Hey, so is the bisexual woman. “How you ladies doin’?”
The Udalls are Mormons, aren’t they?
I personally don’t know any, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some were. The Udall in question, though, was raised Presbyterian, IIRC.
I think it’s amusing that Arizona would rather pick a (semi)open atheist bisexual woman than a black dude.
In fact, my head assploded.
I meant, of course, that I believed that the Udall political family was Mormon. I guess I was mistaken.
Ah, here we go:
What is it you like about Hindus? Their belief in many gods, the caste system, or what?
That’s my kind of candidate! Wow, quick Google does show conservative Arizonans going batshit nutso over her 
She must not be too strongly Hindu if she wants to go work in a Christian establishment like the U.S. Congress.
I imagine what he likes is that in this country people can be elected to political office regardless of their religious beliefs–that “the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination” are all equally American and equally free. (The quote is from Thomas Jefferson in 1821, referring to his Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.)
The U.S. Congress is not a Christian establishment.
She was raised Mormon and has a degree from BYU. Heh, Mormons will be indirectly responsible for getting some atheists in Congress.
Also, Mazie Hirono is now the first Buddhist senator.
I think you are correct, and he’s confusing tolerance with endorsement. One need not endorse a Hindu candidate in order to support his right to run for office.
Also one can believe that even beyond tolerance is it a good thing that our representative body have a representative religious background. Since Hindus are about 0.5% of the population, having at least one Representative is a good thing. Same with Buddhists (about 0.7% of the population).
The really underrepresented group, as mentioned above, is atheist/agnostic - who are 4% (16% if you include “not affiliated”) and yet only have one or two representatives.
How many members of Congress are Infidels?
Jews are more than 3X overrepresented in Congress. Must something be done about that?
"Lutherans are represented by 3% of the Senate for 4.6% of the population. "
Maybe they’re still trying to work out the Red Hymnal v Blue Hymnal thing.
Just to freak you guys out properly, she is actually a Hare Krsna. I cant attach a link on my ipod.
Since Pete Stark in California apparently got redistricted out of office (he lost to another Democrat), there aren’t any who will admit it.
If I lived in a majority Hindu country, I would be worried about the caste system and “Hindutva”. If I lived in a majority Jewish country, I would be worried about ultra-Orthodox Judaism being imposed on me. If I lived in a majority Muslim country, I would be worried about Islam being imposed on me. Since I live in the United States, where adherents of those religions still make up pretty small portions of the electorate, I am not too worried about Hindus or Jews or Muslims “taking over”. I think there is value in having more members of religious minorities in office because, as James Madison said
A Hindu in Congress (or a Buddhist in Congress or a Muslim in Congress) is a valuable reminder that Congress–and the country itself–is not a Christians-only club. (Of course I’m not going to vote for someone for office if I don’t basically agree with their political views and respect their character.)
Why would we?
Why “redistricted”? It seems like that term should apply to Representatives who have to go up against other Representatives after the districts change, not an incumbent going against a 31 year old political novice.