Back in November, when podiatrist Lee Rogers was being interviewed as a potential endorsee by the Freethought Equality Fund PAC, the California congressional candidate was surprised by what he learned about the fledgling political action committee.
Rogers didn’t expect the organization, which was formed to promote the interests of the non-believing electorate, to be focused on issues related to education and non-discrimination.
“They were not really concerned with things that you would typically think an atheist group being concerned with, like ‘In God We Trust’ on money. I think one of them even said that they care more about what’s backing our money than what is on it,” Rogers said in an interview with RealClearPolitics. “They were really very pragmatic about the issues that they wanted to support in Washington.”
The Freethought PAC has filed its first wave of contributions through the Federal Election Commission. The total is paltry — just $ 6,100 — but the organization has, ahem, faith that it can one day make good on its website motto of “electing secular leaders, defending secular America.”
What that motto means, in practical terms, is focusing on “any issues that come up where religious groups are trying to intrude their beliefs on policy,” the PAC’s coordinator, Bishop McNeill, told RCP. “Whether it be for women’s reproductive issues, same-sex marriage issues, issues dealing with scientific integrity.”
The beneficiaries of the PAC’s modest largess are all Democrats and all but one are incumbents: Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, Reps. Jared Polis (Colo.), Rush Holt (N.J.), Bobby Scott (Va.) and Rogers.
“We do look at the demographics of the districts and a whole lot of criteria before making our decision,” McNeill said about the contributions — and the endorsements that accompany them. “We’re not just trying to pick winners per se, but we do look at all the information given to us to make a solid decision and to find the most credible candidates.”
Warren is the Freethought PAC’s lone financial recipient holding office at a statewide level. She is also, among the federal candidates, the only one not facing an election this year. Warren has, however, been mentioned as a potential candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. (The FEC filing states the Freethought disbursement of $ 1,000 to Warren is for the 2018 primary.)
Rogers, who is seeking the Democratic nomination in California’s 25th District, told RCP that the PAC donated additional money to his campaign after the filing. That brings FEF’s contribution to $ 5,000, the maximum allowed by law.
He links the initial support he received from the PAC to its opposition to incumbent Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, whom Rogers was slated to challenge until the Republican congressman announced his retirement last month. Rogers said FEF took issue with McKeon — the powerful chairman of the House Armed Services Committee — for opposing efforts to allow humanist chaplains to counsel military members who are atheists.
Among the other FEF endorsees, Rep. Scott (now serving his 11th term in Congress) said in an email that as “a strong supporter of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses enshrined in the First Amendment, I was honored to be among the first members of Congress endorsed by the new Freethought and Equality Fund.”
The other recipients of FEF contributions did not immediately respond to RCP’s requests for comment.
The PAC debuted last September as the brainchild of the Center for Humanist Activism, the lobbying arm of the American Humanist Association. According to its website, the latter was founded in 1941 and now has over 20,000 members and supporters.
Of the PAC’s current stable of endorsees, a group that extends beyond the donation recipients cited above, the sole openly professed nonbeliever is Arizona state Rep. Juan Mendez, who identifies as a secular humanist. (He revealed his principles on the issue in the Arizona House of Representatives, where he asked fellow lawmakers not to bow their heads — and invoked Carl Sagan — as he led the daily invocation.)
“I hope today marks the beginning of a new era in which Arizona’s nonbelievers can feel as welcome and valued here as believers,” Mendez reportedly said afterward.
Some faith advocates are skeptical of the success the political action committee will have in the long run.
“I think that they will be a drop in the bucket along with many other liberal-left PACs,” Faith and Freedom Coalition senior adviser Gary Marx told RCP. “It’s going to take a whole lot of finances for them to break through and move into the conversation with the likes of Moveon.org and the trial lawyers and the unions.”
But the recent financial contributions are only a part of what Freethought hopes to do this election year.
McNeill said there are currently 12 candidates for Congress who have identified themselves as nonbelievers, answered questionnaires from the PAC and talked with the organization. (He declined to name them — an announcement will be forthcoming — but did divulge that all are seeking the Democratic nomination in their districts.) Freethought will “endorse and or highlight these candidates and commend them for their courage to be out and open about their lack of belief,” McNeill said.
He added that the next goal of the operation is to have more politicians publicly disclose their nonbelief.
“If we can get them to come out as a group, I think that would be the best course of action,” McNeill said. “Obviously, I think individually it’s going to be harder because it’ll still be easy for people to single out one individual.”
Explaining FEF’s emphasis on electing nonbelievers to office, he cited an oft-repeated statistic that 20 percent of Americans do not identify with any religion.
“Unfortunately, that number is not represented in Congress,” McNeill said. “It is important to have diversity in office.”
According to Lauren Youngblood, spokesperson for the pro-separation of church and state Secular Coalition of America, there are 31 current members of Congress who have privately confided their nonbelief to the organization.
That there are nonbelievers who keep those sentiments to themselves isn’t surprising. After all, the U.S. remains a religious country overall: Gallup reports that 87 percent of Americans believe in a deity. Add in the coming midterms, and the issue isn’t likely to be one that many officeholders (or wannabes) would want to make an issue of.
“I like to say it must be an election year because politicians are attending church,” Ethics and Public Policy Center Vice President Michael Cromartie told RCP. “The American people can discern whether or not a candidate is sincere about their faith.”
Youngblood argued that a candidate’s nonbelief should be a “non-issue.”
“It really shouldn’t matter whether you’re a Christian or an atheist or a Buddhist,” she asserted. “What should matter is that you base your laws, your legislation or your support for legislation on reason and science and logic.”
Rogers agrees.
Pointing to his belief in the First Amendment and “the principle of separation between church and state,” the California candidate said he does not publicly reveal his religious affiliation. If elected to Congress, he said he would continue non-identification.
“I think that too many people are using their religion to force their beliefs on others,” Rogers said. “I’ve told people I’m not going to use any of my own personal religious beliefs to try to force policy on anyone else.”
