Electing Atheists to Political Office, by Edward Tabash

[David M. Payne]

I found the article by Edward Tabash; here, (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=122) to be right on the mark as far as the problem of getting atheists/agnostics organized and into the political system as a real force for positive change in the U.S. Mr. Tabash, perhaps you will find my essay (link below) from last year of some use in this goal of yours. (Really ours, if those of you who read this would only look in the mirror and recognize the danger that the theistic viewpoint has for us all.) You spoke to my mind in your essay and I hope that the members of this forum will get their heads out of their asses, and recognize the need to organize against the theist onslaught that we face in this country. When I express my views at work, I get the dirty looks from my theist co-workers, even though they can’t refute the points I raise. Fortunately, I work in a place that can’t fire me for my views, though there are several bosses who would do so if they could. So much for freedom of thought in America.

The Revenge of the Petty Bourgeois Intelligentsia (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/payne1.html)

[silentowl]

Like Mr. Tabash, I would describe myself as a freethinker, but I am not as puzzled as he that fellow atheists would fail to support him on that basis alone. After all, for all the religious mumbo jumbo uttered by politicians at all levels, when it comes right down to acting upon the routine issues of everyday governance, gods and religious texts have very little to say about, for example, how high taxes should be or whether a road should be built. Therefore, even the most religious of politicians is forced by reality to work in a more or less secular way most of the time.
I think that few atheists will vote for another atheist simply because of his atheism. At certain times this might be important, but usually it's not. In fact, in our Canadian federal election last fall, I voted for a guy who is a young-Earth creationist. Why? Because he leads a party that held some hope of cleaning up the depressingly wasteful spending of the governing party, and because he said he would never impose his religious beliefs on others.
Also, my first thought about Mr. Tabash's 'stealth' campaign is that if he wants to attain office in order to represent atheists, as his call to activism seems to indicate, I'm not sure that asking the press to hide his atheism was the best way to accomplish that end. Wouldn't that be somewhat like a gay candidate asking for the gay community to support him so he can push for gay rights, but then asking the press to ignore his sexual orientation? I think that we must meet bigotry head-on, and show it for what it is.
Finally, as for feeling that he was the first atheist candidate to lose an election in the 21st century, perhaps he was, but don't forget that the rest of the western world is not nearly as religious as the United States. In those countries, atheists probably rise and fall all the time for reasons having nothing to do with their atheism.

[Edward Tabash]

Silentowl questions the "stealth" aspect of my candidacy. I would say that this is necessary, just as it was necessary for gay politicians to coneal their homosexuality in the beginning of the gay rise to political power.

As I said in the article, we may very well have to conceal our atheism, when we seek office in the United States, at least for a while, in order have real initial chance of winning. I cannot represent the interests of atheists in office, if I don't get elected. So, hiding the ball from voters, again, please re read my analogy to a light skinned black person running as white in a racist district in order to get a black person elected, may be of the greatest practical necessity, at least in the formative years when atheists begin to seek office in the United Stats

[Edward Tabash]

David undrstands the importance of our organizing to counter the disproportionate domination of religionists of our nation's political offices. I hope everyone will take to heart the successful models of gay activism that I referred to in the article.

We need to begin the same type of strategically formidable effort, as did the gay community.

[Johnjuan]

This article about electing Ed to office is just that. Electing Ed to office. Unfortunately he uses the idea of being an Atheist to hide his seemingly real motives of gathering sympathy from fellow Athiests either for his poorly run campaign or for his frustrating disappointing loss. For one thing, a white candidate running in a largely Latino and African American district in Los Angeles is cause for concern. Even his implication that most Atheists are white has little to do with his running a campaign in what I would call in an "out of bounds" area. Furthermore, his oughright nerve to push his idea of immigration reform and to bad mouth Mexico is deplorable since he was running in a Latino district. The real problem with immigration Ed is with the United States not Mexico. Can you imagine middle class white folks picking tomatoes? Moreover, the only reason illegal immigration exists is to preserve the wonderful cheap prices that we all in the U.S. pay for vegetables. Ed if you want sympathy from whites, please indicate it. I for one am Latino and believe it, I am an Atheist. After reading the article I just scratched my head. Is he some sort of Racist?
Also, as one other reader pointed out, usually politicians often use religious issues and beliefs to attract attention of conservatives. Despite this, politicians have to basically be secular in their dealings with community problems and that has little to do with their beliefs anyway.
Thank you,
J. Flores

[Edward Tabash]

JohnJuan unfortunately misses the thrust of my arguments. He apparently greets any criticism of Mexico by a white person as an automatic symptom of racism, rather than looking to the corruption and exploitation over most of the 20th Century perpetrated by a succession of Mexican administrations on that nation's very poor people.

