Atheism And The American Congress
10 January 2007 by jimmerA guest posting today by a regular here at GIFS
Atheism and the American Congress
by: Naomi
Women, Blacks, Gays, two Buddhists, a Muslim, a synagogueful of Jewish, a cathedralful of Catholics, a revival-tentful of garden-variety Christians. But no…?
The US Congress is slow to change. Very. very. slow… However, signs of change are somewhat evident. It is not all male/all white/all wealthy anymore. And as of the 110th Congress, it will no longer be all-Christian! Can I hear an “amen”?
There is at least one openly gay representative (Barney Frank [D-MA]). And another who lists GLBT as her religious affiliation…
From Wikipedia on 110th Congress
There are 16 female senators — the highest number of women ever serving in the same Senate. There are 13 Jews, 3 Hispanics, 2 Asian Americans, 1 senator of Arab descent (half), and 1 African-American. The average age of the Senate is 62 years of age in 2007.
The House includes one Muslim, two Buddhists, and 30 Jews. There are 42 African-Americans (including two non-voting delegates), and 74 female Representatives. There are also 27 Hispanics, 4 Asian & Pacific Islanders, and 1 Native American.
So, who’s missing? If you guessed an atheist, you’d only be partly right. But given the size of Congress (535 voting members), the odds are that at least one of them is an atheist. Unacknowledged, unavowed, closeted–pick one. At roughly 10% of the population, that means approximately 50 may be agnostic, atheistic or human secularist. (Six members list “unaffiliated” to the question of religion; could that mean…?)
So why would an atheist not admit to being a member of Congress? Because the Christianists will. not. have. it! They maintain that America was founded as a “Christian Nation” (always capitalized, and, sometimes, even in ALL CAPS). They claim that our Founding Fathers were all Christian and based our entire government on Judeo-Christian principles. Of course, that’s been debunked. The problem is: It won’t stay debunked. Just when we think we’ve finally conquered that viral meme, it crops up somewhere else. After all, it’s a handy canard to promote or excuse some action or legislation–or just another way for the Christianists to play the “victim” card, also known as Martyrdom(tm).
Around the country, there are eight states whose constitutions contain amendments that prohibit an atheist from running for office, holding office, being appointed to office or to judgeships–or even working for state agencies! Despite the fact that the US Supreme Court struck them down (Torcaso v Watkins, 1961), they remain on the books but unenforceable. Repeal is possible but it requires a ballot initiative that may not pass. That’s the nature of politics, especially as practiced by Christianists.
The Law of Intended Consequences says: If you pass a law that says atheists cannot hold office, they will hide their lack of belief from you. In fact, between obfuscation, camouflage and speaking in “fundie code”, it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between a “closeted atheist” and a Christian!
(Sources: Count of religious affiliations of members of Congress compiled from self-identification in Congressional 
Quarterly profiles of each member. Totals do not include results of runoff elections in Louisiana’s 2nd (Dec. 9) and Texas’ 23rd (Dec. 12) congressional districts.)
To keep the table manageable, I grouped all other denominations that represented five or less. Look at this wall of denominations: AME(2H), Anglican(1H), AssemblyofGod(4H), ChristianReformed(2H), ChristianScientist(5H), ChurchofChrist(1H,1S), ChurchofGod(1S), Congregationalist(1S), CongregationalBaptist(1H), DisciplesofChrist(2H), EasternOrthodox(4H,1S), Evangelical(2H), Evangelical(2H), EvangelicalLutheran(1H), EvangelicalMethodist(1H), ReorganizedLatterDaySaints(1H), Nazarene[Church](1H), Quaker(1H). SeventhDayAdventist(2H), Unitarian(1H,1S), UnitedChurchofChrist(2H,4S)!
If you’re interested in which denomination your congressional delegation is, visit: 110th Congress Religious Affiliation (PDF file) or Wiki, Members of Congress. And while you’re there, check out Utah–every single Senator and Representative is white, male and Mormon, and four of the five are Republican!
At PettyLarseny blog, you can see why I think I’m right–that there are already atheists in Congress. He posts Keith Ellison: Tip of the Iceberg.
What started my search was this: New Congress Brings with it Religious Firsts. Jonathon Tilove, at NewsHouse News Service, breaks it down along party lines.
Atheists/agnostics/secular humanists have at least as much to contribute (more, actually!). It’s criminal to deny us the opportunity to serve and govern. We take Science seriously, truly care about people without the “Sword of god/Damocles” hanging over our heads, and hate war for monetary gain. We have an abiding respect and passion for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In fact, we’d make superior legislators!
So, how about a pool to predict which year/decade/century/millennium the first atheist is sworn in as a congressperson?
