By now, it's been well-reported that on Monday, March 12, the Secular Coalition for America -- an umbrella lobbying group for eight atheist and humanist organizations -- will announce the name of the first "openly nontheistic" member of Congress. This follows a write-in contest in which the group promised to award $1,000 to whomever could identify the highest-ranking elected "atheist,
humanist, freethinker or other nontheist" in the country.
Reading the announcement, I took the "openly" part to mean the member in question has granted assent in one way or another to this project, but the release never specifically states that. I do hope it is the case, nonetheless. I've written before about how I think the gay pride movement can serve as model and template for atheists in America, but the last thing I want to see is the kind of self-cannibalism practiced, at times, by the likes of The Voice or The Advocate or, even moreso, the original incarnation of Details.
That disclaimer out of the way, now to the fun part...who is it?
Over at Hit & Run, Radley Balko lays his chips on Barney Frank, and that does seem to be who the early money is favoring. After all, he's already blazed one trail as the first openly gay congressman -- what's one more? And I will admit that, upon first hearing the news, Barney was the first guy I thought of. I'd intended to ask him the question straight-up when I saw him the other morning at an insurance reform summit I was covering (hoping I'd be able to break the news right here) but he was in and out of there so fast, there was no time for a one-on-one.
But the more time I have to reflect on the question, the less likely I think it is that Barney is the guy. Not that I 
necessarily think Barney is a terribly religious person, but I have to return to that "openly" part. Barney has never openly declared himself atheist or agnostic or secular or anything of the sort, and that's what the contest was supposed to be in search of. Barney has always identified himself as Jewish. And yes, I know, that's a culture and a people and a nation, in addition to being a religion, so the one doesn't necessarily cancel out the other.
Nonetheless, it boils down to this -- since Barney has never before declared himself a "nontheist," the only way he would qualify for this contest is if he suddenly decided to do so now. And I just can't fathom anything that would motivate him to participate in that sort of spectacle. It's completely out-of-character for him.
What I think Radley and others (myself included, since the thought did certainly enter my head as well) are reacting to is more the conservatives' charicature of Barney Frank than to Barney Frank, the man himself. The cartoon version of Barney Frank has nearly become a synonym for "liberal" the way Cindy Crawford's name once was used by frat guys to establish relative standards of beauty ("She's no Cindy Crawford, but hey, I'd do her"...you know, charming stuff life that.)
So the image of Barney Frank has come to suggest a certain archetype....that of the gay Jewish left-wing intellectual from Taxachusetts, like something out of central casting on a Woody Allen flick. And he is all of those things, it's true. But that doesn't necessarily mean either that he's also an atheist -- the missing trope that would complete the cultural stereotype -- or that any of these individual characteristics are things that define him as a person or a public figure.
Take it from someone who covers him on a regular basis -- Barney Frank is no shrieking ideologue. He is a serious man, a shrewd and cunning politician who has worked exceedingly hard to be elevated to his current status as chairman of one of the most powerful committees in the House. And much as I'd love to count him as an ally in our cause, publicity stunts like this just aren't his thing. He's got bigger fish to fry, and contrary to how he might be perceived by those who don't really know him, most of his priorities have absolutely nothing to do with his personal life.
So I'm ruling out Barney, and turning my attention instead to members of Congress who could, theoretically, have been identified as nontheists by someone responding to this contest. Doing so requires focusing on those members who have never explicitly identified membership in any particular religion, and that does indeed narrow the field significantly.
The authority in this area is Albert Menendez, the editor of Voice of Reason, the newsletter of Americans for Religious Liberty. He's been keeping track of the religious affiliations of members of Congress since 1972, and he identifies six members of the 110th as "nonaffiliated": Reps. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.; Tammy Baldwin, D-Wis.; Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii; Mark Udall, D-Colo.; and John Olver and John Tierney, both D-Mass.
Now, I'm not quite sure why this is, but there's some discrepancy between Menendez' count and the one you find at Capitol Advantage's Congress.org. Their site lists Udall as the only member to declare himself "not affiliated." The others on Menendez' list, as well as five more (Doc Hastings, R-Wash.; Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.; and Barbara Lee, Doris Matsui, and Hilda Solis, all D-Calif.), all are under a separate category for "not stated."
No matter. There was one name in that bunch that immediately stood out for me, and he appears on both lists. The more I thought about it, the more obvious it became. In fact, at this point, I will be shocked if my pick doesn't turn out to be the one announced on Monday. To review some of the salient evidence:
-
In November 2005, this person, a member of the House Resources
Committee, compared environmental groups who opposed natural gas drilling to
theologians who hold Old Testament certainty in their positions, telling
National Journal "you're dealing with fundamentalists," and
"we're dealing with sacred text here, that's the problem."
-
He signed on to a May 2005 letter calling for a “thorough and
public investigation” into accusations of religious intolerance at the Air
Force Academy, following a study by a team from the Yale Divinity School that
found harassment of any cadet not an evangelical Christian and special
treatment for evangelical Christians.
-
In sponsoring a resolution earlier this year calling for an
immediate pull-out from Iraq,
he was quoted by the A.P. saying: "The Shias and Sunnis have been dealing
with one another ever since the prophet died. And on the whole, they've come to
make an accommodation with one another. Not always happily so, and not always
without bloodshed. But I don't think the Christian West is in any position to
comment to other people about bloodshed, violence and terror with regard to
religion.”
-
In a letter last May to the Honolulu Advertiser, his wife,
Nancie Caraway, complained about Hawaii Lt. Gov. Duke
Aiona's religious expressions and asked: "How is this interface of
evangelical Christianity and public life any different from those Islamic
fundamentalist regimes?"
-
In December, he told a Gannett reporter he was distrustful of
"presumed religious imperatives" cited by public figures, saying he
had “reservations as to the depth of their commitment on that score.” He went
on to say: “History tells me that whoever is in power will make shameless use of
their affiliation with God, presumably to their advantage, but more often than
not, it doesn't work that way…I differentiate organized, institutional religion
from questions of the spirit, questions of moral determinism or my sense of
self in the universe. I don't think the record of organized institutional
religion is too good on that score."
No doubt in my mind....it's Neil Abercrombie. Bank on it. Unlike Barney, Abercrombie LOVES making public spectacles, and getting
together with a secular group to tweak the religious right is exactly the
sort of thing he would do.
Yes, I know the quote about "questions of the spirit" could be read to imply some kind of mushy, Mother Earth, Deist-type religion. I don't think it's conclusive, and in this case, may actually count as evidence for, not against, his candidacy. Remember, after all, that the Coalition characterized this person as a "nontheist," not an atheist or agnostic.
Moreover, Abercrombie probably could make the claim of having the least to lose of any member of Congress on this point. Not only is he a long-time incumbent from a safe liberal district, but he represents Hawaii, the least Christian state in the union! Just 68% of the population identifies as Christian, while 9% are Buddhist, 5% Tao and Shinto, and a whopping 18% self-identify as agnostic or non-religious.
So, on behalf of the entire secular movement, let me be the first to say "Aloha kâua!" to Congressman Abercrombie, and for my readers -- remember, you heard it here first.
Recent Comments