Unaffiliated, Underrepresented

The Pew Forum reports on the religious affiliations of Members of Congress. Not surprisingly, there are some curious inequities in representation.

First some background. Atheists are indeed a tiny minority in the United States: Pew's national survey shows atheists make up 1.6% of the population, though secularists generally tend to prefer citing the 16.1% of Americans who are of no religion or unaffiliated.

For a little perspective on that 1.6 number, compare that to the national percentage of Jews (1.7%) and Mormons (also 1.7%). Doesn't look as tiny as it once did, does it?

Now let's look at Congress. According to Pew, Jews make up 8.4% of the legislative branch (almost 5 times the percentage of Jews in the general population), and Mormons make up 2.4% (twice the percentage of the general population).

What about atheists? Well, it should not surprise you that the word atheist does not even appear on the chart. The closest they come are "Unaffiliated" and "Unspecified/Don't Know/Refused to Answer." We know that Rep. Pete Stark, D.-Calif., is a nonbeliever, but shies from the word "atheist" himself. He affiliates with the Unitarian Church, so he falls under "Other Faiths," which comes in at 0.6%. Thanks to Stark's membership in a church, despite his lack of a belief in a supreme being, the big a-word chalks in officially at zero.

Now let's read the first paragraph of the Pew report:

Members of Congress are often accused of being out of touch with average citizens, but an examination of the religious affiliations of U.S. senators and representatives shows that, on one very basic level, Congress looks much like the rest of the country.

Does it really? Remember that 16.1% unaffiliated number in which we all-out atheists like to include ourselves? Well, it might make us nonbelievers feel better in the country at large, but in Congress, the broader term is no help. Zero Members considered themselves "unaffiliated" in the Pew survey. Richard Dawkins would tell you that this is likely horseshit, but that is neither here nor there.

Pew notes this discrepancy:

The study finds that there is at least one major difference between Congress and the nation as a whole: Members of Congress are much more likely than the public overall to say they are affiliated with a particular religion.

You're not kidding.

Obviously, there are going to be some groups proportionally represented better than others. This is a democracy with separation of church and state, and the idea is of course that candidates are elected on their merits, not their faith. We don't necessarily want some kind of forced proportionality of religions in any elected legislature.

But it is worth noting that three groups with nearly identical numbers in the U.S. population--atheists, Jews, and Mormons--have such vastly different levels of representation. Indeed, considering the fact that 16.1% of Americans are of no religion, and that their position--the decision not to subscribe to any particular religious dogma--is totally unrepresented in Congress, it is easy to conclude that whatever your opinion of religion, the adherence to faith-based supernatural dogma gets way more than its due in the U.S. Congress.

Why should this be a concern beyond the jealousy of identity politics? It seems to me that for atheist and secular activists, the very reason they are active is to keep the irrationality of religion out of public policy, and to introduce larger doses of reason into the process. A Congress almost devoid of nonbelievers, but filled with those who feel they are the subjects of an omniscient invisible sky master, is not the best starting place for such goals.

[Cross-posted at Bloc Raisonneur]