Bernie Sanders ducks question about his religious beliefs

October 23, 2015 • 1:00 pm

This link, to a piece at The Raw Story about Bernie Sanders, was sent by a reader who actually knew the guy. The reader’s statement: “I’ve known Bernie since the 80s.  He has long been a nonbeliever, but for obvious reasons he won’t cop to it. ”

I think that Sanders really is an atheist, but of course that would kill him in an election, because Americans wouldn’t like his answer to the question asked by Jimmy Kimmel.

“You say you’re culturally Jewish, but you don’t feel religious. Do you believe in God and do you think that’s important to the people of the United States?” Kimmel asked Sanders when the former senator from Vermont appeared on his show.

Sanders dodged the question about believing in God but turned his response into a summary of the philosophy that drives his run for president.

“I am who I am, and what I believe in and what my spirituality is about is that we’re all in this together. I think it is not a good thing to believe as human beings we can turn our backs on the suffering of other people,” said Sanders. “And this is not Judaism. This is what Pope Francis is talking about, that we cannot worship just billionaires and the making of more and more money. Life is more than that.”

A canny reference to Pope Francis, but I’d prefer that Sanders—who, contra Dave Silverman’s claim, is a secular Jew—just leave religious figures out of it. He’d have to do a lot more than genuflect toward the Pope if he wants the Presidency. We won’t see a cultural Jewish atheist socialist President in our lifetime—or our kids’! Still, it’s ineffably sad that you have to profess belief in God to be elected to any meaningful office in America.

145 thoughts on “Bernie Sanders ducks question about his religious beliefs”

      1. It sounds really irritating. I’d be irritated too. I don’t blame you for being irritated. 🙂

          1. I rather like being titillated myself, but I’m not sure this is the appropriate forum to discuss my titillation preferences. 🙂

          7. Yep – we’re talking about “I mean New Nabisco Tits!, and new Cheese Tits, Corn Tits, Pizza Tits, Sesame Tits, Onion Tits, Tater Tits. ‘Betcha Can’t Eat Just One!'”

          9. Filippo here. I posted the above. I don’t know where this “Anonymous” stuff is coming from. I’ve done nothing that I know of to cause it.

          11. OK, I see that my first attempt did correctly post after all. Apparently took the long route. Must have been a quantum fluctuation in the fabric of the space-time continuum. A tittitambulation.

          2. …but it’s not homeopathic, like my suggested remedy. On another note, I had to laugh at the ingredients & notice on the label: cod liver oil is #1 ingredient, plus “no animals have been harmed in producing this product.”

          3. Well, it’s snake oil that’s not got any snake in it…if that doesn’t make it homeopathetic, what does?

            …apparently it also hasn’t got any cod in it, either, if their claim of it not having harmed any animals in the making is to be believed….

            b&

          5. “Tiny codpiece”? I’m not sure if the proper response is, “What’s the point?” or, “Where’s the point?” There must be a suitable wisecrack involving a magnifying glass that could be inserted here….

            b&

          12. “somehow I doubt that Diane has a codpiece, invisible or not, much less a “cod” to cover…”

            Not even any cod-envy.

            As codless as I am godless. I say in a codfree manner.

            And no one better dare try to codify this…!

          14. Neither cod nor pizzle, I’d warrant. (In heraldry, beasts, which are normally male, are sometimes “coded and pizzled” of a different colour from their bodies.)

            /@

          18. If Ben had a d*g, he might have noticed the cured steer pizzles that are sold as chewy treats.

          20. I…ah…er…you know, I could have died an happy man never having even imagined the mere possibility of the hypothetical existence of such a bleargh post…I feel like channelling George Takei with a most distressed, “Oh, my!”

            b&

          22. …and now I really don’t want to know what you were searching for that led Google to offer up that…that…that whatever-it-was.

            Oh, wait — you’re using the Canadian version of Google, eh? I think I’ll blame Canada….

            b&

          23. ’twasn’t I who began the pizzle sub-thread. I believe it was you or Ant, and I did have to google that word, being a curious sort and all….Don’t think I’ll be buying any dried ones any time soon for my dog and will certainly NOT be cooking any, experimental though I am in the kitchen.

          31. Ben, I take that as an insalt.
            I’m convinced by my own censory skills.
            Each to their own taste.

  2. I think the “I am who I am” is brilliant.

    It alludes to Exodus 3:14 “I am that I am”.

    Therefore, it can be taken on the surface as “I am me” (deterministic) or as some mysterious reference to the conflicting meanings that have been interpreted from the bible.

      1. Hell, you beat me to it. So he is a socialist democrat and either an atheist or Jewish. He could maybe get elected dog catcher around here but probably not.

    1. I doubt there will be a Clinton – Sanders ticket. More likely something like Clinton – Cisneros ticket.

      1. He might want to also emphasize “sociable” too, considering the current state of Amuricun civility.

    4. No way the Dems give the VP nod to a septuagenarian converted independent from a state with three electoral votes. They’ll balance the ticket with a youngish male moderate from a large swing state — a Catholic Latino, if they can find one to fit the bill.

      Bernie could end up with a spot (though maybe not cabinet-level) in a Clinton administration, depending upon how quietly he’s willing to go, how little damage he insists on inflicting on Hillary during the primaries. I’d be surprised if Bill C hasn’t sent him some feelers already.