10 January 2007, on 2:50 am
OK, I just read Petty Larseny, and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconson) listed her religion as GLBT. I’m going to have to agree with PT, she’s a shoe-in for atheist. And the two Buddhists? Aren’t they pretty much de-facto atheists? My wife likes reading Thich Nhat Hanh and if she ever gets caught in a religious discussion where she feels uncomfortable saying she is an atheist, she always tells people she’s a Buddhist.
As for the non-affiliated, I guess the word atheist still has too much stigma attached to it for them to come clean. My representative here in Portland, Earl Blumenauer, is listed as non-affiliated, but I’m guessing he is probably atheist. Portland is one of the most non-religious cities in the country, so I don’t really think it would make much of a difference if he came clean (assuming he is an atheist). Maybe I will write him and ask him if he is willing to take the plunge.
And I noticed that there are 30 Jews in Congress this year. I have several close Jewish friends, well, they refer to themselves as Jewish, they participate in the rituals and such, but they are really atheists. They just like the traditions but they don’t really believe in God. So I’m guessing we could probably get a few more atheists out of the Jewish contingent as well.
10 January 2007, on 4:25 am
Bruce, did you notice the disproportionate numbers for the Jewish faith? They make up 8% of Congress but only 1.3% of the total population that state that they are Jews. Same with Episcopalian and Presbyterian. Catholics, however, are about equal. (The table was a bitch to get on the page; Jimmer worked like a Trojan and made it look as good as it did when I finished it in Word10, which is incompatible with HTML. Magic Man! Thanks, Jimmer!)
I suspect that Hindus will make it to Congress before atheists…
10 January 2007, on 5:00 am
Hell, as long as we can get rid of the reality-denying anti-evolution conservative crowd for the next few years, I’m happy. Societal progress is a slow thing.
Nietzsche said god was dead a long time ago. Although he was right, we are just now starting to see the imaginary god pulse slow down (at least in educated countries.)
Hopefully, IT communications advances like this site will help invisible man(s) be put in the body bag where superstition belongs.
10 January 2007, on 8:28 am
So Jews are a religious group AND and ethnic group? I’ve always been confused about this. Aren’t jews, at their roots, arabs who practiced specific rituals?
10 January 2007, on 11:48 am
I’m not so sure about this one, Revenant. While it may be historically accurate, its a lot like saying Koreans, at their roots, are Chinese who moved to a different country a long time ago.
10 January 2007, on 12:07 pm
Naomi,
Very interesting breakdown.
There is some dispute as to whether Buddhism is a religion so perhaps it should have been included in the “unaffiliated” row of the chart. The two Buddhist members of the House would be atheists according to Buddhist philosophy. So in essence atheists have made it to Congress.
In an article in Humanist News on Dec 4, 2006 there’s a quote: As Corliss Lamont states, “Since Humanism as a functioning credo is so closely bound up with the methods of reason and science, plainly free speech and democracy are its very lifeblood.” Definitely more atheists/humanists need to be in Congress. Those with faith in god should realize that their god can do whatever he wants without their help (wink wink), therefore, they should leave the making of laws to those who don’t rely on a sky daddy to manage human affairs.
10 January 2007, on 12:16 pm
OT, but just read this a.m. from E-Skeptic:
“According to documents released on Dec. 28, 2006 by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Bush administration appointees will not allow rangers at Grand Canyon National Park to mention that the earth is more than a few thousand years old. “In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” said PEER Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”
This is outrageous! Can you imagine? They are trying to fill up the Grand Canyon with bullshit!
Also, in that article was mention that crosses and plaques with Bible verses are being re-instated at various observation points at the GC park. WTF!
10 January 2007, on 12:28 pm
My Representative is Nancy Pelosi. Hooraah. While I agree with her on many issues there still is the matter of our costitutional rights having been stripped from us that concerns me the most. In an effort to see both sides of the issue she is willing step out of her own comfort zone. I’ll let this say the rest,
“Madam Speaker”
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/20070109_mr_fish_bipartisan_blunt/
Lynda
The Canned Granyon article is BS. I’ll get the real info for you. This article was debunked a week or so ago.
10 January 2007, on 12:46 pm
Lynda
Here is a bit more on PEER. you may need to scroll down to the Grand Canyon articles. The Park Service is not under orders to teach or interpret YEC in their presentations. The parks list many facts according to known science. Go here;
http://parkrangerx.blogspot.com/
10 January 2007, on 1:27 pm
jimmer, we have been to the Grand Canyon a couple of times in recent years, and while they sell a couple of stupid books written by creationists about the Grand Canyon, most of the books and educational material they sell is based on scientific and historical evidence. The ranger talks did not cater to creationists, and creationism was not mentioned even once.
To add to the link you provided, here is a quote from the official Grand Canyon National Park website.
10 January 2007, on 1:57 pm
“Around the country, there are eight states whose constitutions contain amendments that prohibit an atheist from running for office, holding office, being appointed to office or to judgeships–or even working for state agencies!”
