how you vote?' and 'are you going to vote republican because a satanic religion wants you to?'

[Abrupt]

Now hold it a minute.  You were the one who brought up "a belief or, disbelief in various deities may have an effect on voting decisions" and I took it to the next natural level of "singling out religion".  Now you are foolishly trying to argue semantics ...

My subsequent reply was to your alteration of the thread title's question into singling out religion, (as opposed to the initial thread title question).  While "god" and "religion" are inherently related, they aren't the same thing and the distinction is not a matter of "semantics", no matter how you try conflating the terms.

 

What question?

As reiterated several times now; the question as phrased in the thread title, (not the alternate version you posited, which has an alternate intent).

You cannot qualify the title of a thread as being a restriction on discussion, especially when the original poster of the thread expands upon his statement/question indicated in the title. 

Reference to the thread title's question does not restrict a discussion, it merely indicates that this was the initial question raised for discussion and provides initial context.  That question was _not_ 'will religion have a role in how you vote?'  You are certainly free to bring up alternate questions and comments during the course of discussion, (even changing the question), however it remains that the initial question was altered and shifted from "god" to "religion" by you. 

You are pursuing a completely ignorant path here with your persistence that only the title matters as to what can be discussed in a thread. 

Since I haven't stated or implied that "only the thread title matters", (only that it was the initial question), your assertion is false. It is entirely possible to post a thread title and have subsequent responses go off on related or, unrelated tangents.  If someone posted, "do you like fruit?" and you replied 'why are you singling out oranges?', you'd have been shifting the initial context tangentially.


 

Are you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?" is the first question within the thread.

A title is never to be considered as any meat of a thread, and is only to be used to identify the topic. 

There are several threads in these forums which the title question is the operative "meat" and not merely an identifier of the thread.  This evidence, (which can be made available through message IDs), contradicts your assertion regarding consideration.

When one simply wants to ask a question and it can fit within the title the question should always to be restated within the original post. 

It was, ("Are you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?"), and it still didn't ask 'will you vote republican because you feel  a _religion_ wants you to?'

Also, when someone asks a question and expands upon that question providing more detail about what they are asking or clarifying possible ambiguity, you cannot claim that their clarification or stipulation were to be ignored because they made a more generalized statement or query earlier in their post.

Since I didn't claim any such thing, your comments are a non sequitur.  Further, the subsequent question expanded the initial question by asking whether "...you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?" and not ''will you vote republican because you feel a _religion_ wants you to?'

Additionally, because I am the one making a reply to a post of his pointing out his bias you cannot presume to tell me that I am only limited to what his thread title is for the purposes of what insight I gather about what he is proposing or asking. 

Your "insight" regarded evident discomfort about the bias of the subsequent question, (which specified "republican" but, still didn't mention "religion").  Had the question been "are you going to vote republican because you feel your religion wants you to?", that question would have a different emphasis, (e.g., voting for Romney because a voter is mormon, etc.).

I have already mentioned the de facto standards and guidelines regarding thread posting earlier. 

Your preferences are not de facto standards and guidelines.  I've already mentioned the existence of several threads which consist of a question posed in the title and the content being simply replies to the title question.  Reference message IDs remain available as evidence.

It is also rather simple of you to assume that a reply is to the title and not the original post.  According to your reasoning, a first post could never be replied to and must be entirely ignored. 

My comments contained no such "reasoning"; both the thread title question and the expanded version in the first post asked whether "god" affected voting, not "religion".  The distinction is made so as to not conflate the two.  There's a subtle difference between 'will satan have a role in how you vote?' and 'are you going to vote republican because a satanic religion wants you to?'

And still you persist with your obfuscation and attempts at tangential distractions.  Let me remind you again of what led you to start your insane focus on the thread title:

There is an obvious (and flawed) point of view of the OP being that religious will vote republican through some ability to divine the will of God.  There is so much wrong about a conclusion like that, that the only thing one can deem from it is prejudiced person.

That does not follow; the way the thread's question is phrased leaves any respondants to answer "yes" or "no" without overtly considering 'divining the will' of any deities.  Your conclusion jumps the gun in estimating the intent of the question.  Although it does inherently presume that the voter either does or, does not believe in a "god", this doesn't necessarily influence the voting process.  Theoretically, a voter who believes in "god" can vote without that belief having any overt influence on their vote, (which is equivalent to a non-believer voting without a disbelief having any influence over their voting).

When I pointed out to you there that you overlooked the original post and his statement:

...
BUT, Are you going to vote Republican because you feel God wants you to?  Please explain.

You then went on some tangent about 'thread title', 'thread title', omg the 'thread title'.  And now, because you were proven wrong, you try to move the goalpost by switching to some ridiculous god vs religion bullshit that isn't even pertinent to anything, other than you trying to salvage your ego.  Now you are simply boring me with your desperation.

