Doesn't matter what they call their particular breed of christain. They all are part of a death cult whose objective is the end of all life on the planet. Never trust a group whose idea of paradise is watching those they hate suffer for eternity.
And actively trying to set off their beloved Armageddon, which was explicitly forbidden in the Bible they don't read. It wouldn't shock me if Mango Mussolini tries to blow up the Temple Mount under the influence of the evangelicals.
Nuking Israhell is a good first step. Irradiating that worthless speck of land so that no one can set foot there and live for the next 10,000 years is a worthy step in the right direction. Sometime you have to take the toddlers toy away from them them they can't stop fighting over it.
I'd like to say that I'm encouraged by the numbers represented here, but honestly, I'm not. It would be one thing if congresspeople studiously set their faith aside when doing their duties, but we all know they DON'T. Religious believers still dominate the US legislature and, I have no doubt, still bring their beliefs into Congress and into the bills they propose, write, and pass.
And that means that we have to be that much more active in calling them on their behavior when they create such bills. The problem is the pending Republican majority in both houses, never mind the manipulative dipshit about to once again occupy the White House. Even worse, such people are unlikely to listen to godless heathens like us, so we have to find other ways to protest and resist.
I've said it before and will say it again: I am not at all sanguine about the next four years.
Long ago now, a Republican majority understood what governing meant. They could actually come to compromises. Although they did hold back progress, they didn't reverse it. Then the religious takeover that Goldwater warned of happened. The result: as of January 20, I may stop referring to my country as the United States, and start referring to it as the Republic of Gilead. That is the direction the fanatics who control the Republicans want to take us.
I think the whole problem boils down to the psychology of the modern rethuglicans: 1. they believe they and only they are allowed to rule (i won't use the word govern in regard to them). 2. Anyone who dares to disagree with them is categorically wrong. 3. Any change which does not lead the country back to 1860 is unacceptable. 4. Brown people serve their white masters. 5. Women submit and obey. 6. Gay people go back into their closets and disappear from the public sphere - or it is off to the camps. Their vision for the future of our country is a brutal dictatorship by The (religious) Oligarchy.
What you’re summing up is the autocratic tendencies of Christian Nationalists. They absolutely play to win and will not take prisoners. They would rather that we have martyrs for our causes than the other way around. Christian Nationalists are absolutely a clear and present danger to humanity, no less so than Nazi Germany during World War II. They must be understood for who they are and met with the same skepticism that we view their so-called faith.
I know what you mean. Goldwater tried to warn them, but they wouldn't listen, and then King Ronnie decided to open his arms to the Religious Reich, which is the more obvious marker of the decline of American governance. Kevin Kruse shows that the problems REALLY started long before then in his book, One Nation Under God, but again, not enough people paying attention.
I try not to get too upset about this, but the blunt fact is that I'm scared, for myself, for the people who DO have their heads up, and for our country.
I have a copy of that, it's a good read. And yes, the beginnings of the takeover started long before Saint Ray-gun. It takes a lot of behind the scenes work to shift things to the point that the open takeover is possible. Look where the failed Austrian painter was in the early 1920s. Then look what he did a decade later. There is a reason I call the Republicans the NSGOP...
I really don’t give a shit how one identifies, what I care about is how you’re doing all you can to move this country forward. If you think your only job is fucking over any of your constituents, might I suggest a job as a shepherd*
The problem, as I see it, is the idea that geographically electing representatives will give us accurate representation. Because of this idea, I have NO representation. My congressman is Andy Biggs. He is all in on the MAGA bs. During the first Trump administration, I was "represented" by Paul Gosar*, the first MAGAt to stand up on January 6th and announce that the election in his district was fraudulent. I sent a letter to him suggesting he resign since he thought the election was fraudulent but I did not hear back.
At this point, I vote for whoever the Democrat is despite never having voted for a Democrat before 2016**. Would I vote for an atheist if given that choice? Only if that atheist espoused ideas that rich people did not need the protection of government but the rest of us do. So atheism is not the be-all and end-all that I would look for in a candidate but I do assume that anyone who claims a religion is a liar. Not that any politician is capable of telling the truth but it would be refreshing to see it.
