Totally agree. But when a religious person comes to my door to try to convert me, I reserve the right to politely provide them with logical reasons and evidence that they are wrong. But I’d never go to their doors.
That is a Western feature of Christianity. I think Orthodox Christians are a bit less aggressive.
Maybe not at the moment, but the Russian Orthodox Church used to execute people for making the sign of the cross with two fingers rather than three. If the Orthodox appear less aggressive in Eastern Europe it might be because they’ve eliminated most of the competition. If they’re less aggressive in the US it’s because they are in the minority which makes it harder to oppress others.
Yes.
But what the OP, myself, and so many others have been arguing for here is much, much more than simply avoiding in-person proselytizing.
It’s avoiding injecting silly superstitions into public policy. It’s avoiding having people who happily believe in silly superstitions in positions of authority. It’s avoiding having society’s moral ideas of right and wrong based on silly superstition.
I agree with much of what you say, but I stop well short of this. That’s bigotry, and not acceptable or tolerable. I don’t give a damn what Mike Pence believes. I object to his actions, not his faith. We don’t want to become the nation’s “thought police.”
If someone believes that Covid is a hoax, would you not care? If someone believed in QAnon would you not care? If someone believed that we don’t have to worry about climate change because the rapture will come soon, would you not care?
It is a bit late to worry about the actions of these people if you don’t think anyone should consider their beliefs in making a voting decision.
Though that’s not what they completely said though. The “silly superstition” appears to be any religious beliefs. So in this 2020 election, you’d want Trump who seems to believe in nothing over Biden who believes in those silly superstitions 
(yes, I’m joking, mostly…)
Some atheists proselytize, mostly by attacking religion.
And Muslims, etc also proselytize.
https://fullerstudio.fuller.edu/proselytizing-in-islam/
Hare Krishna proselytize for Hinduism.
The Bahá’í Faith also proselytize.
I consider Atheism a silly superstition.
What silly superstitions are a matter of public policy?
If I refused to vote for anyone with religious beliefs, I wouldn’t bother to register. Though my Congressman at the end of his run came out as an atheist, but I voted for him before that.
If silly beliefs drive progressive action, I’m all for them.
Yes, I would care. But if they believed that Jesus is the salvation, the way, and the light, I would not care. Big, big, big difference.
Lack of superstition is not a superstition. Do you disagree with this?
You have a slightly distorted definition of superstition, then.
And do tell me the atheist agenda which drive anything except not having laws passed establishing religious views.
As for some religion driving public policy, I can offer abortion and opposition to SSM for two.
Your definition of proselytize is also a bit off. Is publishing a book supporting Christianity count? Publishing a Bible? Stuffing them into hotel room drawers, that I see.
Does your typical sermon count? I don’t think so, because I don’t have to hear it if I don’t want to.
Now JWs and Baptists coming to my door do count. When is the last time an atheist came to your door?
The closest thing I can think of is that the Atheist club at Cal had a booth at the event where clubs signed up new members. But if that counts, I think I was proselytizing for science fiction when I was in the MIT SF Society booth when I was in college.
But they are both beliefs, right?
I wouldn’t care either, unless that belief also drives policy, as I mentioned. Anyhow, you do consider some beliefs as reasons for opposing someone, which is all I was going for.
I think we see who has a distorted definition of superstition.
Well, obviously I do. A belief that blacks bear the sin of Ham instantly disqualifies a candidate in my view. Originally you said, “people who happily believe in silly superstitions,” and that’s casting the net far too widely.
Religious beliefs informing abortion rights policy: superstitions such a “soul” rather than basing policy on a rational determination of the level of sentience of zygote or fetus.
Religious beliefs leading to irrational restrictions on Embryonic Stem Cell research.
Christian eschatology influencing U.S. policy in the Middle East - the frightening notion held by senior figures in the U.S. administration that conflict is foretold and inevitable, even desirable as fulfillment of Biblical prophecy.
Religious motivation for opposition to women’s rights (historically).
Religious motivation for opposition to LGBT rights.
So, the lack of belief in any god or gods qualifies as a superstition? Please explain.
Actually LSL Guy said that, not me.
Oops; got confused by the quotes. My apologies. Anyway, my view and opinion and belief is that people who have religious beliefs should not be considered disqualified for election to important public office. People who have dangerous and extreme religious beliefs will, of course, never get my vote. Big difference.