Dogma, by definition, is beliefs which lack rational foundation, but are held to be “absolute” by some as part of religious faith or universal truth. Human history has proven that dogmatic governments often create division, prejudice and violence. Our government of “reasoned” laws, determined by collectively bargaining and of compromise, have affirmed that this is the best way of governing populations of differing ideas and faiths. In Koss’s article, he interprets the questioning of Amy Coney Barrett by U.S. Sens. Dick Durbin and Dianne Feinstein as violations of the “no religious test” from the Constitution. Untrue. Rather, these questions are about “religious dogmatism”. The Senators are right in trying to determine how her religious beliefs might affect her decisions as a judge on existing law. Durbin and Feinstein were seeking some assurance that Barrett would defer from religious dogma when judging secular democratic rights of citizens. Her history suggests there could be problems. Furthermore, some religious advocates are pushing for laws by extending what they call their “right to religious practice”, with apparent disregard to the affect on the rights of others. This is not “separation of church and state” - it’s an attack against it.