That’s funny. I’m at work right now.
But seriously, I am ashamed that Texas is often the first of the eight listed. Not all of us are morons. I promise.
10 January 2007, on 4:23 pm
I’ll take 2018 for $100…
10 January 2007, on 6:07 pm
I bet loads and loads of them are “closet” atheists, on both sides of the aisle. They only display their Religion colors (like flashing “gang” signs) during campaign season. Otherwise they don’t take any of that crap seriously, like most other moderately well educated people. Rove, et. al. welcome the “nut” (Religious Right) vote, but they won’t let them have any serious impact on war, economic policy, etc, etc.
Judaism is an ethno-cultural identity as well as a religious signifier. It can be both, or just the former. I can’t pull the same trick; I have to either lie and say I’m Presbyterian (the religious tradition I was raised in and never *formally* left, e.g. never kicked out), or stretch the truth and say Unitarian Universalist (I do sometimes attend their services locally, because they’re like the only outlet for progressive thought in this corner of Texas)…of course, I’d never run for office because I’m also unabashedly a socialist by conviction, so of course I’m automatically a “Godless commie” in the simple minded reductionistic right-wing MSM worldview, which shuts me out right there, plus I wouldn’t care to have my personal life subjected to a public microscope either.
I do follow the Harris County Green Party in town (Houston), but the Fort Bend County Greens disbanded back in 2004.
I forget which religious affiliation my Rep (Nick Lampson-D) is, but it was some mainstream something or other.
I don’t see anyone being able to get elected anytime soon running as an out-of-the-closet, loud & proud atheist. Not in my lifetime, I don’t think. Nor would I vote for one just on that basis…least of all if the person was a rightish, pro-business libertarian jerk. (though if forced to choose between an R and a Libertarian–as is often the case here–I vote for the L every time). To win my vote, they just have to be in favor of the little guy and against powerful private interests that put their own interests before the public good. The atheism bit would just be icing on the cake.
10 January 2007, on 8:49 pm
Remember this exchange with George Bush Sr.:
Sherman (interviewer from American Atheists): What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?
Bush: I guess I’m pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?
Bush: No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I’m just not very high on atheists.
10 January 2007, on 10:18 pm
TAJ - and this
10 January 2007, on 10:24 pm
And this one concerning the current President Bush
10 January 2007, on 11:39 pm
Those are some scary stats…wonder if anyone has broken it down for Canada similarly?
11 January 2007, on 1:13 am
AJ and Stardust,
Those are some astounding quotes; reflecting on just how arrogantly ignorant, brainwashed…and downright stupid that family is regarding the constitution, the pledge…and any semblance of rational thinking.
You’d think the elder Bush, at least, would have realized that “under god” was added in the fifties, as anti-communist propoganda,to something totally unconnected to any ‘legitimate’ historical document.
Why we have children robotically pledging to ANY symbolic item…such as a flag…or whatever, is more evidence of the prevalence of blatant, unquestioned brainwashing, in the name of patriotism!
In my day, it was perfectly fine with:
“One nation, INDIVISABLE, with liberty and justice for all!”…
and that was in a Catholic school, no less! I never heard any squawking by the nuns, either.
If it ever happened…oh, say…like, in a thousand years or more?…that there was an Earth…PLANETARY flag; would earthlings, at that point be standing with their hands over their heart…pledging allegiance to it?
It might be very sad, indeed, if they did.
“The Big Fuckhead Brother Planet”?…
“Herbie”? [or "Hoibie"?]
“Hello, Galactic Counsel?…this is Big Fuckhead Earth calling!”…
“No answer!”…or “CLICK!”
Hopefully, religion will have completely died out WAAAAY before that time…IF, of course, humanity even survives. Of course…
Why should we really care?
It’s interesting that those quotes never circulated too widely in the media of the time…
at least I never ‘hoid’ them.
What mindless, irrational, fuckheads we’ve had…at various times…leading this country!
11 January 2007, on 7:53 am
RE: The good old US of Christ
1. We’re talking Founders raised in the 1700’s!! Men steeped in WESTERN European, Roman Holy Empire type civilization. They carried into the New World many traditions, cultural affectations, mores, and values from that past. And they had their own egos and business interests to protect; let alone their having to politically walk the mine field of a largely uneducated superstitious populace judging them. That’s why in their founding women were not really equal and slaves remained slaves, etc. Hey, they were ENLIGHTENED but NOT perfect. They had enough wisdom and guts to advance the ball of human freedom forward like never before. BUT they could not be expected to make the end goal… indeed to even see and fully recognize it in the horizon. Gives us a break Faith-idiots… saying the Founders referenced prevailing Western Civilization at the time is like DUH!!! And should their cultural affectations define us exactly forever? Should we dress like 18 Century gentlemen? Should slaves still be slaves, etc. etc.? NOT!! We must adjust andd move ever forward toward the end goal they had in mind (even if they had it LOOSELY and in spots IMPERFECTLY)… INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM … where Government exists only to protect and serve, and to ensure all citizens have a fighting chance for a good life, etc.!!