I have to wonder that if we elected people at large, would we get more truthful politicians? That is; what if instead of electing someone because they live or claim to live in our neighborhood we elect people who express our views on how the world should work? Would we get the politicians we want? Would we get actual representation?
**I didn't move, the district did.
** I never voted for a Republican either. The two party system got us here.
Well the original concept was that local representatives would guard local interests. So if your river is a main source of prosperity, a local representative could ensure the Fed doesn't do bad things to your river. This still regularly holds true today, though it now has a bad rep: "pork barrel" spending and "riders" are the tools Congresscritters use to make sure that their districts aren't sacrificed on the altar of national progress. Likewise, Senators were meant to guard state-level interests.
However. The immediate formation of national parties greatly weakened that sort of representation. Piling on to that problem, in the 20th century IMO most Americans decided that they *wanted* their local representatives to have a bigger, broader, party-like position. We don't *want* our reps to 'guard the river' any more; we want them to be our national-issue warriors. A candidate who says "I'm going to ensure the schools in Podunk have money and our Podunk businesses get tax breaks" is going to lose out to the candidate who says "I'm pro-life/pro-choice* and will ensure women 2,000 miles away in Texas/Washington live under the rules you residents of Podunk think are best" [*depending on the district].
So yeah the system is a bit outmoded. But I don't think at large would work much better. You'd just get a House that looks more like the Senate. And going by Hemant's religious representation graphs, that would actually result in *less* religious diversity and *less* nones in government - not more.
The original Constitution laid out that we would have 1 Representative for every 30,000 people¹. We currently have 1 Representative for every 770,000.²
.
(¹ ignoring the nontaxed Indians and the ⅗ mess.)
(² on the plus, we no longer have that pesky ⅗ nonsense to deal with.³)
(³ just several score years of damage to work through... we'll be fine....I'm sure.....right?)
The 1850 Census reported my native Wisconsin’s population as 305,391. It had already been a state for two years.
The 2020 Census reported DC’s population at 689,545 (more than Wyoming or Vermont). It is not a state. Its citizens have no representation in Congress. These human beings, our fellow Americans, pay federal taxes. Yet, since DC isn’t a state, they have no voice in Congress as to what those taxes should be or how they should be spent.
The patriots who founded America started out at the Boston Tea Party and subsequently threw off the yoke of British royal rule under the rallying cry “Taxation without representation is tyranny!”.
Interesting that those who oppose DC statehood aren't even abashed by coming out — in public, out loud — so squarely on the side of tyranny.
That bullshit shouldn't have ever been allowed to stand. It is nothing more than a massive gerrymander. Guaranteed if we had 1 rep for each 30k people we wouldn't have even a fraction of the bullshit we have now.
“Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who was kicked out for lying about All The Things;“
Ha ha ha ha, while that is all encompassing, it is still an understatement. Sad thing is the GOP is filled with representatives that lie about all the thing, just not as blatantly as Santos did.
I've said it before: when they enter that chamber and go to work, their ONLY obligation should be TO THE LAW. The obvious problem is that they don't follow that idea and frequently blatantly so.
With the 47th president and the 119th Congress, the US is falling back years if not decades, and that is a disturbing thought to contemplate.
Pietism (/ˈpaɪ.ɪtɪzəm/), also known as Pietistic Lutheranism, is a movement within Lutheranism that combines its emphasis on biblical doctrine with an emphasis on individual piety and living a holy Christian life. - Wikipedia
Went to Village Inn for breakfast the other day. For $15 I could get the big breakfast with eggs, bacon, grits and pancakes or I could get an apple pie.
Heretic! The other one sounds like a full English which I always have at least once when I'm on holiday. (Apart from grits which I had to look up) I'd have it every day but my wife would probably kick me in the nuts.
The problem I have with religious affiliation on the part of elected officials is the fact it seldom translates into ethical behavior. As often as not, religion can be used as an excuse to exercise control over women and others, who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. History is very clear on the point religion seldom equals morality in the real world.
OT: My internet went down yesterday, about noon, and came back in the middle of the night. What did I miss? (I skimmed, looks like Hemant was busy.)
The worst part was that it ended my Wordal streak.
