comment: >
  
  The people who don’t care if you are religious or not.
context: Also worth noting 26% of the US are non-religious and have 0% of the Supreme Court (and 0.2% of Congress). >
  
  There’s an “out” atheist in Congress? Who? >
  
  Ignoring all the other religious connotations...
  
  She is replaced by Kai Kahele, who declined to specify a religious affiliation.
  One member, California Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman, describes himself as a humanist. He is listed in the “other” category. Fewer than three-tenths of 1% of U.S. adults specifically call themselves humanists.
  Sinema is the only member of the 117th Congress who identifies as religiously unaffiliated. Both Sinema and Huffman have said they do not consider themselves atheists.
  
  Although this is just for the 117th. >
  
  That is so bad.  Get some atheists in power asap >
  
  I'm betting quite a few in Congress are actually atheists, and their religious convictions purely performative. >
  
  The fact they maintain that illusion is an entirely separate, and equally problematic, thing. >
  
  No shit. >
  
  Republican majority Congress disproportionately filled with religious extremists, more at 11.  And here's Tom, with the weather! >
  
  Ahh religion…. The great explanation for all things…
  At least until we got the internet and access to all human knowledge. >
  
  That shit falls apart real fuckin quick. >
  
  It’s almost as though congress has been rigged to over represent small isolated communities and under represent large diverse communities… >
  
  You're right.  Anyone not in a large city deserves no representation at all.  Fuck anyone in a town with a population less than 50,000 >
  
  As opposed to the current situation: fuck anyone who lives in a town with MORE than 50,000?  How is that better?
  Serious question:  Why should someone's individual vote count for less, because they choose to live in a big city vs. a small town?  How is that morally defensible? >
  
  How would it be morally defensible to completely deny meaningful representation to Americans in areas with lower population densities?  At least with the current system, those Americans have some influence.  The alternative would lead them to being completely irrelevant.  Their wants and needs would be completely overshadowed just because of where they live.
  With your logic, what's the point of representing minority racial groups or sexual orientations?  Their population is so small, their numbers aren't large enough to make an impact, so why bother listening to them? >
  
  
  With your logic, what's the point of representing minority racial groups or sexual orientations? 
  
  You understand that those demographics are underrepresented, while rural demographics are over represented, right? >
  
  He likes the latter. >
  
  Politically, Congress doesn’t reflect modern America, anyone with eyes should find. >
  
  It probably better reflects the background of multimillionaires, which is what you generally have to be in politics. >
  
  Nor financially, racially, by gender, age, education, housing status, hair color, occupation or any number of other criteria, but it's who people voted for.
  All that said, I recognize there are representation problems, especially around how we draw districts, but unless we start getting enclaves of people grouped by religion, how is this particular issue supposed to be addressed? Are we supposed to move into atheist neighborhoods and Jewish neighborhoods and catholic neighborhoods? Draw districts based on religion? Pick so many reps of each religious group to send to congress?
  I feel like we should fix our absurd districts and then let the people who live in them pick who represents them. >
  
  The Christians run the Congress. >
  
  Folks who claim to be Christians maybe.  Practicing Christians?  Not so much. >
  
  No, they're practicing. They are just choosing some of the most hateful and judgemental teachings of the most hateful, ignorant, and judgemental sects. >
  
  Definitely not by gender or economic class. You’re right. >
  
  Vote them all out. >
  
  I know one party that sure as hell doesn't. >
  
  I think this is a result of the winner-take-all model of representation we currently use combined with rampant gerrymandering and lobbyist influence.  At best, perhaps 65% of a district are represented, usually a little over half.
  If instead a district were given proxy votes proportionate to population and sent as many representatives as get 10 percent or more of a district's counted votes and the right to cast as many of those proxy votes in proportion to what percentage of that districts votes they got, far more people would have their views heard in congress.  The green party gets 10 percent of the district's votes, they cast 10 percent of the district's proxy votes on legislation.  Same for the democrat, republican, the evangelical, and the libertarian.
  This would not only blunt the impact of gerrymandering but virtually declaw lobbyists since congress would balloon in size.  That however is manageable since counting to 2000 or 3000 is well within our capability using technology.
  The committee system would have to be scrapped, but it's unclear that it does any good.  Also the senate would be done away with - rome is long dead.
  Bill and rules would be subject to simple majority votes.  But, there would be at least 5 parties - the progressive, the conservative, the green, the evangelical, and the libertarian.
  Since it would accurately represent the population the influence of the fringes would be just that - fringe.  While there may be concern of a 'tyranny of the majority' it is worth noting that we now live under the tyranny of the minority.  
  And, congress wouldn't be more deadlocked than it is now by any interpretation of 'deadlocked'.  Thanks to a conspiratorial fringe a number of which actively participated in an insurrection, congress can't even be seated. >
  