[falcon9]

... both the thread title question and the expanded version in the first post asked whether "god" affected voting, not "religion".  The distinction is made so as to not conflate the two.  There's a subtle difference between 'will satan have a role in how you vote?' and 'are you going to vote republican because a satanic religion wants you to?'

And still you persist with your obfuscation and attempts at tangential distractions.

The irony of your obfuscation is not sublime.

And now, because you were proven wrong,

False conclusion; none of your diversionary crap 'proved me wrong'.  It remains that you wished to shift the emphasis of the initial question by tacitly conflating "god" and "religion".  That can be seen from the those replies posted by you, (or maybe a fugitive alias instead).

you try to move the goalpost by switching to some ridiculous god vs religion bullshit that isn't even pertinent to anything ...

Right; the distinction isn't pertinent to anything, except the context of the discussion.  Other than that, it's completely random, aye.

[falcon9]

I wanted to know a couple of things. It seems like Mitt will be the nominee.  Wanted to know if people would see voting for a mormon as a problem. I wanted to see if that would be a factor in some people's vote.

I read your questions as wondering whether or not "god" factors into the voting process however, "Abrupt's" assumption that you more probably wondered whether religious beliefs, (or tacitly, a lack of religious beliefs?), plays a significant role in someone's voting process may be closer to the mark.

In Romney's instance, I'd weigh his political stance on various issues and remove him from consideration due to the potentially-negative influence of his religious beliefs being detrimental to holding executive office.  In that example, both the candidate's religious beliefs and my disbelief in religious faiths have influence over such a voting decision.

[ladavia89]

I don't agree with any of the Republicans social views so I wouldn't be voting for them regardless of my religious beliefs

I will never understand wanting to ban any form of contraceptives, abortions and cut people off from welfare. People obviously aren't going to stop having sex so more people are just going to end up with more children than they can afford but wouldn't be able to get governmental assistance.  That sounds like a wonderful plan to me

[Abrupt]

And now, because you were proven wrong,

False conclusion; none of your diversionary crap 'proved me wrong'.  It remains that you wished to shift the emphasis of the initial question by tacitly conflating "god" and "religion".  That can be seen from the those replies posted by you, (or maybe a fugitive alias instead).

I clearly demonstrated and gave proof of where you were wrong.  You awkwardly tried to shift the subject away from the charges you initially made to the above 'god' and 'religion' nonsensical position you have taken.  The evidence is absolutely in my favor, while once again you are left with your typical falcon9 'proof' consisting of only the false allegations you have made.

you try to move the goalpost by switching to some ridiculous god vs religion bullshit that isn't even pertinent to anything ...

Right; the distinction isn't pertinent to anything, except the context of the discussion.  Other than that, it's completely random, aye.

I stand by that it isn't pertinent and you have been given repeated opportunities to provide any examples of such.  You still fail to recall that you first brought up but you the change from 'god' to 'religion' via your injection of the following:

However, "Flackle" is correct in that a belief or, disbelief in various deities may have an effect on voting decisions.  That's where fundamentalism looses the 'fun' part.

Now do you wish to propose that "a belief or, disbelief in various deities" does not constitute a reference to religion?  Once again, you invent a charge against me that you yourself were the one to commit and now since you have been proven wrong in one area you try to shift the onus of "your" offense onto me -- and for what purpose other than to try to bury your previous failures or to obfuscate even more.

[Abrupt]

I don't agree with any of the Republicans social views so I wouldn't be voting for them regardless of my religious beliefs

I will never understand wanting to ban any form of contraceptives, abortions and cut people off from welfare. People obviously aren't going to stop having sex so more people are just going to end up with more children than they can afford but wouldn't be able to get governmental assistance.  That sounds like a wonderful plan to me

I likewise cannot vote Democratic as I cannot understand why I have to be forced into slavery to pay for contraceptives for someone who is active enough to repeatedly perform the act of propagation yet too lazy to work.  I likewise can't vote Democratic because they will force me to be complicate with infanticide.  I also cannot vote Democratic because they want people to forgo their basic responsibilities for their actions of 'acquiring' things they cannot afford and enslaving those of us that do work so that we instead  have to pay for their irresponsible behavior.  What the hell is next for the democrats?  Have the innocent go to jail and do the time for the guilty?

I used your same method of reasoning to put forth an opposite view, ladavia.  The only difference is that mine is actually quite a bit more accurate to the truth than yours is (I am not saying it is entirely accurate, only more accurate).

[wsptaxijay]

I am Catholic and my religion has absolutely nothing to do with how bad things have gotten in the United States. God has no role in how I vote, except for me and everyone else is praying to God that the next president is better then the one in office now.