John Mark Reynolds = Douche who doesn't have a clue

The Question?  "Should it matter whether or not a politician believes in God?" 
The Answer from John Mark Reynolds, a Professor of Philosophy (Reynolds reply is poorly written; below is a snippet of his answer; he took a while to get to the point).

Should a sensible person vote for an atheist? That seems a difficult question since an atheist denies, despite the evidence, the existence of the most important part of reality: God. The Christian, however, is wise enough to know that a mistake in one area does not necessitate mistakes in other areas. Humans are capable of compartmentalizing their errors. It is not good to be wrong, but it need not be fatal. 

Which evidence is that?  And what's with the "sensible person" line?  Is he suggesting that only those who believe as he does are sensible?

A thoughtful voter must ask: “What political implications has the atheist politician drawn from his error?”

A man may deny the existence of God, but still conform to His will, just as another man may loudly proclaim God exists, but foolishly try to ignore His wishes. Such an atheist will find himself agreeing with God more than the theist. Better to be governed by a man who would never say, “God bless you,” but whose actions bring God’s blessings than a loudly pious man whose perfidy brings on ruin. 

Just as a religious error may not lead to political problems, so an irreligious one may be relatively harmless to the public good. In fact, sensible Christians would rather vote for a competent atheist, committed to republican values and common sense, than a “Christian” deluded into supporting bad ideas.  

Polls certainly seem to suggest otherwise.  As atheists, we are the most despised and untrusted group in America.  To come out of the closet as a non-believer is complete and utter political suicide.

My atheist neighbor deserves Socratic dialog and love, not scorn. The atheist politician should receive consideration for a sensible man’s vote. Many atheists deserve our admiration, thanks, and applause for skills or deeds performed in service to humanity.  

What's with the "sensible man's vote" comment?  He's sensible because, what? He believe in an imaginary friend?  Then there the misogynistic bent.  What a douche.  Every person, atheist or not, deserves recognition for the good works they do.

The atheist denies having a soul created in God’s image, but that does not make it so and cannot lessen our moral obligation to treat our atheist neighbor as we would wish to be treated. Atheism is wrong, but being wrong is not a crime. 

When atheists are attacked irrationally, then every good Christian must stand in solidarity with their secular neighbor.

 Atheism is not wrong; it is a very reasonable stance.  What's wrong with asking for proof before subscribing to a specific world view?  There is no evidence for god(s) and, therefore, I choose to live a life without superstition. 

Back to the original question...
My vote is based on where the politician stands on issues that are important to me.  Personal belief is not one of those issues.  The system would be better if we left that issue (on both sides) in the dark.   Let's keep government secular. Period.