I agree that illegal immigrants' being exploited for slave farm labor is a terrible thing. That is one of the reason's that I want to curtail unbridled immigration. I would rather pay more at the produce department, knowing that the food was picked by someone legally present in California, who was making a decent wage for picking the
produce.

It is very cynical of Mexican presidents to preside over the ever expanding imoverishment of the Mexican people and then accuse the U.S. of racism if we don't accept an unlimited number of Mexican nationals that the very same Mexican government refuses to house, feed, or provide with jobs.

However, my point was that even if a colleague in atheism disagrees with me on immigration this issue should not stand in the way of supporting me for office.

JohnJuan claims that most issues that politicians deal with are secular and that whether one is an atheist or secular should not matter. I can't agree with this. If you look at how many of our state legislators all over the country, fall all over themselves to try to be more pro god and pro religion, any atheist can see the grave necessity of electing some of our own to office.

My comment about most atheist candidates being white is unfortunately true. I didn't say it was impossible that a black or Hispanic atheist would come forward. I only said that given the degree of religiosiy pervading both these communities, it is more likely that an atheist candidate will be caucasion.

JohnJuan's attempt to label my remarks as racist is all too typical of militant people of color who attempt to tarnish any departure from their agenda as motivated by racially prejudice. To charge me with racism, after hearing my views on immigration, is the left wing mirror image of the superficial charge of immorality that I get from the right wing when they determine that I am a an atheist.

JohnJuan also shows almost a reverse racist attitude in finding difficulty with my running for office in a black and Hispanic district. None of the black and Hispanic candidates emphasized the rampant toxic pollution that is poisoning the whole area, like I did. I was the only candidate, notwithstanding my blue eyes, to emphasize the importance of saving brown and black children from the effects of environmental racism.

I believe that logic and reason make JohnJuan's criticism of me, my candidacy, and the points I raised in my article, unfair.

Pointing out hard realities is not racist, it is being honest.

Eddie Tabash

[Orakle]

It seems to me that voting for someone solely on the ground that they are an atheist, and independent of their views on the issues is as blind and bigoted as voting for a candidate solely because they are black, or Baptist, or gay, or anything else. It's at the very heart of prejudice to judge an individual on their affiliation rather than their actual stance on the issues. Consequently, had I been in Minnesota, I couldn't have voted for Governor Ventura no matter how much I might like the fact that he irritates the Christian Right to death.

Similarly I might very well not have been able to vote in good conscience for Mr. Tabash.

[JNAESQ]

Re Tabash article on atheists running for office: Before the lgbt community was able to marshall its forces to gain political power, it was necessary for many celebrities and others to "come out." This is going to be true of the atheists also. I ran for the state assembly in 1990, the first out lesbian to do so in my state. I lost, but the lesbian who ran a few years later won. It takes work and patience, but if we are willing to be "out" we will prevail.

[MonCapitan2002]

I happened to have read the article quite a while ago. I happen to think it makes some interesting points. It is my hope that atheists are one day able to be open about their unbelief and still be electable. Are there any well liked celebrities who are openly atheistic?

[-DM-]

The Celebrity Atheist List (http://www.celebatheists.com/).

-DM-

[Sandy Price]

I'm possibly the oldest poster at this forum and am always surprised when anyone's religion is ever a part of ones candidacy for election of any American. I was taught that America is a secular nation where everyone is treated equally once they become a citizen. If a candidate running for a state office knows and understands the state Constitution or someone running for our federal government knows and understand the U.S. Constitution why does anyone have to state their religious preference.

When I first took an interest in politics it was a simple choice to make about which party had an acceptable agenda to all of us. I have always been a fiscal Conservative since Goldwater and have desired a limited government, individual freedoms and personal responsibilities. Since 1992 when the religious right got into the GOP the whole party changed as well.

Even when I attended the Libertarian meetings and conferences, it became necessary for me to state my religion. I would state clearly that I was an Atheist and wait for the other shoe to drop. Hell, it was tough enough to enter these conventions as a woman let along a Libertarian and when they discovered I was an Atheist I was abolutely shunned.

