Absence of Atheism in Government

Most of us would probably agree that the United States was founded upon religious principles. Throughout our entire history, there has been an unmistakable link between religion, namely Christianity, and government. Our most important documents and pledges have references such as “One Nation, Under God,” and “In God We Trust,” but as we can see, the general public is shifting somewhat to a different train of thought. We are seeing an increasing percentage of religiously unaffiliated citizens and even an increasing percentage of atheists. In president Barack Obama’s inaugural address, he said, “We are a Nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus and nonbelievers.” However, we see virtually no atheists in the government today. I would like to take some time to explore why this is and what trends we could expect to see in the future.

Let’s start off with this statistic: according to the Pew Research Institute, 20% of the American public identifies themselves as religiously unaffiliated while that same percent in congress is only 0.2%. One cannot claim that the United States is a Christian country, and that’s why there is a lack of religious unaffiliation in government. Clearly, there is a disparity between what should be predicted and what is actually the case in congress. Highlighting this inconsistency begins with defining some terms. Religiously unaffiliated does not necessarily mean atheism, which is a belief that God does not exist.  The term religiously unaffiliated simpl
y means that one does not adhere to any specific organized religion. In other words, many who claim religious unaffiliation aren’t atheists. The interesting thing is that of the 16.1% of the population that is religiously unaffiliated, (this excludes atheists and agnostics) 12.1% of them believe in nothing in particular. This sounds like possible gray area in defining atheism and measuring those who really adhere to it. Maggie Andiente of the American Humanist Association claims that 24 members of congress privately confessed to being atheist. Why can these congressmen not be honest with the public? 

First of all, consider decisions made by the voters. Atheists in the general public tend to vote less due to the independent nature of their ideologies, so it is more difficult for an atheist to gain widespread support. It is human nature to try to stay in power. The majority of America is still overwhelmingly Christian, and all of these Christians wish to remain the majority. Christians feel threatened by a possible uprising of atheists in the future. A very important factor that plays out on the ballot is perception of atheism from the Christian majority. Approximately half of Americans would be unhappy if a loved one married an atheist. 53% of Americans say a belief in God is essential to living a moral life (Jenkins). In one study, religious believers were asked to rank Christians, Muslims, Jews, feminists, homosexuals, rapists and atheists in terms of being acceptable to nominate for president. Rapists and atheists scored the lowest (Bailey). The public tends to see atheists as people who are bound by no moral code, and therefore there is a lack of trust. Strong liberals tend to be the most supportive of atheists, and strong conservatives tend to be the least supportive. However, the percentage of people that would elect an atheist president has still increased in the last few decades. The number is nearly 50%.

Also, consider the uniform nature of congress. Four out of five members are male. Only 17% of the members are non-white. In the last year, we have seen a much more Republican majority in congress, and Republicans are less likely to be accepting of atheism. In fact, we are seeing a trend of congress becoming more religious as the country as a whole goes the opposite direction. In the newest congress, there are nine more Christians, five fewer Jewish members, one fewer Buddhist, and one fewer unaffiliated member. It seems to be very difficult to go against trends in congress.

Another, perhaps more straight-forward, reason for the lack of atheists in government is geography. In some states, belief in God is required in order to hold public office. The states of Texas and Mississippi have such requirements. In Arkansas, you must believe in God to even have an acceptable testimony in court. These literal interpretations can make for even more strict regulations. On the other side of the coin, it has become clear that the area with the highest incidence of atheism is the Pacific Northwest. Here, atheism has become more accepted, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some of  first movement of atheist politicians to occur in Washington or Oregon. Even with the higher incidence in these areas, atheists are still the definite minority, and political discrimination takes place as it does in the rest of the country.

To see this discrimination in action, observe the case of David Habecker. Mr. Habecker had been a resident and strong participant of local government in Estes Park, Colorado since the 1970s. He was the president of the Lion Club and had volunteered for numerous committees throughout the years. David had served as the Town Trustee off and on for about 20 years. In 2004, he was elected once again. However, David began to protest having to say the pledge of allegiance before each meeting, claiming the phrase “under God” at the end of the pledge of allegiance was unconstitutional and did not provide a proper separation of church and state. This did not necessarily mean that he was an atheist. Habecker took so much heat and criticism that the once respected member lost the election in a landslide. He was taunted and heckled around town for being “godless.” When Habecker ran again in the following election, he came in dead last to all other participants. In other words, falling on the side of non-religion cost David Habecker his political career. With this example in mind, it is easy to see why other politicians would certainly hesitate to admit to being atheist or even allude to such a thing in a subtle matter. Even if one does not actually believe in a god, it is best to keep that hidden. (Corbin)

When an open atheist enters an election, they can expect a great deal of criticism and discrimination for this trait. In 2012, Pete Stark of California was the only open atheist in congress – something he came clean about in 2007. Stark had spent 35 years in the House of Representatives until he admitted this. In his re-election bid against Eric Swalwell, Stark was called un-American and unprincipled for his disbelief in God. Pete Stark was disappointed that his opponent’s campaign was based on religious smearing rather than actual political issues. Stark went on to lose this election, and thus ended his career in American politics. As you can see, religious beliefs can be a very strong motivator of American voters. They want to see someone like them in office and are willing to look past many political issues in order to achieve this.

To contrast the stories of Pete Stark and David Habecker, consider this politician who had a successful career despite admitting to a disbelief in a God. This man is none other than the Nebraska senator Ernie Chambers. Chambers was able to operate as an atheist in a very religious state. Probably due to his own beliefs, Chambers maintained a great amount of liberties for gays, farmers, criminals and other groups. One of the things that he was most remembered for was his fight to provide children with health care when it was against the parents’ beliefs. He was always successful in bringing treatment to those children in need. Although Chambers has since retired, his success story shows that it is not entirely impossible for an atheist to have a career in politics. Ernie Chambers definitely left a mark on American politics.

Progress in atheist legitimacy was seen this year at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Last year, the American Atheists were banned from the conference but will have a chance to speak at this conference. The American Atheists want to make it known that conservative doesn’t necessarily mean Christian. They hope that one day it will not be a death sentence for conservative candidates to be atheists. Of course, this is a very small step, but it is a start. Perhaps one day the ideals of this group can be incorporated into the Republican Party.

The prognosis for this issue is interesting. Certainly, these trends will continue at least for some time. As our country continues to progress to unaffiliated beliefs and the percentage of atheists increase, so will their voice. It takes years for the powers of constructivism to take hold and change norms that are deeply seeded in the hearts of Americans. With these shifting norms and efforts from groups such as the American Atheists and valiant stands by politicians such as Pete Stark and Ernie Chambers, atheism can be accepted. Eventually, atheists will have their voice and be a part of the political society of the United States. Then we can have a very balanced society that can be more tolerant and accepting of other views. Christianity will forever be important in this country, but hopefully it will eventually be possible to admit your conscience of mind and still find success politically.

Throughout my course of religion and politics, I’ve begun to see the undeniable links between personal beliefs and how they get carried out by political actors. From the beginning of the country it was clear that religious ideals helped shape the United States; it was also clear that a separation of church and state was intended by the founding fathers. Keeping this in mind, I see it unfortunate that the influence of organized religion has so much power of government and those who are elected. That is why I chose to research this topic. To investigate the cause of religion continuing to influence these aspects of government. I would like to see our nation celebrate its religious roots while at the same time being completely open to other frames of mind.