Eta: The internet company also provides phone service. When I called on my cellphone to report the outage, I got an automated prompt that asked "is (cell phone number) the number your account is associated with? 1 for yes, two for no." They needed a third option, 3 No you idiot, the number my service is associated with is OUT.
This survey is wildly inaccurate. It grossly over-estimates Christians, and vastly under estimates the one true religion. I believe there are at least 250 follows of the one true God, Donald Trump and his son Elon Musk, and that holy pigeon, Vivek Ramaswamy.
(Remember, kids, if we get 'special guests' on this one we're giving them pudding. I believe the suggested emoji is 💩, although 🍮 is always an option....or use your imagination, lots of possible puddings! And don't forget to smile, we want them to know how 𝑭𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒍𝒚 we are.)
I tend to be a Happy Warrior. People tend to overlook that second word, and I'm happy to rip off their heads and shit down their necks....or serve them cake, their call.
I couldn't find any info on Sarah McBride's religious affiliation, though if Hemant has person-by-person survey answers, he should be able to tell us that.
The only thing of relevance I could find is that she married her husband in an Episcopalian service and church. Though that may not say much about her religious beliefs - her partner had late stage cancer at the time, and in a situation like that I imagine most of us would just go with whatever our dying partner wants.
I would prefer members of Congress who make decisions on public policy based on facts and reason, rather than ones who've avowed allegiance to ignorance and superstition.
This. This is why Article VI mandates no religious test. The private beliefs of the elected official should have no real significance. The things that matter the most are: can they do the job, and do their policy positions actually represent mine. If they happen to draw on their religious beliefs to form those policy positions, so be it. I don't care as long as they can actually represent my ideas for how the country needs to be governed.
Doesn't matter what they call their particular breed of christain. They all are part of a death cult whose objective is the end of all life on the planet. Never trust a group whose idea of paradise is watching those they hate suffer for eternity.
And actively trying to set off their beloved Armageddon, which was explicitly forbidden in the Bible they don't read. It wouldn't shock me if Mango Mussolini tries to blow up the Temple Mount under the influence of the evangelicals.
How else ya gonna clear the land for the Israeli Trump Tower and Casino?
Nuking Israhell is a good first step. Irradiating that worthless speck of land so that no one can set foot there and live for the next 10,000 years is a worthy step in the right direction. Sometime you have to take the toddlers toy away from them them they can't stop fighting over it.
I'd like to say that I'm encouraged by the numbers represented here, but honestly, I'm not. It would be one thing if congresspeople studiously set their faith aside when doing their duties, but we all know they DON'T. Religious believers still dominate the US legislature and, I have no doubt, still bring their beliefs into Congress and into the bills they propose, write, and pass.
And that means that we have to be that much more active in calling them on their behavior when they create such bills. The problem is the pending Republican majority in both houses, never mind the manipulative dipshit about to once again occupy the White House. Even worse, such people are unlikely to listen to godless heathens like us, so we have to find other ways to protest and resist.
I've said it before and will say it again: I am not at all sanguine about the next four years.
Long ago now, a Republican majority understood what governing meant. They could actually come to compromises. Although they did hold back progress, they didn't reverse it. Then the religious takeover that Goldwater warned of happened. The result: as of January 20, I may stop referring to my country as the United States, and start referring to it as the Republic of Gilead. That is the direction the fanatics who control the Republicans want to take us.
I think the whole problem boils down to the psychology of the modern rethuglicans: 1. they believe they and only they are allowed to rule (i won't use the word govern in regard to them). 2. Anyone who dares to disagree with them is categorically wrong. 3. Any change which does not lead the country back to 1860 is unacceptable. 4. Brown people serve their white masters. 5. Women submit and obey. 6. Gay people go back into their closets and disappear from the public sphere - or it is off to the camps. Their vision for the future of our country is a brutal dictatorship by The (religious) Oligarchy.
What you’re summing up is the autocratic tendencies of Christian Nationalists. They absolutely play to win and will not take prisoners. They would rather that we have martyrs for our causes than the other way around. Christian Nationalists are absolutely a clear and present danger to humanity, no less so than Nazi Germany during World War II. They must be understood for who they are and met with the same skepticism that we view their so-called faith.
