That’s one

March 12, 2007

Political office and atheism tend not to mix. Gallup released a poll just a few weeks ago in which Americans were asked which group they’d be least likely to vote for. Atheists finished last, behind Catholic, African American, Jewish, Mormon, women, Hispanic, and gay candidates. Indeed, atheists were the only group in which a majority said they simply could not support.

With that in mind, it’s hardly a surprise that officeholders would be reluctant to acknowledge disbelief. It’s also why it’s a very pleasant surprise to see one member of Congress step up. (via Shakespeare’s Sister)

There is only one member of Congress who is on record as not holding a god-belief.

Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America (www.secular.org ). Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee.

Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition’s research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress.

I know that must seem hard to believe, but as far as I can tell, that’s absolutely true. I’m sure there have been other non-believers in Congress, but Stark is apparently the very first to admit it publicly.

In fact, the only other professed nonbeliever in politics I can think of from recent years is Jesse Ventura, who was fairly aggressive about it.

The November [1999 issue of Playboy magazine] featuring the Ventura interview goes on sale Monday. It is typical Ventura free style, where “Jesse the Mind” gives his opinions on everything from sex to politics, as well as his thoughts on organized religion. Ventura is already known as an outspoken atheist and defender of the First Amendment separation of church and state; he was the only governor, for instance, who refused to support the National Day of Prayer event last May.

Ventura’s latest remarks, though, could land him in deeper trouble with America’s religious community. According to Associated Press, Ventura “blamed organized religion for the unpopularity of legalized prostitution, which he has said should be considered.” Ventura is also quoted as telling Playboy: “Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people’s business.”

As I recall, that didn’t work out too well for ol’ Jesse, whose comments drew immediate and widespread criticism.

It’ll be interesting to watch if Pete Stark faces any kind of scrutiny for this. Given his district, Stark probably hasn’t endangered his political career, but will the media pursue this as a novelty? (“Let’s see what the atheist thinks about this.”) Will the religious right express outrage at the fact that a member of Congress doesn’t believe in God?

Stay tuned.

Will the media pursue this as a novelty? Let’s see, can it be used to trivialise, demean, and assault? Yes? well, let it roll, then … praise be!

  • That’s life in our anti-Christian America. Atheists taking over the government!

    Funny how the believers will accept someone who believes something totally antithetical to their own beliefs, but someone who disbelieves in all the fairytales… that person is unacceptable.

    Atheists only disbelieve in one more god than most theists.

  • I would guess Stark is the only self-professed or self-aware nontheist in public office.

    “I believe God wants me and my friends to get even richer while other people starve,” “I believe God wants us to stay in Iraq no matter how bloody it gets,” etc. are not expressions of belief in a God, they are at best the sort of pathetic excuses a feeble-minded person makes for bad behaviour. At worst the cretin who spouts such nonsense is having an identity crisis and thinks HE is God.

    (Sorry, is atheist the same as a nontheist or is it more like an agnostic?)

  • Under the “one bad apple” rule, the religious right now has an excuse to tell their members to never ever vote for a Democrat again. Harboring nontheists is a crime to these guys.

  • I’d rather have someone admit they don’t believe, then someone admit they do yet do everything the opposite of that belief … like folks who want to put the 10 Commandments outside a courthouse that hands out the death penalty (since, last I checked, “Thou Shalt Not Kill” doesn’t have an asterisk next to it saying it’s okay for wars, captial punishment, etc.).

    It goes to that old — and utterly wrong — belief that one must be religious to be moral. The two are mutually exclusive.

    I will say, however, that insulting those who do believe is pretty stupid. Many people believe for many different reasons. While I think some of them are nucking futs, many are very sincere.

    It boils down to one thing: Religion is a personal philosophy, and should not be public policy.

  • …is atheist the same as a nontheist or is it more like an agnostic?)

    From what I understand, the former. Agnostism tends more to the “I don’t know if there is a god or not; to say definitively one way or the other takes just as large a leap of faith since neither position is proveable”. Atheism, on the other hand definitively states that there is no God.

  • I guess his “nontheism” (ooh! A new word for atheism!) makes Stark a rational realist while at the same time, he’s one of the few politicians in the nation refuses to be a pious hypocrite. How refreshing!

  • This nation is saturated with religion, yet millions of Christians are ignoramuses. Somewhere around seventy percent in one poll thought “God helps those who help themselves” is a quotation from the Bible. (Benjamin Franklin coined the term). Some forty-eight percent in the same poll thought Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. The fear of Atheism is a form of phobia developed from the relentless brainwashing our society gives our children in monotheistic religions. All monotheism is political dogma that has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with maintaining control over people. As an Atheist I am proud to say I never cheated on my wife or my taxes, I served in the Army in defense of my country, I’m a good neighbor who loves my kids and grandkids and I help old ladies across the street. I consider myself a far more decent human being than the right wing religious charlatans like Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Bauer, a sorry collection of bigots and authoritarian crooks who soil the real message of Jesus Christ every day.

  • “… a crutch for weak-minded people….”

    I once edited the yearbook of the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco. We had to write up descriptions of every recognized club and organization. When I got to the Sodality (essentially a club for those who served as altar boys at the many Masses held in the university chapel cathedral) I wrote “For those afraid to live in a godless world, the University provides ….”

