Is it ok for Democrats to persecute a man for his Atheism?

YES IT DID! Google it.

Really? Then find a reputable source with evidence that Bernie hacked anything.

I think it has everything to do with the religious nutjobs. America has far more than its fair share of said nutters. Tony Blair pointedly refused to answer a question about whether or not he prayed with Dubya because he knew it would be a massive vote loser.

When you're convinced God is on your side you do monstrous things like fly aeroplanes into twin towers or illegally invade other countries. The World would be better off without such individuals.

It probably would.

But I think you misunderstand the dynamic. I think that 75% want their president to have that same attachment to God that they do. It's a very fuzzy, uncertain and undefined attachment. They are not certain what to do about that feeling but wonder about it from time to time and would never say anything about it in public. And they don't want their president to say anything about it either, other than the necessary " God bless America" at the end of his speeches. But if he or she says there is no God, that 75% will never punch a vote for the SOB.

BTW, I don't think you'll find any UK PM saying that either.
Brits demand an even more tight lipped policy on God whether it is yea or nay.

I don't misunderstand the dynamic, but what you're saying is peculiar to America. We don't do God over here, and are very distrustful of those who do, (and preachy atheists as well!)

It is the same in Canada. Politicians' religious beliefs/affiliations are not known/discussed. They could all be atheists/agnostics and we wouldn't know or care.

it's just not of interest in many Western countries the way it is in the US

I don't think what you are saying is plausible. Many of the most influential theologians in development of US religions were English. This was true from the earliest days of the US. We didn't get it from the indians ya know.

The idea that religion has been purged from UK and Europe is preposterous.

It's not been purged, I never suggested such a thing. It's just anyone who makes a big display of it isn't someone we trust. Religion is a private thing over here.

You got it from us alright, you got the nutters, those puritanical arseholes who didn't like the anti Catholic laws being watered down. The normal people stayed behind.

If you'll just read back over my posts here, that's just what I've been saying about those 75% of Americans.

Sounds like you ain't much different than Joe Sixpack..

Like you know Jews in your neck-of-the-woods. LOL. Most Jews in the U.S. are secular. The media shows a few bearded Jews, and its like the scene in the movie Annie Hall where her grandmother saw a red-bearded Jew when she just looked at Woody Allen. Did you know there were more Jews fighting in the Confederacy than the Union?

So then, the vaccine doesn't take most of the time?

25% of the population deeply religious is still a very large figure. It's almost a quarter.

I think you pluck figures out of your head anyway. I would suspect in some states it's positively mental, which is why so many American atheists seek solace online.

There is no more execrable breed. It's as though someone were let out of prison, but rushed back in and pulled the cell door closed behind them.

It's interesting that the perfidy of the DNC so quickly turned into attacks against Southern Baptists and the religious.

Does anyone know if the DNC staffer who wrote the e-mail is actually a practicing Southern Baptist, and if so are we now prepared to take the word of someone who would dream up this strategy to be the voice of Southern Baptists?

Considering there was no effort to bring up Sander's religion, the bad idea was shot down as it should have been.

Irrelevant to my point.

Well, I don't have a clue if people who go to southern Baptist would be more likely turned off if they knew a candidate was an atheist. Personally, I tend to think it wouldn't matter to much. Everybody I know in church pretty much think most all politicians are not too faithful anyway, but then I don't go to that church. Most that I know care about their would be policies, whether they would vote for gay marriages and how they feel about abortions and maybe now the issue of trans bathrooms although the issue has not been brought up in my church. My church is an old church up in the woods filled with a lot of elderly, they would be shocked to even discuss the issue of trans bathrooms. For the most part we try to leave politics and elections at the door.

That's fine, but it's also irrelevant to my point which was that this thread started to discuss the strategy depicted in the hacked DNC e-mail (regardless of whether or not it was ever realized), but clearly devolved into attacks against Southern Baptists and Christians on the presumption that it would have worked.

Major components of that presumption are unproven by anyone participating in this thread:

A) That the DNC staffer was a Southern Baptist
B) And if so, that he was a credible spokesperson for his SB "peeps"

Your post, at least, suggests that there are plenty of Christians who don't hate Jews, atheists, and gays (You may can an argument here from Max though)

Wouldn't you agree that it is, at least, intellectually dishonest to turn a discussion of the objectionable behavior of someone into a condemnation of a larger group, based only on the miscreant's apparent belief that the vile strategy would work?

You would have to find someone who goes to a southern Baptist church in the area discussed in the email to know the precise answer. I don't think it is worth much, but, I don't think it would matter to most even in the south, but I could be wrong. It is how they would vote on social issues which would matter, I would think.