Face it, "Populists": a Socialist cannot be elected President

[Jim Lane]

25. You're reading more into my post than is there.

A threshold issue is the reliability of the entire piece. I had never heard of Religion News Service. Before posting based on a story from RNS, I did some minimal research by reading its Wikipedia article. According that article, RNS was founded in 1934 and "is owned by Religion News LLC, a non-profit, limited liability corporation based at the University of Missouri School of Journalism." I don't think "based at" means that the university school of journalism supervises the service, but my overall impression was that RNS is legitimate -- not infallible but also not some crank operation. The only controversy mentioned in the Wikipedia article is the allegation by the Catholic News Agency that RNS is pro-LGBT. As a further indication of reliability, I found the RNS story because it also appeared in The Washington Post.

You write that Sanders

says he is not a a religious person. That is not the same as saying he is an atheist. That's not even the same as saying he's only Jewish culturally, which were not even the article's words, only yours . Many Jews are not observant at all or only high holy days. That doesn't mean they are atheists or Jewish only culturally.

* I agree that doesn't mean he's an atheist. That's why I wrote, "I don't know how he'll answer if (when) he's asked point-blank, 'Do you believe in God?'"
* That he's Jewish "culturally" were the words of the article, not my words. I didn't quote the entire thing. The author wrote: "Sanders, 73, was born to Jewish parents and identifies as Jewish — though culturally, not religiously."
* I agree with your concluding statement that many Jews have a very low level of religiosity but are still Jewish in the religious sense. In addition, however, there are many other people who are Jewish under Jewish law (as Sanders is), who identify as Jewish, but whose level of religiosity is zero -- they declare themselves to be atheists or agnostics.

You ask what votes are on Ralph Reed's scorecard. The RNS article includes a link, so you can see for yourself. I hadn't bothered to check the link; RNS was obviously using Sanders's zero score to show that he won't appeal to the fundies and Christofascists. That's a legitimate point.

Prompted by your query, however, I went and checked the link. It's, uh, interesting. Although Reed pitches his "Faith & Freedom Coalition" to religious people, his voting scorecard seems to be a collection of standard right-wing causes (UN funding, repeal Obamacare, etc.). I particularly noted this vote:

9. Ending Full and Open Debate on Presidential Nominees (Roll Call Vote #243, November 21, 2013): This procedural vote, the so-called "nuclear option," prohibits full and open debate on presidential nominees by lowering the threshold required by Senate rules for invoking cloture on most presidential nominations from 60 votes to 51 votes. A “no” vote is a vote for the FFC position. This decision passed with a 52-48 vote.

Who knew that God took such a keen interest in the procedural rules of the U.S. Senate?

You seem to think that I was critical of Sanders for getting a bad score from Ralph Reed. To the contrary, I've often seen good politicians praised by a writer who points to their low score on a right-winger's rating. I'm glad that Sanders, like his colleague Pat Leahy, got a zero for 2013-14. In fact, Leahy also got a zero for 2012, while Sanders got 9%. Now that's a bit troubling -- he voted with Ralph Reed on something? That's it, I'm done, I'm not supporting a right-wing Bible thumper like Sanders. (Note to hosts: The preceding sentence was sarcasm, and if you needed this parenthetical to tell you that, please consider resigning as a host.)

You write that "Sanders has more control over what wiki says about his religion than he has over a reporter's choice of words...." Actually, under Wikipedia rules, he's not allowed to edit his own article. The main point, though, is that the RNS article could be completely correct even if it's not included in Wikipedia.

Your last two paragraphs, like your earlier comments about Kerry, seem to be devoted to answering the argument that Sanders is unfit to be President because he's insufficiently religious. I did not make that argument. I'm an agnostic myself. I'd be quite happy if I had more opportunities to vote for openly non-religious candidates.

There is, however, a serious issue about religion and a candidate's political prospects. IIRC survey results show that millions of Americans report themselves unwilling to vote for an openly atheistic or agnostic candidate -- far more, even, than admit bias against an openly LGBT candidate. If, during the campaign, Sanders is asked if he believes in God, and he says anything other than "Yes" (including "that's none of your business&quot , then that will be a political problem for him. As such, it's a proper subject for discussion in this Group.