I will not fight any member of the religious right even though they kept me out of the GOP since 1992. I had worked for months with the Log Cabin Republicans to get them involved but in 1 month Bush 43 made it clear they were not wanted. I'm from California and found this unbelievable. I'm an old gray haired grandmother who still believes in American freedoms.

I joined up with the Secular Humanists of Phoenix after my move here and have enjoyed their meetings and their yearly conference having met some of the best scientists Arizona has to offer. No animosity against Christians or Jews but a joining together of free minds to work on the problems of promoting stem cell research and getting evolution back in the classroom. We have found that slamming the religious people of America will never work and will never interest anyone into learning more about us.

This is my first post here as I found the site this Sunday morning.

I wouldn't be surprised if a third party doesn't develop out of this subject and a Secular American Party can't start up. We don't need to run only Atheist candidates, but candidates who can clearly see the harm the religious right is doing to America.

Sandy
A is A

[-DM-]

[Thank you for your feedback regarding Electing Atheists to Political Office (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=122) by Edward Tabash (http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/author.asp?AuthorID=323). E-mail notification has been sent to the author. Although there are no guarantees, you might want to check back from time to time for a further response following this post. -DM-]

[Edward Tabash]

Barney Frank would not have gotten elected to Congress in his first race, if he had been out of the closet about being gay. Atheists are more despised than gays and lesbians in today's society. Polls show that a larger percentage of Americans would vote against a candidate for being an atheist than for being gay or lesbian.

In 1994, I was the runner up to Sheila Kuehl in the Democractic primary for a California state assembly seat. I was second out of six. She was the first open lesbian to be elected to the California Legislature. She ran as an openly lesbian candidate. An atheist probably still could not do this because our organizations are not anywhere near as politically powerful as gay political organizations.

In 1999, when the Los Angeles based gay and lesbian Democratic club, Stonewall, had their annual fundraising dinner, President Clinton and Vice President Gore sent congratulatory telegrams. This would not have happened at a dinner for American Atheists or the Council for Secular Humanism.

So, at least for now, I think our candidates may have to initially commence their campaigns as stealth, to the extent they can. This may not be necessary in places like Berkeley, California, but would certainly still be necessary in even many taken-for-granted liberal areas like Beverly Hills. Overall, I think that in most parts of the United States, a non believer would be better off not calling attention to her or his non belief, in seeking an initial election to a state legislature.

Eddie Tabash

[Sandy Price]

Eddie, from the response I have gotten on 10 years of being on the internet, I feel you are right. I'm always amazed at people's reaction when I tell them I'm an Atheist. I mention it only when justifying my political positions of being pro-choice on everything.

I've been called the daughter of Lucifer, the Whore of Babylon, the Devil's disciple and even worse names. I would never even try to run for any political office even though I am on the Board of Directors of two organizations here

[zensatori]

I found the article by Edward Tabash; here, (http://www.secweb.org/asset.asp?AssetID=122) to be right on the mark as far as the problem of getting atheists/agnostics organized and into the political system as a real force for positive change in the U.S. Mr. Tabash, perhaps you will find my essay (link below) from last year of some use in this goal of yours. (Really ours, if those of you who read this would only look in the mirror and recognize the danger that the theistic viewpoint has for us all.) You spoke to my mind in your essay and I hope that the members of this forum will get their heads out of their asses, and recognize the need to organize against the theist onslaught that we face in this country. When I express my views at work, I get the dirty looks from my theist co-workers, even though they can’t refute the points I raise. Fortunately, I work in a place that can’t fire me for my views, though there are several bosses who would do so if they could. So much for freedom of thought in America.

The Revenge of the Petty Bourgeois Intelligentsia (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/payne1.html)
Kudos for such an erudite post.Especially since you realize that antipathy in spades exists in the workplace,but i cannot see that the middle classes -so called can be lauded or did i get it wrong did you intend to disparage that class?
I see proof that the middle classes are egged on by imitation of the wealthier group and this
'competition" may in fact be leviathan in the marketplace of the world. Mercantilism may be resurgent espec. in China ,Vietnam. The tax rates in Vietnam rival the developed countries.
Anyhow just a thought. :thumbs: :thumbs:

[thepimonster]

It seems to me that voting for someone solely on the ground that they are an atheist, and independent of their views on the issues is as blind and bigoted as voting for a candidate solely because they are black, or Baptist, or gay, or anything else.