I know what you mean. Goldwater tried to warn them, but they wouldn't listen, and then King Ronnie decided to open his arms to the Religious Reich, which is the more obvious marker of the decline of American governance. Kevin Kruse shows that the problems REALLY started long before then in his book, One Nation Under God, but again, not enough people paying attention.
I try not to get too upset about this, but the blunt fact is that I'm scared, for myself, for the people who DO have their heads up, and for our country.
I have a copy of that, it's a good read. And yes, the beginnings of the takeover started long before Saint Ray-gun. It takes a lot of behind the scenes work to shift things to the point that the open takeover is possible. Look where the failed Austrian painter was in the early 1920s. Then look what he did a decade later. There is a reason I call the Republicans the NSGOP...
The Christain Kingdom of Dumbfuckistan.
Is 'unsanguine' a word? I think we are in for a lot of grief over the next 4 years.
Perfectly cromulent.
Google says it is ... and I agree with you. [sigh]
Yep, says it's been around for a minute.
"The earliest known use of the adjective unsanguine was in the early 1700s."
Wait....isn't that from the song that goes "Should old acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind?"
I really don’t give a shit how one identifies, what I care about is how you’re doing all you can to move this country forward. If you think your only job is fucking over any of your constituents, might I suggest a job as a shepherd*
*No sheep were harmed in the making of this joke.
Fucking over people is god's job. It has done that very well.
Baahahaha.
Lol, indeed
The problem, as I see it, is the idea that geographically electing representatives will give us accurate representation. Because of this idea, I have NO representation. My congressman is Andy Biggs. He is all in on the MAGA bs. During the first Trump administration, I was "represented" by Paul Gosar*, the first MAGAt to stand up on January 6th and announce that the election in his district was fraudulent. I sent a letter to him suggesting he resign since he thought the election was fraudulent but I did not hear back.
At this point, I vote for whoever the Democrat is despite never having voted for a Democrat before 2016**. Would I vote for an atheist if given that choice? Only if that atheist espoused ideas that rich people did not need the protection of government but the rest of us do. So atheism is not the be-all and end-all that I would look for in a candidate but I do assume that anyone who claims a religion is a liar. Not that any politician is capable of telling the truth but it would be refreshing to see it.
I have to wonder that if we elected people at large, would we get more truthful politicians? That is; what if instead of electing someone because they live or claim to live in our neighborhood we elect people who express our views on how the world should work? Would we get the politicians we want? Would we get actual representation?
**I didn't move, the district did.
** I never voted for a Republican either. The two party system got us here.
Well the original concept was that local representatives would guard local interests. So if your river is a main source of prosperity, a local representative could ensure the Fed doesn't do bad things to your river. This still regularly holds true today, though it now has a bad rep: "pork barrel" spending and "riders" are the tools Congresscritters use to make sure that their districts aren't sacrificed on the altar of national progress. Likewise, Senators were meant to guard state-level interests.
However. The immediate formation of national parties greatly weakened that sort of representation. Piling on to that problem, in the 20th century IMO most Americans decided that they *wanted* their local representatives to have a bigger, broader, party-like position. We don't *want* our reps to 'guard the river' any more; we want them to be our national-issue warriors. A candidate who says "I'm going to ensure the schools in Podunk have money and our Podunk businesses get tax breaks" is going to lose out to the candidate who says "I'm pro-life/pro-choice* and will ensure women 2,000 miles away in Texas/Washington live under the rules you residents of Podunk think are best" [*depending on the district].
So yeah the system is a bit outmoded. But I don't think at large would work much better. You'd just get a House that looks more like the Senate. And going by Hemant's religious representation graphs, that would actually result in *less* religious diversity and *less* nones in government - not more.
The original Constitution laid out that we would have 1 Representative for every 30,000 people¹. We currently have 1 Representative for every 770,000.²
.
(¹ ignoring the nontaxed Indians and the ⅗ mess.)
(² on the plus, we no longer have that pesky ⅗ nonsense to deal with.³)
(³ just several score years of damage to work through... we'll be fine....I'm sure.....right?)
The 1850 Census reported my native Wisconsin’s population as 305,391. It had already been a state for two years.
