"Has it gotten so edgy out there that those of us in public life are afraid to be associated with the great tradition of philosophical and ethical humanism?" Maryland State Senator Jamie Raskin made this statement seven years ago when accepting the Distinguished Service Award from the American Humanist Association. He went on to say,
Do we actually have to whisper about the fact that many Americans still identify with the Enlightenment values of our Founders and refuse to organize their political thoughts according to sectarian religious dogma? I vowed to show up in person so people could see at least one other elected official besides the great US Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) who isn't afraid to utter the 'h' word in public.
Since that acceptance speech, Rep. Pete Stark is no longer a member of Congress, and no others picked up that mantle. The religious climate is so severe that a question in last night's Republican debates was actually devoted to the candidate's inspiration from God. Understandably, federal candidates were too afraid of losing to be open about their humanism with the voters they are seeking to represent. Is this because religion remains a political necessity to get elected? Or is this just an incorrect perception that has kept nontheistic politicians in the closet?
The political courage exhibited by Senator Raskin, now the frontrunner in the race for Maryland's 8th Congressional District, caught the attention of the Freethought Equality Fund political action committee; on Tuesday they announced their endorsement of his campaign. PAC Manager Bishop McNeill said, "We are dedicated to Jamie Raskin's successful election to Congress as the first candidate who openly identifies as a humanist."
The potential election of Jamie Raskin to Congress will be history-making for many reasons, but some people, including some within the humanist community, can't seem to understand why it's important to identify openly while running for elected office. One reasonable argument suggests that religion should be completely absent from politics since it's more important to understand how a candidate would address the issues they care about than what god they do or do not worship. However, equal representation can't even be measured if people won't report what they are--and it will be incorrectly measured if they misreport. And allowing America to go on falsely assuming nearly all politicians are Christian gives the Religious Right an easy argument for why this is a Christian nation and why they should be allowed to further merge church and state.
It actually matters if politicians are humanists. The core values of humanism, as defined by the American Humanist Association, describes a philosophy that can guide a politician to eschew wishful thinking and make decisions based on reason, science, and the good of humanity. I would argue humanists have an edge in being naturally able to enact policy that works, in equally representing all constituents, and in adhering to the First Amendment's separation of religion and government. That should be a plus in nearly everyone's considerations.
Past reports suggest that 24 members of Congress are in fact nontheists, but their consultants and handlers continue to insist that their openness on this subject would be the death of their political careers. Recent poll results show that this perception is clearly wrong.
The first piece of evidence to suggest that an nontheist may not have as much trouble winning an election is the general trend of a Gallup poll that has asked this question since 1937. The survey asks whether people would vote for an otherwise qualified presidential candidate who happens to be an atheist. In 2007, 45% of Americans said they would vote for an atheist. In 2012, the number grew to 54% acceptance, and a recent 2015 report showed 58% of Americans now saying they would vote for an atheist president.
Don't get too excited, as we may be a few years away from electing a fully secular president. But this data is encouraging on a congressional level because these numbers average Americans from different regions, political affiliations, and ages--all of which affect people's acceptance of nontheist candidates.
For example, 64% of Democrats and 61% of Independents say they would support an atheist for president while only 45% of Republicans said the same. Regionally, Mississippi has 61% of people saying they are very religious, while, in Vermont, 56% say they are not religious at all. And looking at age, 75% of people aged 18-30 report that a person's religious beliefs wouldn't affect their vote--suggesting that soon, a large majority of Americans will support nonreligious candidates for President.
All of this should be very encouraging and possibly eye-opening to political strategists that, slowly but surely, will realize that the secular community in America is becoming more accepted in politics, especially in areas with high Democratic voter registration, less religiosity, and a younger than average population. If we keep raising the profile of humanist and atheist voices, the negative and false perception that you have to claim a religious belief loudly or hide the fact that you have none will fade away along with the intrusion of religion into politics that we currently see today.