  Did it ever? >
  
  Probably back in the good old days when women and anyone with the slightest hint of melanin weren’t considered “people”. >
  
  of course. congress doesn't reflect america in age or wealth either. they're mostly a niche slice of the top 1% >
  
  As long as politicians rule this country in a secular manner, I have no issue. And besides, I’m never gonna agree with the Christian world views as a Muslim, who also accepts secularism as the best way forward for America and all western nations. >
  
  America is the land of the oppressed and the home of the coward. >
  
  News Flash. >
  
  Not just religiously. >
  
  That's because there's a lot of religious christians who won't vote for non-christians. And everybody else is kinda just... used to letting them have that. >
  
  Should it? I only care about a candidate's religion if they're using it to broadcast how good of a person they are. It lets me know I shouldn't vote for them. >
  
  So, would it be ok if all representatives were straight white men?
  I’m right there with you on the broadcasting/not voting for them part, but it’s disheartening that there are so few in government who share my “deeply held beliefs”, and that matters when crafting the wording of bills and making arguments. I want my viewpoint represented, and I don’t think that’s too much to ask. >
  
  People choose what matters to them, religion is one of those things that generally doesn't matter to people. 
  Today, people put emphasis on gender, race, sexuality. 
  But I won't speak for OP, but if someone feels they can be best represented by a straight white male, what's the problem? Personally I don't think someones color, sexuality or gender is indicative of how well of a representative they will be. >
  
  
  Today, people put emphasis on gender, race, sexuality.
  
  In my opinion?
  An ideal legislative body should be populated proportionally to demographics.  I want a country that's 50% women to have half of our representatives be female.  I want a country that's 20% Latino to have 20% of its representatives be Latino.
  Do I want our leaders to be the most qualified?  Yes.  But somehow, I find it suspicious that the "most qualified candidates" always seem to be overwhelmingly white men.  
  That's why people care about those things.  Because we want a government of the people, for the people. >
  
  How does that even work? Say you’re Asian and atheist and female and the 2 choices are a Christian white female and an atheist black male, who are you supposed to pick? And why would you pick based on all of that instead of picking based on your ideology?
  With first past the post voting it’s even less likely that it would perfectly reflect the people’s religion, race, gender etc. How can the legislature reflect the people’s ideologies and also reflect all of those other things at the same time >
  
  The point I'm making is that a truly representative legislature would have a great deal more diversity than what we see now.  
  People obviously aren't voting for a candidate because they're a black atheist or whatever, they're voting for policy, like you said.  I think the reason people now are focusing more on race, gender, and sexuality more than in the past is because we're finally starting to see a couple leaders representing populations aside from middle aged white guys.
  It's not a choice like what you described, that's a straw man argument.  It's just being able to choose from qualified candidates that aren't all the same demographic that's vastly overrepresented compared to the actual population. >
  
  What is a truly representative legislature? Democrat representatives represent democrat populations and republicans do the same. Is it when the race also reflects the general populace? Religion? Why not add height and handedness while we’re at it? 
  It seems to me only in the US is this such an issue, in a lot of other countries it doesn’t even matter
  It’s obviously lamentable that the majority are white men; I was only saying it will never match the population perfectly and it shouldn’t have to >
  
  
  in a lot of other countries it doesn’t even matter
  
  Probably because the US has issues a lot of other countries don't with respect to racial and gender inequity.
  Again, stop making this into a straw man argument.  Nobody is saying "10% of our politicians must be left handed to reflect statistical population occurrence", for fuck's sake.  The point is that a country that's half female and close to half PoC shouldn't have a government that's 90% white men.  You're being deliberately obtuse. >
  
  
  An ideal legislative body should be populated proportionally to demographics. I want a country that's 50% women to have half of our representatives be female. I want a country that's 20% Latino to have 20% of its representatives be Latino.
  
