What does this mean, though, for atheists and for Rep. Pete Stark?
According to the Press Release:
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. Rep. Stark is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee and is Chair of the Health Subcommittee. ...
In addition to Rep. Stark only three other elected officials agreed to do so: Terry S. Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, Calif.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Mass.
Surveys vary in the percentage of atheists, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheists in the U.S, with about 10% (30 million people) a fair middle point. "If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in the population," Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition, observes, "there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members instead of one."
Although general statistics indicate that there should be a lot more atheists in the federal government, the fact is Congress is not even close to being a representative sample of Americans. Statistically speaking, there should be a lot more women and minorities in Congress as well, but there isn't. How many atheists should we expect if we limited ourselves to just white males with a college education and involved with professions like law?
We should probably expect that there are indeed more atheists in the federal government generally and in Congress specifically, but I doubt that there are 50 or so of them in Congress. I would be surprised if there were more than around a dozen though that's still a lot more than have publicly acknowledged their atheism.
I wonder how many Christians have thought about their own complicity in creating an environment where people are afraid to be honest about not believing in any gods?
Liberalism
Rep. Pete Stark is a very liberal member of Congress. As Ebon Muse explains:
I didn't expect a nontheist to be a supporter of George W. Bush, and I'm glad to say that isn't the case. On the contrary, Rep. Stark seems to have his priorities in exactly the right place: he is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus with a consistently excellent voting record, a strong supporter of civil rights and the environment and an outspoken opponent of the Iraq war and religious intrusions in government. He is rated only 7% by the Christian Coalition, a strong plus in my book.
Although there are conservative atheists out there, I'm also not surprised to find that this particular person is so liberal. Is it not likely, though, that this will help fuel the Christian Right's rhetoric about "godless liberals," implying that all liberals are godless and vice-versa? I'd be surprised if this doesn't happen and many times. If the Christian Right can use this as a means for attacking others, they will.
We can't ignore the fact, though, that a willingness to question traditional religion and theism will probably cause a person to question traditional beliefs, institutions, and practices generally. That is not an environment that is conducive to conservatism and, therefore, we should expect that most of the atheists in the federal government will indeed be more liberal than conservative.
Atheists who are also conservative will remain a minority within a minority until there are significant changes in America's conservative organizations. A self-consciously secular, atheistic conservatism won't have much impact until the Christian Right loses its stranglehold on the Political Right.
Atheism vs. Nontheism
Rep. Pete Stark describes himself as a "nontheist." He apparently doesn't describe himself as an "atheist," even though the form he filled out was clear that the category "nontheist" was being used thus:
the term nontheist includes atheists, humanists, agnostics and other freethinkers who do not believe in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Pete Stark acknowledges that he "doesn't believe in a Supreme Being." As far as I can tell, that makes him an atheist but one who doesn't wish to use the term. Is this because he doesn't want to be associated with the cultural baggage that comes with the label "atheist"? This would reduce the importance of his announcement somewhat because, in effect, it's like saying "I'm one of you, I just don't want to be labeled as one of you."
Although anyone admitting publicly to not believing in any gods is certainly a positive step, simultaneously rejecting the "atheist" label is another step in the wrong direction. Doing this communicates the message that there is something wrong with atheism and atheists, such that a person is justified in not wanting to be associated with term even when, technically speaking, they are undeniably an atheist. What does it say to atheists who are still in the closet when someone "comes out" while also saying, implicitly, that there's something wrong with atheists?
Pete Stark's Future
What will this announcement mean for Pete Stark? Is his political career over? His district has been sending him back to Congress since he was first elected in 1973, so they must like him a lot. Given how progressive and liberal he obviously is, it's unlikely that this new information could be used to unseat him. People who might refuse to vote for him because he is an atheist probably weren't voting for him before.
The other three politicians whose atheism was announced may have more difficulty, though. I don't know their situations, but local elections can readily turn on personal beliefs and information like this.
