A Bonafide Atheist in Congress

Way to go Pete!

It should be noted the Stark is not coming out as an "atheist," per se. He doesn't identify with that label. However, the word of choice the SCA used is "non-theistic."

Very exciting, nonetheless!

Um, since when were "non-theism" and "atheism" different....

Since forever, Chris. One can be a non-theist, which means not a theist. An atheist is one kind of not-a-theist, but others are agnostics, panentheists, pantheists, polytheists (arguably not theists in the traditional sense) and apatheists (don't care).

Does this have anything to do with science?

Um, since when were "non-theism" and "atheism" different....

From about the age of 13 to age 25 or so, I alternated between calling myself 'atheist', 'non-theist', 'non-believer', 'agnostic', and so on. I deliberately used different words with the same people, and then explained how their reactions differed, and why I thought it was inconsistent of them to react these words so differently. I gave up largely because in 12 years, I couldn't identify a single acquaintance I'd convinced to treat these words as if they closely resembled each other.

There's no logical reason 'atheist' should be different from 'non-theist', but due to a host of historical accidents, they are different, and the political effects of Pete Stark or Bernie Sanders calling themselves 'atheists' would be very different from 'non-theist' or 'I don't take religion literally' (approximate - I don't remember exactly what Sanders said.), despite the logical similarities.

At some point, their enemies will start aggressively defaming them as 'atheists', and their euphemisms will turn on them, but until then I can see why they find them appealing, or even necessary.

OMG this is such great news. A small step forward for one of the last heavily marginalized groups in the United States, the Atheists/Agnostics.

John,
While Llewelly's remarks about how people react differently to the words "atheist," "agnostic," etc also jibe with my experience, I maintain that "atheism" is the largest category and simply means "lack of theism," and thus precisely the same thing as "non-theist." I think that's the definition that makes the most sense. However, atheists have a huge "framing" problem in that most of the public seems to think that an atheist affirmatively disbelieves in God, whereas an "agnostic" is somehow seen to be more open-minded. To me, however, an agnostic is just one type of atheist.

I think it might, bizarrely enough, have to do with how the word gets broken up. An a-theist would be more or less the same as a non-theist. But an athe-ist might be someone who has a more active disbelief in god. I think most people use the word the first way.

How about the two Buddhists in congress? They count as "openly non-theistic," don't they? I think what counts for proselytizing atheists is that people aren't religious.

It is my information that Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont is also a non-theist.

You seem interested in that there is a bonafide 'atheist' in Congress. How about having a bonafide scientist in the House of Representatives? Additionally how about having him sit on the newly appointed Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. At least, Pelosi appointed Jerry McNerney, to that committee. McNerney has a PhD in Mathematics (University of New Mexico), has worked at Sandia Labs and has been involved in the wind energy business for years.

Add this to the fact that Montana Gov. Brian Sweitzer has a Master of Science degree in Soil Science from Montana State University and you might have a revolution in the making.

Atrios linked to this blog post, which has a few more details:

http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002530.html

After watching jesus camp this weekend, I really needed some good news. Thanks.

Thank god I'm an atheist.