Brent Rasmussen

Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.

Jim Downey

UTI Associate blogger Jim Downey is a former newspaper columnist and also writes at the Daily Kos under the handle Shadan7. "I'm the fat old man of the crowd (well, make that middle-aged and overweight). My life's arc has been colorful in some odd and delightful ways, and though by most conventional standards I'm not 'successful', I've mostly enjoyed the ride. I now keep busy writing, playing with my dog, and as a book & document conservator in private practice."

Paul Fidalgo

UTI associate blogger Paul Fidalgo is an actor, musician, and writer with a background in political media, communications, and research. He holds a master's degree in political management from George Washington University, and blogs on atheism in American culture. He blogs at Examiner.com as the DC Secularism Examiner, and maintains two blogs, Near Earth Object, a blog of several overlapping magisteria including political satire and his own musical work; and Bloc Raisonneur, specifically concerning atheists' precarious place in American politics and culture. Paul's music can be purchased for mere pennies at Amie St.

Navigation

Rick Ulrey

UTI Associate blogger Rick Ulrey comes to UTI by way of the Marine Corps: "I'm 31 and I earn my living fixing computers. I served 6 years in the Marine Corps and consider myself a liberal libertarian with conservative leanings. I am a firm believer that the world would be a better place if people took responsibility for themselves and their actions. As you can see from the picture I love food. That's me eating a banana fritter in Australia with a nice cup of coffee. I love to cook and my other hobbies include hiking, camping, reading and on and offline gaming."

Steven Darksyde

UTI co-blogger and friend DarkSyde has this to say about himself: "I'm in my 40s, I work out a lot, I'm a personal trainer as a hobby, I've worked mainly as an investment advisor, stocks and bonds. I've done quite a bit of sky diving. I live a few miles from the Space Center in Florida. I have a strong background in math and physics and I'm an active advocate for Evolution in the Evolution vs. Creationism issue."

Does it Matter if Ted Kaufman is an Atheist?

Submitted by Paul Fidalgo on January 31, 2009 - 11:05pm.

I'm not sure what to make of the completely-unconfirmed-yet-fascinating possibility that arose today that Ted Kaufman, the newly appointed U.S. Senator from Delaware, might be an atheist. (Props to Trina at Examiner.com for beating me to the story...she is quick!) The germ of this idea comes from a New York Times article today in which Kaufman refers to his "way of thinking" as "humanistic."

Characteristically overblowing the word's implication, as is their wont, Gawker sounded the we-might-have-an-atheist-in-our-midst alarm. As has been noted, if Sen. Kaufman is an atheist, and he confirms it, he would be the highest-ranking avowed atheist in American political history. But I wonder if such a confirmation would really do anything to advance atheists in the political realm, rather than simply serve as a brief oddity. Conventional wisdom has it that Kaufman is a mere placeholder for the vice president's son Beau Biden, and even if he isn't, he has announced that he has no intention of seeking the seat in the next election. One way or the other, he's out of here in two.

For real advancement, I think, atheists need to run for office, not just be appointed. And with great respect to Rep. Pete Stark's groundbreaking admission of nonbelief in 2007, what the atheist community really needs is for its like-minded office-seekers already be "out" before they get elected. Atheists won't really start breaking the Election Barrier* until then; and yes, the first batch will have run and lose, run and lose, and probably maddeningly often.

But over time, the idea of an admitted atheist politician will stop seeming alien. With every "loss," Americans will be better able to envision a nonbeliever in office without all the irrational cognitive dissonance, and the atheist politicians will get better and better at communicating their messages.

And then one day we'll win, on our own. Not through a revelation 30 years into a career, not by accident of appointment, but by earning more votes than the other guy.

I suspect Ted Kaufman is going to do his state proud over the next two years. If he is a staunch atheist, it just might help to erode the reticence that too many Americans feel about entrusting some of their representation to their nonreligious neighbors. But we should make no mistake; as milestones go, it will be an accidental one only.

* I hearby trademark the term "Election Barrier," newly impressed with my own cleverness.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

Paul Fidalgo's blog

Does it matter if (politician's name) is an atheist?

Submitted by Crudely Wrott (not verified) on February 4, 2009 - 10:37pm.

To an atheist, yes. If (politician's name) is forthright, honest, truly representative of their constituency and is well regarded by their theistic peers. If not, no.

To a theist, yes, no matter what.

A subtle and instructive difference. An atheist will (usually) judge a politician based upon performance and track record without regard to the politician's superstitious quirks. A theist (frequently) doesn't care about such banal trivia, only that certain conformational prejudices are on display.

Based upon this, I judge the atheist politician to be probationarily more fair, trustworthy, patriotic and apt to respond dispassionately to crisis. Nota bene, any human can be tempted to serve self or cronies instead of the public.

Personally, I view all politicians as suspect until they prove (more than once) that they are more concerned about the Union than themselves and their party's dogma.

Rove

Submitted by Jeg (not verified) on February 1, 2009 - 7:28pm.

Maybe Karl Rove will run for office. :D

Slightly off topic

Submitted by Chas, PE SE (not verified) on February 1, 2009 - 1:23pm.

This thread touches peripherally on something that frosts my cookies. Hereditary Democracy. We fought a couple of medium sized wars to get a political system that let us pick the best person for the job, rather than being gifted with the current boss' son. So what are we doing? The current Mayor of Chicaguh is the son of Richard the First, and HIS son is being 'groomed'. The last Occupant of the Oval Office was the son of George I. When the head of the Cook County Board had a stroke, his son was put in. My favorite is the President of Syria. When he died a few years ago, nothing would do except that they go to London, get his son who was a doctor with no political experience, and put him in as Prez!
Now you're telling me that the current Senator from Delaware is "Only a placeholder" for the son of the previous Senator? (he does have some chops--Todd Stroger, however?)

Back in the middle ages, nepotism and hereditary monarchy made a certain amount of sense. The kid would probably have better physical and mental development because he'd get better food, and he'd get training in government. But why do we have to have the offspring of politicians taking Daddy's job now?

I suspect that most voters are so dumb they just keep pulling the lever (touching the screen) next to the familiar name. Sigh.

I completely agree...

Submitted by Paul Fidalgo on February 1, 2009 - 3:56pm.

And it may be even more reason not to get too excited.

Baby steps, baby steps.

Submitted by plittle on February 1, 2009 - 6:59am.

Having an elected representative "come out" while in office will serve to start people thinking, "hey, he was an atheist, and he did a pretty good job." I think that's a necessary first step to breaking down your newly minted "election barrier."

On the whole I agree

Submitted by Paul Fidalgo on February 1, 2009 - 9:24am.

But I also don't think it's cause for jumping for joy as though some milestone has been reached. Perhaps if he comes out, months later a poll shows that the vast majority of his constituents don't care one way or the other and he has high approvals, well, I might do a little jump.

Well...

Submitted by plittle on February 1, 2009 - 8:38pm.

I don't think jumping for joy is all that seemly, anyway.

Hmm.

Submitted by Hank Fox on February 1, 2009 - 11:21am.

Milestones are few and far between in this type of thing. Think of it more as erosion working at an obstacle. As long as the water flows, something good's happening, even if it's slow.

As long as the guy isn't an actual axe murderer (and who would kill a perfectly good axe?), this is a good thing.

I'm waiting for the tipping-point moment when being an atheist suddenly becomes chic. Sure, there will be side effects -- plenty of vapid idiots climbing on the bandwagon -- but once the threshhold of "this isn't a bad thing" is reached in the greater population, we might get a lot of thinkers on board who might otherwise have been too timid. It will break the stranglehold godders have on "here's what you have to do to be a good person."