  I was responding to this
  If I'm being intentionally obtuse then you're being intentionally amnesiac
  It seems like we agree now I don't know why you resort to insults, can't argue in good faith it seems >
  
  Okay, is "pedantic" better for you?
  Obviously nobody is suggesting some kind of matrix where we assign candidates to districts by demographics.  Like I said, I want to see the population reflected by our legislative bodies.  I don't want disproportionate representation of some demographics and nonexistent representation of others.  Ideally, it would be nice to have a legislative body that represents an average cross section of the USA.  I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand.  A country that's 60% white shouldn't have a Congress that's 90+ percent white.  A country that's 50% female shouldn't have a Congress that's 70-80% male.  This is a really simple concept.  You're being pedantic about details and deliberately obtuse (this isn't a personal insult - it means you're intelligent enough to be aware of the point but purposely acting as if you're not getting it) to derail the substantive message of the comment. >
  
  Y’don’t fuckin say. >
  
  
  Pew listed 20 other members of Congress as having unknown religious affiliations, either because they declined to answer CQ Roll Call’s query or because the answers are otherwise muddled (such as in the case of New York Republican George Santos, along with much else in his background).
  
  This was kind of funny. >
  
  Neither does the Supreme Court.  Probably the Executive Branch as well. >
  
  As a devoutly non-religious person I've always despised how much influence it has on our politics, so it really bums me out that Sinema is the first member of Congress to claim no religion.  I guess that means I can appreciate one thing about her? Of course I assume for many it's just lip service, playing the game assuming it's the only way to win. >
  
  The PBS article references this Pew poll. 
  The biggest underrepresented group (by a wide margin) is 'unaffiliated'. About 30% of the US is unaffiliated but basically no members of congress are unaffiliated. Because of this under represented group basically all the religions are over represented (both sums must sum to 100%). 
  However, I wonder if there may be something wrong with the data collection. (For context, Pew does a number of these polls where they ask the same question over long periods of time to identify trends. To maintain consistency in the trend data collection and/or the questions can't be changed too much by Pew.) I am non-religious, I have not gone to a religious gathering in over a year, I don't pray privately, etc. However, if I was a politician and was called up and asked: what religion are you? I would probably answer 'Episcopalian'. I would worry that if I answered more truthfully that I may lose support. I was baptized in an Episcopalian church so I would be comfortable answering in that way. I would guess that there are a lot of representatives who are vaguely X religion and put that down if asked but don't practice. 
  TLDR: I think that there are a lot of non-religious politicians that state their cultural/family religion despite not practicing. >
  
  Congress doesn't even politically represent modern America. The proportion of Republicans in both chambers is higher than the proportion of votes they received.
  They're the party of minority rule. >
  
  ~~Religiously~~, Congress doesn't reflect modern America...
  FTFY >
  
  The average age in the senate is 64. The house is 58 (as of last year). Of course they don't reflect America. >
  
  I waiting for a legitimate SCOTUS and a non-hostile congress to get rid of that “in God we trust” crap. >
  
  Pew would know religion >
  
  Both full of pedophiles. They got that. >
  
  And both like to move pedophiles around like shuffling playing cards to avoid prosecution. >
  
  Incumbents historically get re-elected.    
  It’s rare for reps and senators to retire before they’re geriatric anymore.       
  The GOP has a lot of House seats with no competition from other parties. 
  So, of course Congress is going to lag behind trends in country. >
  
  In a democratic system, it's ridiculous to think that something like religion is going to be equally represented. People are stupid. They vote for people like them. The majority ethnicity/religion/whatever is always going to be over-represented. >
  
  
  They vote for people like them.
  
  So then we'd have government that is much closer to the country's demographics. >
  
  Which religion is most overrepresented? >
  
  I mean, I'd say about 90% are just pretending, so I don't think any religion is overrepresented. But on paper it would clearly be Christianity. >
  
  I don't think most are pretending. Many just aren't particularly adherent or devout, or actively practicing. I'm 36 and about 3/5 or 2/3 of my friends identify as a member of some religion, but most who do aren't super devout. Or at least they rarely ever talk about religion and they don't proselytize. >
  
  Well, right, because they are ancient dinosaurs following ancient dinosaur religions about the destruction of the world and the second coming of Meteor or whatever the fuck. >
  
  It is almost as if the House of Representatives doesn’t really represent us - Common sensible people >
  
  Tbh is it different? I know so many people who say they’re catholic or Christian who have either never been to church or not since they were small. Which I find weird but common. >
  
