Comments
glorydaze2 t1_j9m38xs wrote
that would be a big no
Zealousideal_Lie4683 t1_j9mk3sq wrote
He has my support. As a member of the NJ Assembly, there's only so much you can really achieve since much of the state is on auto-pilot. To succeed in NJ, you have to laser focus on an issue and build broad support around it. If he chooses non-public schools as this issue, he could possibly succeed and have an impact. I went to a non-public school in NJ and also would like to see this issue be addressed and optimized for society's benefit. NJ has one of the best school systems in the country, and I've felt the balance between non-public and public schools helped make this happen.
mohanakas6 OP t1_j9mlyz0 wrote
He’d be better off focusing on the State Senate seat than the Assembly. Thoughts?
Zealousideal_Lie4683 t1_j9mmgb5 wrote
Maybe that seat would be harder. The Democrats should put someone up for the Senate seat though. The article made is seem like they don't plan to do so.
AdministrativeBall58 t1_j9ngpew wrote
No thank you!
jerseycityfrankie t1_j9p72c6 wrote
I’d support legislation designed to restrict religious fundamentalist candidates from running unless they could somehow prove their religious beliefs wouldn’t influence their policy making. Not sure how that would be engineered but the separation of church and state is the fundamental guiding principle.
[deleted] t1_j9pd21d wrote
DavidPuddy666 t1_j9pd43u wrote
That would be 100% unconstitutional to create religious litmus tests for candidates. If you find a candidate’s religious beliefs disqualifying you can express that at the ballot box.
jerseycityfrankie t1_j9pdlgm wrote
It’s in the Foundations of our Democracy, a DEFINING ATRIBUTE that we have an unambiguous and clear separation of church and state.
DavidPuddy666 t1_j9pdwoa wrote
Separation of Church and State doesn’t mean religious people can’t hold office or participate in politics though - it means the government’s policies and actions can’t favor one religion over another.
jerseycityfrankie t1_j9pkgv4 wrote
We agree. And yet dingbat fundamentalists have never been as powerful as they are now.
blumpkin_donuts t1_j9pr3wa wrote
Might I direct you to all of the Middle Ages and a line of men carrying the title "Pope"
Rude-Bison-2050 t1_j9q9ix5 wrote
Lol god this sub is hilarious
Slavic_Dusa t1_j9qoxgz wrote
In seven states, it is illegal for atheist to hold the office. Also, very much so unconstitutional.
mohanakas6 OP t1_ja4g4fq wrote
If the switch does or does not happen, get an atheist to run for the Democratic slate.
mohanakas6 OP t1_ja4gkkt wrote
Changed flair to Awkward. Thoughts?
iJayZen t1_ja4r8p6 wrote
Not really awkward. The key is to get into positions of power, whether you are Red or Blue is of secondary importance.
iJayZen t1_j9m26c5 wrote
No thank you and not interesting.