2. I know this is a hypothetical on my part – BUT if they knew the science etc. that we know now – would they claim themselves Christian, Atheist, or what?!?!? My vote: ATHEIST (as long as off the record).
11 January 2007, on 1:51 pm
Jimmer and Stardust,
Thanks for the links and correction on Grand Canyon issue.
11 January 2007, on 2:05 pm
Lynda - you are welcome
The creationist books sold in the Grand Canyon shops and bookstores are a hoot. I cannot believe that a thinking adult would take them seriously, but some do! The books look like fictional storybooks for children, which is exactly what they are.
11 January 2007, on 8:51 pm
Which congressional representatives are Buddhists?
11 January 2007, on 9:05 pm
tommykey -
From Room Eight New York Politics
11 January 2007, on 9:15 pm
It is too bad they don’t put warning labels on those books. Something like “This is one of many creation stories told by a nomadic people in the Mesopatamia region.” “The local indigenous peoples creation stories can be found” Blah Blah Blah.
Here is the Navajo/Dine creation myth.
http://www.lapahie.com/Creation.cfm
Here is a short version Hopi myth. In this myth Sipapuni is mentioned and is considered to be found near or in the Grand Canyon. Also of note is how close to evolution this myth is told.
http://www.unco.edu/crossroads/creation_story_03.html
12 January 2007, on 9:59 am
Belief in God is everywhere but nowhere more evident than in this article. The majesty of God is in the picture. The US is God. Voting binds the believers. Laws rule. The Constitution is the Bible. Hope draws the believers into an impossible drama where murder and mayhem will be eliminated tomorrow.
12 January 2007, on 2:25 pm
(*yawn*) tom caulder, you make no sense. Are you still trying to make the case that the US is a “xian nation”? Or are you saying that “democracy is the new xianity”?
Give us a clue, please. Clarification is needed.
12 January 2007, on 11:34 pm
The US is a belief system. Citizens believe, contrary to reason, that democracy rules: that this is not a hopeless condition we are in; that elites do not actually rule; that we the blessed 5 percent creating global mayhem have the democratic right to decide amongst us whether and which people to kill; that the end of slaughter is near. This is an irrational belief akin to the belief in God. This belief dehumanizes 95% of the world just as the belief in God dehumanizes the unbelievers.
I have no idea what xian is (*yawn*)
13 January 2007, on 12:12 am
The US is a belief system.
tom caulder, It would help if you would just talk in normal language instead of being so “mysterious”.
The U.S. is a country who happens to have a dumbass for a president at the moment. Where are you from?
13 January 2007, on 12:40 am
Wow, that’s like, deep dude. You should put that on a Tshirt and maybe stupid people will think yer smart. Hyuk!
13 January 2007, on 2:17 am
Revenant: thanks! Since I couldn’t have said it better, I won’t try.
Did he wash the dictionary down with a tall glass of philosophy to be able to defecate that shit?
13 January 2007, on 2:34 am
Did he wash the dictionary down with a tall glass of philosophy to be able to defecate that shit?
Naomi, you crack me up! That’s what I was thinking but couldn’t have said it that well.
13 January 2007, on 12:06 pm
Sorry I tried. My original post says it all. This discussion takes me back to my days as a new born atheist. How do you explain to people who believe in something that exists in minds only. The US is a bloody construction of elitists who think they are better than other people. It deserves to be abolished. States are big enough.
14 January 2007, on 1:07 am
tom caulder says:
The US is a bloody construction of elitists who think they are better than other people. It deserves to be abolished. States are big enough.
I do not dispute the rather broad brush of elitism. But if you want us to think you are NOT from the UK, consider not using the word “bloody”. If you ARE from the UK, I will remind you that your history is full of empire and elitism, although not so much lately.
Perhaps you are in Scotland or Ireland, in which case you may support total separation from Great Britain…
However, there are many reasons for maintaining the government of the US. There are many infrasturctures in place what would be cost-prohibitive to establish in duplication. My pet is the Interstate Highway System; as a truck driver, I cannot imagine what traveling from east coast to west and back would be like, crossing state boundaries and facing a wider range of fuel costs, for instance. If it was not in poor taste just now, I would list things like the military. But medical research is another good thing that is centrally funded and shared. Educational standards (to be improved by the new Congress) another…
However, the UK is part of the European Union now. How does set with you? It makes the once-dominant Great Britain just another member-state of a greater geographical area. How is that working out for you?
When President Godsend is done with the US, we will be in the hole financially, strategically, educationally (via predatory religion) and in prestige. Mr. Caulder, you may sit back and watch our come-uppance. Enjoy!