  This is not earth shattering information. >
  
  Are we forgetting that the SCOTUS is seven Catholics, one Catholic trained Evangelical Christian, and one Jew? >
  
  Was it a big deal when the Supreme Court was six Catholics and three Jews? >
  
  At issue is the makeup of the U.S. population versus the makeup of Congress. My point is that the SCOTUS population is even more skewed. >
  
  Corp blow jobs make the world go round. The USA sold out. >
  
  The majority in Congress only profess to religious belief. They don't actually believe in it. >
  
  I guess it's because many atheists don't care what religion you are, but Christians do. So it's an easy win to identify as Christian. >
  
  Of course it doesn’t: Religious people won’t elect non-religious people or people of other faiths than themselves. Non-religious people absolutely will elect religious people. I’m an atheist…I’ll happily vote for a religious person so long as their policy and voting record aligns with my priorities. So I think right there, that gives an outsider advantage to religion in politics. Then add into it gerrymandering and big spending by religious elites, this is just obvious. >
  
  You do not say? >
  
  Being in Congress has become a profession, rather than a service. >
  
  There is nothing at the federal level that is an accurate reflection of the US population at all. >
  
  Or demographically. Or ideologically. Or morally. >
  
  Well sure but it's also a farce for many of those members. Saying you're religious is a catch all for stating you are a person of good character or a  reverent person. Those most vocal are antithetical to these values and those least vocal most aligned to those virtues. >
  
  It pisses me off every time i hear god rhetoric coming from politicians. >
  
  Thank you Captain Obvious >
  
  Pew? >
  
  Why should they?  The majority of Americans do not actively participate in the electoral process. >
  
  I feel like this makes sense though.  In order to get elected many people will have to be religious.  Religion is important to voting blocks on both sides of the aisle.  But non-religious people dont really care as long as the religious candidate isn't shoving it in peoples face.  So therefore it's politically advantageous to be religious with very little drawbacks as long as you aren't extremist.  So most people in congress will be religious and that wont change until being religious is a deal breaker to athiests and agnostics. >
  
  This is basically it. Republicans target hardcore Christians as a demographic, so that explains that. Democrats then can make some simple religious pronouncements thet won't piss off all but the most edgy atheists, who will still probably vote for them anyway because they won't vote for the evangelical. TLDR: Democrats don't lose votes for being religious. >
  
  First thought I had reading the title was that congress is religiously devoted to not reflecting modern America, which I easily believed for a few a seconds. >
  
  Meet my friend Jerry. Jerry Mander. Hes a christian >
  
  Cause they all have to bow their heads and pretend to be serious for the religious nut jobs to not use their seemingly unending supply of free time to derail their candidacy. Truth is religious zealots are more motivated than sane people so not pissing them off is a high priority. >
  
  Who is getting advice from seats, Pews? >
  
  No shit. >
  
  He who farts in church sits in own pew. >
  
  Corporations using religion to spread fear and control their people. Fucking awful. >
  
  Uh.... duh? >
  
  Shit, congress doesn't reflect modern America politically due to gerrymandering. >
  
  I would imagine many of them are “fake” Christians. Just lip service to get elected. It’s good for business. Thank god I’m an atheist. >
  
  Morally and ethically, too. >
  
  Duh? >
  
  No shit. Congress is run by a bunch of rabid, radical Christians trying to turn us into a theocracy. >
  
  Well Modern America is corrupt so🤷‍♂️ >
  
  Most Americans don’t believe in an old man in the sky >
  
  Religion age income housing status >
  
  If you are religious, and an adult making your own choices, I have no time for you. The more we ignore these silly nuts, the further we advance. 
  I just think we have finally turned the corner, this shit dies if we can just suffer the noises a dying thing makes. >
  
  And politically? Morally? >
  
  I definitely didn’t need a full study to tell me the majority of people are not white Christian males. >
  
  Lets be honest, Congress doesn't represent America by almost any measure because it is a deeply undemocratic legislative body. We need to uncap the house so that it can more accurately represent the American people. The Senate should be removed from it's law-making role since it is fundamentally undemocratic, instead serving as only a check on the powers of the president and the House. >
  
  Congress also doesn’t reflect the socio-economic levels of our society AT ALL! >
  
  Is it suppose to? Sounds like people ultimately don't care if you're religious or not. >
  
  … those people aren’t represented in congress >
  
  Who's "those people"?