The 2020 Census reported DC’s population at 689,545 (more than Wyoming or Vermont). It is not a state. Its citizens have no representation in Congress. These human beings, our fellow Americans, pay federal taxes. Yet, since DC isn’t a state, they have no voice in Congress as to what those taxes should be or how they should be spent.
The patriots who founded America started out at the Boston Tea Party and subsequently threw off the yoke of British royal rule under the rallying cry “Taxation without representation is tyranny!”.
Interesting that those who oppose DC statehood aren't even abashed by coming out — in public, out loud — so squarely on the side of tyranny.
Same with PR.
Isn't that one of those shithole countries?
It's surrounded by water, BIG water.
It also says “no taxation without representation.”
As of several years ago, the taxed are unrepresented and the untaxed are the only ones represented.
That bullshit shouldn't have ever been allowed to stand. It is nothing more than a massive gerrymander. Guaranteed if we had 1 rep for each 30k people we wouldn't have even a fraction of the bullshit we have now.
My representative is Hawley. There's not much point of writing him. He doesn't even send a form letter anymore.
My sympathies, Hawley is a bigger piece of work than Biggs.
“Rep. George Santos (R-NY), who was kicked out for lying about All The Things;“
Ha ha ha ha, while that is all encompassing, it is still an understatement. Sad thing is the GOP is filled with representatives that lie about all the thing, just not as blatantly as Santos did.
If only the religious (read: Christians) in Congress would keep their private beliefs to themselves while they're on the clock for Uncle Sam.
Foolish expectation, I know.
I've said it before: when they enter that chamber and go to work, their ONLY obligation should be TO THE LAW. The obvious problem is that they don't follow that idea and frequently blatantly so.
With the 47th president and the 119th Congress, the US is falling back years if not decades, and that is a disturbing thought to contemplate.
Potentially centuries.
Matthew 6:5 𝑺𝑷𝑬𝑪𝑰𝑭𝑰𝑪𝑨𝑳𝑳𝒀 tells them 🅽🅞🆃 to make a spectacle of their faith.
And yet they seem to sincerely believe in the opposite.
Who listens to Matthew? : )
Jesus asked his followers why they call him Lord, yet don't do what he told them.
(Luke 6:46)
I might become religious. {looks up Pietist} Naw, never mind.
Does it...not involve pie?
Don't tell Peter Percival Patterson's Pet Pig Porky!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0WCnvBqRfc
Not even peach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF4m4h15qEA
If they could lie about pie, they could lie about anything!
Pietism (/ˈpaɪ.ɪtɪzəm/), also known as Pietistic Lutheranism, is a movement within Lutheranism that combines its emphasis on biblical doctrine with an emphasis on individual piety and living a holy Christian life. - Wikipedia
No thanks.
Mmm, individual pies.
Although, I can make a regular pie individual.
Went to Village Inn for breakfast the other day. For $15 I could get the big breakfast with eggs, bacon, grits and pancakes or I could get an apple pie.
I got the pie.
Heretic! The other one sounds like a full English which I always have at least once when I'm on holiday. (Apart from grits which I had to look up) I'd have it every day but my wife would probably kick me in the nuts.
The problem I have with religious affiliation on the part of elected officials is the fact it seldom translates into ethical behavior. As often as not, religion can be used as an excuse to exercise control over women and others, who cannot be trusted to make their own decisions. History is very clear on the point religion seldom equals morality in the real world.
OT: My internet went down yesterday, about noon, and came back in the middle of the night. What did I miss? (I skimmed, looks like Hemant was busy.)
The worst part was that it ended my Wordal streak.
Eta: The internet company also provides phone service. When I called on my cellphone to report the outage, I got an automated prompt that asked "is (cell phone number) the number your account is associated with? 1 for yes, two for no." They needed a third option, 3 No you idiot, the number my service is associated with is OUT.
As a follower of Hun Hunahpu, I understand why our crops will fail. We are a nation of heathens and we'll get what we deserve.
Sorry Hun, no more virgins and {looks out window} no volcanos around here.
**Looks at the tech bros following Musk. Looks at the US military budget.** We can fix that.
I'm down range of Yellowstone. I'm praying for either that or a giant meteor.
After yesterday, I've had enough of the word Hun. Please desist.