    Unfortunately, the Dean of Students, Rev. Francis A. Moore, S.J., discovered and censored it. I was hoping for a Nietzschean moment, but I had to wait till a later date (when, as editor of their newspaper, they expelled me).

    I’ll never understand why atheism (or nontheism) is so anathema in a nation founded by Deists in the Age of Reason and dedicated to the Separation of Church and State. Atheism is a perfectly reasonable position, especially compared with all the unprovable and contradictory beliefs people espouse based on little more than “leaps of faith”, beliefs which lie at heart of nearly every bloody and tortuous and deadly conflict in human history.

    Here’s to Pete Stark [clink]!

  • As I recall, that didn’t work out too well for ol’ Jesse…

    As I recall, Jesse Ventura never professed to be an atheist. He simply spoke against religion. There’s a difference.

    Edo: Atheism, on the other hand definitively states that there is no God.

    We could drive this comment thread to 100 posts disputing the meaning of “atheism.” Those on the correct side would be the ones who say that you’re wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief; it can include an affirmative belief that no gods exist, but it doesn’t have to. As such, an agnostic can also be an atheist.

  • Stark should have responded, ‘I prefer my opium in a pipe’.

  • “Will the religious right express outrage at the fact that a member of Congress doesn’t believe in God?”

    Is that even a question ? Wait till old Bill O starts his ‘war on Congress’ flap. He’ll get the non-thinkers so tizzled up, they will be running around with pitchforks trying to burn Stark at the stake.

  • Having been raised in a Fundie household, I can tell you this should be more of a surprise than anything else to the “flock”; i.e.: that all democrats aren’t atheists.

    Of course, they will compensate by raising their expectations of politicians and believe, hook line and sinker, that there are truly ‘0’ atheist Republicans, rather than realize that a Republican who publicly admits a disbelief in God, is a Republican without a job.

    So, unfortunately, the tally will be:

    Politicians who don’t believe in God:

    Democrats: 1
    Republicans: 0

    … instead of what it ought to be:

    Politicians who lie about believing in God:

    Democrats: -1
    Republicans: God only knows!

  • Jesse was right though. My experiences with the fanatical and the not so fanatical religious types here has lead me to believe almost all of them are using religion to help them deal with the harsh realities of life. I wonder if there’s a connection between the mentality of religious types and drug addicts?

  • I agree that there’s no future in debating the definition, but I suspect that to a large majority of those who asserted that they couldn’t support one for president, an “atheist” is somebody like the late Madalyn Murray O’Hair, who not only did not believe, but who made it her life’s work to disabuse others of *their* belief. If you go around telling people that their faith marks them as a cretin, you ain’t gonna pick up a whole lot of support in the heartland. On the other hand, if a politician simply states, as some have, “I’m not affiliated with any organized religion,” the tolerance level goes way up.

  • Interesting thread.
    I am a non-believer, but I belong to the UUA, which tolerate believers, agnostics, atheists, non-deists, wiccans, buddhists, & others.
    At any rate, if asked about this kind of thing, I tend to describe myself as a “Humanist” which I think most accurately describes where my head is at: It is not that relevant whether there is a sky-god or isn’t, and it’s not that relevant whether someone believes in one or not, or whether they say they believe in God, but they don’t mean a sky-god, they mean a thing that they experience inside their consciousness. None of that is as relevant as what happens between human beings in the here and now. That’s my characterization of Humanism. Killing is bad whether you’re regligious or a heathen or any kind of non-believer. And so on …
    Having said that, it does seem that this thread should be more about the relationship between people beliefs or non-beliefs and the political aspect of civilization.

  • I remember when Ventura made those comments. I thought it was great then, and still do… though I can also see how people would take offense.

  • I’m sure there have been other non-believers in Congress, but Stark is apparently the very first to admit it publicly. — CB.

    I’m sure it’s a Freudian slip, but the use of “admit” would suggest that non-theism is in some way shameful, deviant or criminal — something one has to “admit” to, rather than merely declaring or stating.

    That’s my first point. The second is that it is nice to see Shakespeare’s Sister using the term non-theist, rather than atheist, since it is both more accurate and less pejoratively tarnished. Interestingly enough, the term atheist was first used to describe Christians, since they were without gods. It is similar to the word amoral, which is used in contra-distinction to the word immoral.

    Since it is impossible to conclusively prove or disprove the existence of a God, the self or an external reality, the adoption of the status of non-theist is both the most logical and the most liberated. One is not trammeled by an interminable dialogue with a fantasized entity about which one has no incontovertible evidence, worrying oneself into a quandary about meeting his illusory demands or inflating oneself into a megalomaniac frenzy as his self-proclaimed spokesperson.

    Of course, some people do seem to live with a belief in an external creator being for which there is no basis, and retain an outward sembance of sanity. I don’t know how they do it, and I don’t know how far I would trust them. But there we are. It takes all sorts, doesn’t it.

  • Isn’t it terrible that a member of Congress doesn’t believe in God? Just like the first seven presidents….

  • Regarding the existence of god, a college roommate (he may have gotten it from somewhere, I don’t know) once told me that a theologian is a blind man, in an unlit cellar with no windows, who is looking for a black cat, which isn’t there, and finds it.

    • Comments are closed.