Although it's easy to believe that there are fewer atheists in politics than in the general population, it's unlikely that these four are the only ones or that Pete Stark is the only member of the federal government who is not a theist. Petty Larseny has several suggestions for possible candidates:
Meet Hank Johnson and Mazie K. Hirono. They're two other members of the 110th Congress who are doing something no one in Congress has done before. ...They don't believe in God. Not the Judeo-Christian God. Not the Muslim God. They're Buddhists. The first ever in Congress. For the first time, as far as I can tell, bouncing around adherents.com, the U.S. Congress as of Thursday will now include as members representatives who openly do not subscribe to any version of monotheism.
Johnson is from Georgia (4th district), for Christ's sake. And check out Hirono. She's from Hawaii. What does Hawaii's House Caucus look like in the 110th Congress?
Mazie K. Hirono -- Buddhist.
Neil Abercrombie -- "Non-Affiliated."
Hawaii only has two districts in the House. Neither member of the Hawaii Caucus will be an avowed member of Judeo-Christianity.
In fact, five other members of the House are also listed as "Non-Affiliated" by Americans for Religious Liberty. There's Mark Udall (CO-2), whose dad was raised Mormon and eventually decided he had no use for organized religion. His official bio makes no mention of a god or even church.
Then there's John Olver (MA-1), who's not only non-affiliated, he's a chemistry professor from MIT. Any guesses whether he believes in the god of Judeo-Islamo-Christianity? ...John Tierney (MA-6) is also listed by ARL as non-affiliated, and doesn't seem to have any overt religious references on his site, either. The others are Earl Blumenauer (OR-3), and Tammy Baldwin (WI-2), who, God bless her, listed her religious affiliation as GLBT. Unless that's a new version of the tetragrammaton, I'm guessing she doesn't have much use for magic super-powers-in-the-sky.
Stark's announcement may encourage others, perhaps some of those listed above, to come forward and I'm sure that they are watching what happens to him very closely. If his experiences are positive, the likelihood of more announcements increases; if his experiences are negative, you can be sure that others will just bury themselves more deeply in the closet.
I wonder how many Christians have thought about their own complicity in creating an environment where people are afraid to be honest about not believing in any gods?
Given how pervasive the idea that atheists should “just shut up” is I’d imagine that they have thought about it and some are quite proud of the fact.
Of course Christians are proud of that fact. Remember that they often say “freedom of religion, not from religion,” and “America is a Christian nation.”
Whoops. I messed up the html in my first comment. The top paragraph is supposed to be a quote from Austin’s article and in italics but it didn’t take. Sorry about that.
I hope that we are seeing the beginning of a trend, non-religious speaking out. I wonder how many of our elected officials are atheists and have been afraid to “come out of the closet”?
I’m with you GrandmaVickie and I also went to Congressman Pete Stark’s web site to congradulate him for speaking out and signed up for his news letters. I know he may have not come out and said he was an atheist (Austin) but at least it’s a positive start and we need all the + starts we can get!
Chuck
This article comes off as very uneducated by making the assumption that atheism and nontheism are in essence the same. They very much are not the same and it is important that the difference is kept and noted. To say Pete is shying away from the term atheism is like saying a christian is shying away from the term catholic.
I’m afraid you are mistaken. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that the prefixes “a” and “non” mean the same thing. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that “atheism” is simply the absence of belief in gods. A lot of people have the mistaken notion that atheism means a lot more than that, but it doesn’t.
Basically atheism involves smarts. It tries to see through rackets and cons.
‘Basically atheism involves smarts. It tries to see through rackets and cons. ‘
Not neccessarily, it just means you don’t believe in god. I’ve met quite a few stupid and/or ignorant atheists in my time (just to be clear I’m an atheist myself). There are unfortunatly many non-theist large-scale rackets out there. Scientology to name just one.
It’s like young kids being taught to say “large” instead of “fat”. Sounds better, temporarily, but how long will it take for “large” to take on the same negative connotation as “fat”? Just all an effort to be politically correct. Not surprising that a politician came up with the “nontheist” term in describing himself. Some Christians might be confused by the nontheist term, until they find out it means the same thing as atheist. Then, it’s all bets are off. You can be any religion you want as long as you’re a Christian in this country. No religion is simply not acceptable. Let’s not play the word games that the ID people love to play. Grow a set Stark!