That was partially the joke. I wasn't around for most of it, so I had to get my jab in today. : )
This survey is wildly inaccurate. It grossly over-estimates Christians, and vastly under estimates the one true religion. I believe there are at least 250 follows of the one true God, Donald Trump and his son Elon Musk, and that holy pigeon, Vivek Ramaswamy.
(Remember, kids, if we get 'special guests' on this one we're giving them pudding. I believe the suggested emoji is 💩, although 🍮 is always an option....or use your imagination, lots of possible puddings! And don't forget to smile, we want them to know how 𝑭𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒏𝒅𝒍𝒚 we are.)
I have told many a troll who have accused us of being unfriendly, that Hement is the friendly atheist. We commentators, not so much.
I tend to be a Happy Warrior. People tend to overlook that second word, and I'm happy to rip off their heads and shit down their necks....or serve them cake, their call.
In many cases, that's the same thing.
As if things could ever have more than one attribute......🤪
I tell them that Hemant himself has said he's not really friendly and that "Friendly Atheist" is just marketing.
Hemant is only as friendly as their Republican Jesus is merciful.
Hemant didn't mention any transgender congresspersons. That should keep the trolls under their bridges.
I couldn't find any info on Sarah McBride's religious affiliation, though if Hemant has person-by-person survey answers, he should be able to tell us that.
The only thing of relevance I could find is that she married her husband in an Episcopalian service and church. Though that may not say much about her religious beliefs - her partner had late stage cancer at the time, and in a situation like that I imagine most of us would just go with whatever our dying partner wants.
Can we give them black pudding? Please!
https://www.dndbeyond.com/monsters/16808-black-pudding?msockid=3a5c7c5604a96b0a3e4c693c057b6afb
As jesus hath now demanded...
https://scontent-ord5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/472056144_1842053389914348_5786085460864292078_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=127cfc&_nc_ohc=Z4qYQMnuSJcQ7kNvgG2dxpQ&_nc_zt=23&_nc_ht=scontent-ord5-2.xx&_nc_gid=AJvroiUmOXsBAu9PyInu2O8&oh=00_AYBHyutijfE_rPWBDosZMsugeCv6W9FcLwfs5P9grJdE5g&oe=677E1028
Why on earth would atheist be equated with anti-Semitic? I'm at a complete loss.
As history has shown, it is the Christian faith that has been anti-Semitic.
Kertzer's "The Popes Against The Jews" is a great history of the kkkriststain persecution of, and genocides against Jews.
I have nothing against Jews. I AM AGAINST their holey book being used to promulgate hatred of others.
Probably the same reason Islam and Christianity vilify apostates.
Republican Projection.
I would prefer members of Congress who make decisions on public policy based on facts and reason, rather than ones who've avowed allegiance to ignorance and superstition.
THAT is against kkkrister creed.
𝐴 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑢𝑏𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑛 𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑖𝑠𝑡 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑛'𝑠 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠, 𝐿𝐺𝐵𝑇𝑄 𝑟𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑐ℎ𝑢𝑟𝑐ℎ/𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒 𝑠𝑒𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑 𝑏𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑠𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑖𝑠ℎ𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑠𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑜𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑦 𝑎𝑠 𝑛𝑜𝑛-𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠. 𝐼𝑡 𝑤𝑜𝑢𝑙𝑑𝑛'𝑡 𝑏𝑒 𝑠𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑏𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒. 𝐴𝑛𝑑 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝑠𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑔𝑖𝑜𝑢𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑚𝑜𝑐𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑜 𝑑𝑜 𝑎 𝑤𝑜𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑢𝑙 𝑗𝑜𝑏 𝑓𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑐𝑎𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑠. 𝐴𝑠 𝑙𝑜𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑘𝑒𝑒𝑝 𝑑𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡, 𝐼 𝑑𝑜𝑛'𝑡 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑙𝑙𝑦 𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑒 ℎ𝑜𝑤 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑙𝑓-𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑦.
This. This is why Article VI mandates no religious test. The private beliefs of the elected official should have no real significance. The things that matter the most are: can they do the job, and do their policy positions actually represent mine. If they happen to draw on their religious beliefs to form those policy positions, so be it. I don't care as long as they can actually represent my ideas for how the country needs to be governed.