Secular Representation Revisited

It's the System, not the People

A recent piece in Axios shows what many of us have known for a long time: Christians are overrepresented in Congress. For the most part, the extra Christians come at the expense of the nonreligious. Only 3.7% of the members of Congress have no religious affiliation, something we addressed in the early entries of this newsletter.

The piece goes to show that Christian overrepresentation is, of course, more pronounced among conservative Christians. Their overrepresentation has major impact on public policy since this group is pushing through restrictions on abortion and other reproductive rights, attacking the LGBT community (especially the transgender community), or against gun control. Needless to say, there are serious policy repercussions when a group so out of step with the public hold outsized power.

On the flip side, the nones are the most underrepresented religion cohort in Congress and likely the country. Secular underrepresentation is the subject of the last part of the article. It includes quotes from two sources that show the ways in which secular messaging and our political institutions are part of the problem.

The article quotes Azhar Majeed, director of government affairs for the Center for Inquiry, as saying: "It's an unpopular position to take to declare oneself to be nonreligious or nonbeliever or humanist, certainly to declare oneself an atheist or an agnostic." Further adding, “This remains the case even as the country changes demographically.”

I’m trying to be fair, I have done these media interviews, and the article will show just a fraction of what one says. So it is possible that some of this was covered and not made it to the print version of the article.

However, I will answer the Lord of Thunder’s question above. Is it unpopular to declare oneself nonreligous or nonbeliever? Sort of. Gallup has been tracking the political fortunes of various groups for a few decades. The last time they asked about voting for an atheist Presidential candidate in 2020, the two least popular presidential candidates were atheists and socialists. But, and this one is a big but, while 45% say they would support a socialist, a pretty decent majority, 60%, say they would vote for an atheist presidential candidate.

If you just read the Gallup headline that emphasizes the unpopularity of socialists and atheists as if they were equivalent, you could be forgiven for thinking their numbers are abysmal. Reading the article shows that things aren’t that bad. A majority of Americans say they would support a “well-qualified” (whatever that means these days) candidate for President. Digging deeper, only 41% of Republicans say they would vote for the hypothetical atheist that somehow managed to win their party’s nomination, but 69% of Democrats and 68% of independents say they would support an atheist for President.

So, the statement is not true these days. It was true in 1958 (17%), 1983 (42%), and as recently as 2007 (45%). Keep in mind that the question is framed around a presidential candidate, not a congressional, state, or local candidate. We have a few of those, and they are becoming more common at these levels. Thus, we know that it is just not true that “unpopularity” translates to “people won’t vote for an atheist.”

The next quoted person in the article provides, unwittingly, a better explanation for why so few atheists, nonreligious, and nonbelievers are in Congress or any major political office. A Democratic political consultant from New Mexico, Sisto Abeyta, had this to say about the chances of an atheist candidate "It's too early to take that chance and say, 'I want to give you hope' while also saying, 'I don't believe in God.' "

Seriously, equating atheism with nihilism? Does he realize that the good Christians are the ones trying to bring about Armageddon for the lolz? It encapsulates so well the main reason behind secular political underrepresentation. The gatekeepers, especially in the Democratic Party, are cowards. If you are an image maker, a candidate seller, and you can’t get past the irreligiosity of a potential client, you’re probably in the wrong line of work. You have already made it an issue even before it becomes one. In safe Democratic districts, this issue will probably be a big nothingburger.

These two reactions exemplify what is wrong with the secular movement and our political institutions. On the one hand, a representative from an organization with an anti-woke leader blames the plebes for secular political woes. On the other hand, the political operative blames the underrepresentation on stereotypes about secular people.

While it is true that there is anti-atheist bias, movement secularism has also been awful as a political player. The arrogance of many, thinking themselves smarter than the religious, has led us to be outplayed by the Christian Right wing for generations. We don’t need to get into the money disparity between right-wing and secular organizations.

The political system is not helpful either. With high re-election rates and closed networks, it is very hard for secular newcomers to make a dent in Congress. State and local politics should be friendlier, and they seem to be so far, but without major investment, there’s not much more we can do.

Other news

I wasn’t able to attend the Summit for Religious Freedom, but Rob Boston has a good summary here.

Atheists United is one of the coolest organizations.

Dr. Mark Silk with a Church/State separation 101.

Interested in polling? A new podcast explains how the sausage is made. It was produced by my dear wife, Dr. Yazmín Trejo, and hosted by friend of the newsletter Dr. Natalie Jackson (you should check her newsletter

Herding Cats & Polls

).

Unreasonable, a new podcast about Church and State sounds cool. It has a Substack, too.

Bennett’s "Unreasonable" Follow-Up