Well, isn't it true that being an atheist means you follow a certain belief. Therefore, you are not voting for someone just because of the color of their skin, but for at least one of their beliefs. This is especially important when you consider the fact that atheists are still strongly discriminated against today. Besides, getting an atheist elected into public office would be very beneficial to our image as atheists. Maybe it would cause the "Christian Conservatives" to not think of us as crazy people who hate America but as people who are different but love America as much as they do.

*Please excuse my limited vocabulary and lack of flow in my writing, I am only 14*

[Edward Tabash]

It was commented earlier that voting for someone just becuase that person is an atheist is as bigoted as voting for someone just because that person is a Baptist. This is not necessarily so. Given that an overwhelming majority of the population bases much of its decisions about morality in public life and legislation on theological beliefs, there is an automatic necessity for those with the intellectual firepower to reject supernatural claims to hold significant public office.

In my article, I was careful to point out that one should not give a pass to any atheist candidate irrespective of that candidate's stand on any issue, but only that unless such a candidate's stand does violence to your fundamental sense of justice and fairness, if you are an atheist, you should recognize the critical need for electing our own to office.

Religion has wrought enormous persecution and unfairness in human history. Supernatural beliefs have also been the single most egregious culprit in stifling the intellectual progress of the world throughout the centuries.

As such, voting for someone primarily because that office seeker is an atheist is not at all in the same category as asking bodybuilders to vote for Schwarzenegger for governor of California because he was once the top bodybuilder in the world.

Atheism is a sober and intellectually rigorous rejection of the supernatural claims made by a majority of people who are desperate to persuade themselves about their own immortality. Atheism is the major counterweight to the unsubstantiated claims of divine sanction and supernatural occurrences and agencies.

Thus, while being and atheist is not necessarily the determining factor in choosing candidates, all else being equal, we nonbelievers are justified in invoking it as the determining factor in the final decision as to which candidate to select.

Edward Tabash

[Richard1366]

Running for office in todays socio/political environment is difficult to say the least. To win an election takes a combination of a lot of factors, luck being one of them. In the Republican arena, (not sure how the Democrats work, but I would guess that it is the same) the party nominees for office are usually controlled by the local Republican committee. Most of these committees have become sanctuaries for the religious right and they will do most anything to keep those with differing views from even becoming members of the committee. So what do you get, the same old far right wing candidates.

If you can get a lot of volunteers to join and wrest control from the local committee, you have a better chance of success. You can challenge the choice of the committee if you can get enough people to turn out for the primaries, this too is difficult but do-able.

You can always run as an Independent, but that's usually difficult because of the lack of volunteers to help and because the real problem in running a campaign is the lack of money coupled with most campaign orgainzations in spending the money wisely.

The best chance is to find one or more real issues/problems AND recommend solutions for them. Wasteful spending, sub-standard services, etc. are all fair game and if you search you should be able to find many.

Religious affiliation should play no part, I would never volunteer or vote for someone simply because of their religious belief or non-belief, and as pointed out earlier there are vany of those that would not vote for a candidate because of their religious belief.

Tell me specifically what you will do to make things better and I'll vote for you.

[Edward Tabash]

It has been said that a contender's views on matters of religion should not be a basis for casting a vote for that candidate. If, as in our contemporary political climate, we have an overwhelming number of theists who want government to impose religious dogma by fiat in so many ways, it is essential for nonbelievers to start electing some of our own to office.

Also, the anti intellectual trend in our nation, of office seekers pandering to the most simple minded religious fundamentalist notions, is getting worse by the day. The more that elections are won primarily by a candidate offering that he or she is "born again," the more intellectual depth and honsesty of thought become a tragic casualty.

If our nation continues to send people to office like that new U.S. senator from Oklahoma, the putz who said that boarding schools for girls in the southern part of that sate have to be closed down because they are breeding grounds for lesbianism, the more intellectually deep and courageous atheists need to provide a counterweight.

I think that my saying that one should first make sure that a candidate's positions do not violate one's deep beliefs, is a sufficient safeguard and that thereafter it is proper for atheists to give great weight to a candidate's atheism.

If 95% of society professed a literal belief in Santa Claus, the preservation of an intellectually viable culture would require that candidates who did not so believe in this superstition seek and hopefully win office. It would not be out-of-bounds to say that the primary consideration in choosing such a candidate is this person's disbelief in Santa Claus, particularly if we were living in a society in which belief in Santa Claus and government's pushing of Santa Claus beliefs caused extensive damage to civil liberties and to society's intellectual climate.