      1. There’s a noble tradition to doing so, too. Jefferson and Lincoln kept theirs under the radar.

  5. I’m not sure that it will take that long before an atheist can be a viable candidate for President. It’s not going to happen in 2016, but I’m not convinced that it will take decades either.
    Barack Obama was inaugurated on 20 January 2009, in January of 1969, could you imagine a black President within 40 years? Even in ’79 or ’89? In politics, things can go from unthinkable, to inevitable with relative ease. I know the LGBT community suffered, needlessly, as rights were denied them that were availed to other couples, but the needle on same-sex marriage moved incredibly quickly once it got some momentum.
    If non-belief is growing as fast as surveys and polls indicate it is among millenials, imagine what children being born right now will think when they’re raised in a society in which it is far more common for people to question the existence of god and the legitimacy of religious institutions than it was just a decade or two ago.
    That’s why I ignore the new atheism detractors. It is a wonderful and powerful thing to discover that you’re not alone in your thoughts and that it is okay to think the way you do. The more we offer a fierce and unapologetic advocacy of scientific truth and intellectual honesty, the more children are exposed to the unadulterated facts about the universe, the more we hasten the day when atheism is no longer a political albatross.
    Eppur si muove.

  6. Sander’s answer was pretty much pure humanism. No, he didn’t come right out and say “I’m an atheist” — but neither did he waffle around with professions that he believes in a “God of love” or that he’s a “person of faith.” Instead, he briefly invoked that floppiest of flappy weasel words “spirituality” (which even many explicit atheists want to “take back”)– and then he spoke about common values like compassion and fairness which the religious also endorse.

    So I don’t think he really ducked the question in the usual sense of the term. He didn’t lie, he didn’t make cooing noises towards faith, he didn’t do a complete hey-look-out-the-window change of topic. He answered not just like a humanist, but as one. I’m surprised and a bit chuffed on this. It’s better than I would have predicted.

  7. No self-avowed atheist will be elected to the Presidency in the foreseeable future. That said, I don’t respect the dodge.

    1. “I don’t respect dodge”

      For me it’s clear that he is a non-believer; re-framing a question; finding some common ground with believers.

      I think he does well.

  9. Though not electable, Bernie comes off as very likable. So, he is laying the groundwork for a future Bernie Sanders when people won’t be looking to see horns and a tail. Maybe another 15 – 20 years.

      1. Maybe stashed away in a statehouse somewhere. The national scene, unfortunately, is a bit light on socialist, atheist Jews these days.

  10. More of a tightrope walk but I suppose with a dodge being part of the larger picture.

    I would prefer a ref to Pope Francis that is NOT in response to a question about his religious beliefs but is in a more secular context.

    Pope Francis has some good ideas is precisely the same sense that the Gregorian calendar (introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582) is a good idea.
    It was adopted in many Protestant countries including England in 1752 long after the Papacy ceased having any religious authority there.
    Wikipedia notes “some Protestants feared the new calendar was part of a plot to return them to the Catholic fold.”

  11. Is a (non-atheist) Jewish candidate realistically electable in today’s USA? Are any non-Christians electable, do you think?

    1. I know Minnesota elected a Muslim to Congress in 2007. And Pete Stark is an open atheist and served 30 years in Congress. So, it can be done. It just hasn’t happened with much frequency.

  12. There is an historical reason why in the United States the election of an atheist to a major office is very unlikely in the near future. This is the widespread and long held belief by probably most Americans in “American Exceptionalism.” Wikipedia defines this belief as such in the paragraph below:
    —————
    American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is inherently different from other nations.[2] In this view, American exceptionalism stems from its emergence from the American Revolution, thereby becoming what political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset called “the first new nation” and developing a uniquely American ideology, “Americanism”, based on liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, republicanism, democracy and laissez-faire. This ideology itself is often referred to as “American exceptionalism.”
    ———-
    And it is God that promulgated this exceptionalism. Herman Cain (remember him?) expressed this view in a 2011 article entitled in “Defense of American Exceptionalism” in the conservative The American Spectator magazine. The first two paragraphs of the article are below.

    ————-
    There is no denying it: America is the greatest country in the world. We are blessed with unparalleled freedoms and boundless prosperity that for generations have inspired an innovative and industrious people. America is exceptional.

    American Exceptionalism is the standard that our laws reflect the understanding that we are afforded certain God-given rights that can never be taken away. We know that God, not government, bestows upon us these inalienable rights, and because of that, they must not be compromised by the whims of man. This makes us a unique nation, a nation that remains, as President Ronald Reagan once said, “a model and hope to the world.”

    http://spectator.org/articles/38032/defense-american-exceptionalism
    ——————–

    Thus, if God made America great, how could a denier of God be elected? To do so, would be a rejection of God and probably mean that his divine protection would be withdrawn over this country. Maybe there would even be divine retribution.

    American exceptionalism is a controversial belief to say the least. But, it is the mantra of American conservatives. My guess is that the vast majority of Americans buy into it to some degree. That is why no politician would deny it. Democrats won’t deny it because of fear of conservative attacks. All this adds up to why very few atheist politicians will publicly admit that they are one.

    1. Wouldn’t surprise me in the least. There’s a similar phenomenon in the UK with the nationalistic indulgence towards Britain, as if we were THE great nation. That’s why immigration-obsessives and implicit xenophobia are disproportionate in the media here.

    3. The Democrats may not deny it but I will if you want. Some of these traits may have developed over a period of the next 50 to 60 years after out first president left office but not before. The idea that the founders in Philly, in 1787 were creating or even thinking about a democracy is simply not so. Most of what you have today defined as exceptionalism is stretched even further by proclaiming as the republicans do, that it is god given. That would only mean the whole thing is made up.

      As I’m sure you know, Laissez-faire is certainly not why they bothered to go to Philly and spend the hot summer hammering out a new form of government. