God Help The Atheist Politician

There was a time, not so long ago, when the USA pondered the idea of a Catholic in the White House. Would Kennedy take his orders from Rome? That was the question on the lips of the populace. He won, and he didn’t.

Now 95% of Americans say they’d vote for an ‘appropriately qualified’ candidate of the Catholic persuasion. And 92% say they’d vote in a Jew. 72% of the population, according to Gallup’s poll, would even vote a Mormon into the White House – and Mormons have some pretty weird ideas, not just about underwear. (Did you know, for example, that the word ‘Mormon’ has been trademarked by a front company for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?)

Religious tolerance has obviously come a long way.

In fact, a majority of Americans would support almost ANY candidate from any background. Hispanic? Sure, 87% in favor! A woman? Absolutely, 88% in favor. Three times divorced? Come on in! 67% in favor! A homosexual? Well… ok, we guess: 55% in favor!

How about an atheist?

No. You see, irreligious intolerance is increasing.

Gallup says that 53% of Americans would not vote for a qualified candidate for the White House who was an atheist. According to Newsweek figures in 2006, only 37% would vote for an atheist – down from 49% in 1999.

We have religious folks by the dozen in the Congress… Roman Catholic (28.8%), Baptist (14.1%), Methodist (11.4%) Presbyterian (9.7%), Episcopalian (7.9%) and Jewish (6.9%). We’ve got Mormons, Lutherans… we have a Sikh… two Buddhists… a Muslim… and we even have a freakin’ Scientologist, for crying out loud. (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida.)

But there is only one self-identified atheist in the entire Legislative branch of our government, Rep. Pete Stark of CA. That’s one atheist, out of 535 legislative members. (Obviously there are none in the highest echelons of the Executive branch – Mr. Bush, who has been quoted by Mahmoud Abbas as saying that God told him to go to war in Iraq, would hardly condone that.)

Atheists, therefore, make up approximate 0.2% of our bicameral legislature, and approximately 0% of the highest levels of our executive branch. The Supreme Court, with five Catholics, two Jews, an Episcopalian and a Protestant, has zero representation for the atheist population.

Now, many of you people of faith out there will think this is perfectly reasonable and acceptable. After all, the majority of the population is in some manner theistic.

But atheists are, in fact, the most under-represented minority in modern American history.

Look at the stats: 7% of the adult population does not believe in God or any kind of universal spirit, (Gallup) and the US Census (quoted in Wiki here) claims that 15% of Americans are either atheist or agnostic. That’s 29.4 million people.

But every one of the Republican and Democratic contenders for the White House is, naturally, religious – and their piety is evidently increasing daily, as exemplified by Hillary Clinton’s revelation (pun intended) that only her ‘faith’ got her through her marriage difficulties, and the almost daily proclamations of religious fervor by every major candidate.

We are presented every election with a choice: the religious candidate, or the religious candidate. At the Federal level, there is one atheist to represent the views of my 15 million fellow non-believers. There are virtually no atheists at the state level, either – no great surprise, since Arkansas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas all include language in their constitutions proclaiming that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being”.

We are 15 million people without representation, without a legislative, judicial or policy-shaping voice.

And this is more than an ‘issue’ like gun control, gay marriage, the environment or abortion. Each of those issues has its advocates, its opponents, its successes and its failures.

No, this is a fundamental worldview. And there is nobody out there representing it. The entire triumvirate of legislature, executive and judiciary is – with the exception of one man – utterly at odds with my personal understanding of the universe, and is out of step with 15 million of my compatriots.

Were this any other group, the country would be in uproar. No blacks in the executive branch?? Get some in there, quick! No women in the Supreme Court? Get on that, right away!! No atheists in the legislature? Bleh… whatever.

So I for one will find myself constantly cringing during this long, long election campaign as candidate after candidate tries to outdo his or her fellows by wearing their religion ever-more prominently on their sleeve. I will shudder at their proclamations of guidance from their invisible friend (my five-year old has one, but she’ll outgrow hers). I will grit my teeth as the candidates who seem to have some kind of moral or ethical relevance attribute it not to their own integrity, but to some spirit or series of fables whose instructions they are to follow.

Watch out, America. We fifteen million may be meek now. But you know what the Bible says about the meek.

Comments

[george]

i need to point out that EDUCATION is not synonymous with INTELLIGENCE. education exposes one to the necessary situations which engender learning, however, if one has low ability to learn, then they are still of lower intelligence, even though they will learn.

for example, a below average intelligence kid from a rich, educated family will likely succeed in the school system (learn), whereas his more intelligent counterpart from a poor, uneducated family is much more likely to drop out and learn less from school, even though the poorer kid may be "smarter" and have greater ability to learn.

the point is, republicans do seem quite aware, or ignorantly blissful of this, because they may be able to afford tutors, private schooling, etc. for their kids, whereas poor families (potential democrats for argument sake)are not afforded these privileges.

when you come from a certain amount of money and a lineage of education and social achievement, you are pushed to do the same. when a family's experiences and expectations are poor, the child has to be exceptionally self-motivated and intelligent to overcome these very real socio-cultural barriers.

i agree that democrats tend to critically analyze problems and generally are capable of seeing the "big picture" more so than their conservative counterparts. however, i think it is important to point out that although education can expose one to situations which can help one to learn, that innate intelligence is a relative constant, mediated by environmental factors. i've encountered plenty of high school drop-outs who appeared inherently "smarter" than many college grads, but their home/quality of public education/extracurricular life precluded them from achieving academically.

it does bring up a good point about our education system. the "educated" republicans are still myopic in their thought processes. maybe they aren't learning the critical thinking skills they need in school? maybe by design the republicans focus too much on state mandated testing and not on critical thinking skills? nah, they wouldn't want to dumb down the populace would they?