Eddie Tabash

[Gilbert Gosseyn]

Mr. Tabash has mentioned that it is commonly argued that ones religious beliefs should not be a test for election to political office.
But many atheists tell us that atheism is not a religion, and some will tell you that it is not even a belief.
Therefore, without going beyond the weak definition, it can not be a basis for anything, much less a test for fitness to political office.
But if he is implying that somehow atheists are better guarantors of our civil liberties, then he needs to define more specifically what he means by an atheist and how that provides for anything other than a basic "lack of belief" in god.
My own belief is that whenever "atheist" (and I am throwing around the term loosely) get control, liberty suffers.
Now, this has often been true of "theists" as well, but I am not sure on what basis Mr. Tabash is saying atheists will do better.

[Edward Tabash]

Mr. Gosseyn wonders upon what basis I assert that atheists will do better in office than theists.

First of all, the type of atheists I am talking about are people like me, within a range of political mainstream attitudes. I am not talking about communists who would ban the private practice of religion.

I am not talking about electing Fidel Castro types as much as I am talking about electing Bill Clinton types who don't believe in any god.

Today's religious right is on the verge of taking over the nation. Also, religious dogma is pernicious with respect to the intellectual and cultural climate of the United States. Thus, someone intelligent enough and courageous enough to reject supernatural superstition can be the most reliable person to keep god and government separate.

The difference between someone like me and a religious right winger like Jerry Falwell, is that I don't want government to promote my point of view on matters of religion. I want government to stay out of the god business and leave belief or non belief entirely up to the individual. Falwell, though a proclaimed right winger who clamors for limited government, wants government to prohibit gays and lesbians from personal freedom and wants government to sponsor worship of his god in the public schools.

I want all these things to be left up to the individual. Thus, Falwell, the so called limited government conservative, is actually more in favor of intrusive government than I am, even though I am a moderate liberal Democrat.

Unfortunately, American culture is so steeped in an unreflective acceptance of religion that there is now, more than ever before, an automatic assumption in the vary fabric of popular attitude that one cannot be moral unless one mindlessly buys into supernatural claims. This same distorted perspective makes it virtually unacceptable to the average person that morality and nobility of character are actually hallmarked by the exercise of courage and intellectual integrity in the process of rejecting conventional supernatural beliefs.

Thus, with so many holders of public office pathetically pandering to the worst elements of knee jerk belief in religious dogma, our society is in dire need of some principled nonbelievers who can be counted upon to never attempt to pass any laws that would restrict the freedoms of others, if those laws have no foundation other than the supposed decrees of a fantasy creature, that is, the mythical god.

Thus, the principled atheist politician would not endanger the freedom of believers but would rather be the most reliable in making sure that legislation designed to curtail liberty, based on no more than someone's supernatural beliefs, never got enacted in the first place.

Edward Tabash

[David M. Payne]

Kudos for such an erudite post. Especially since you realize that antipathy in spades exists in the workplace, but I cannot see that the middle classes -so called can be lauded or did I get it wrong, did you intend to disparage that class?
I see proof that the middle classes are egged on by imitation of the wealthier group and this 'competition" may in fact be leviathan in the marketplace of the world. Mercantilism may be resurgent espec. in China ,Vietnam. The tax rates in Vietnam rival the developed countries.
Anyhow just a thought. :thumbs: :thumbs:

Sorry I haven't been looking at this thread, I didn't know it was active again. No, I do laud the middle class in reality. It isn't a perfect class, no class is. But if the middle class was a majority of the world's population I believe there would be very little if any of the type of conflicts we see today. Though the various secular and religious authoritarian dogma's plays a big role in conflict, so to does poverty and hopelessness of living in a better future. Poverty provides the cannon fodder for those who use their dogma to try and gain control of their social systems. A strong, vibrant middle class worldwide is key to ending the trap of poverty and giving enough people the hope that if they can't be rich, they can at least live a decent life. As I said in my essay, there are a lot of things that need to be addressed before humanity reaches some kind of a socially just and sound economic future. All I can do is write about it, and maybe have some effect with the movie "Holy War" that I'm working on right now. (Which is why I don't come here to often anymore, a 40 hr week and all of the pre-production I'm doing right now doesn't leave me much time for other things. See my web site for more info on that movie if you are interested.)

David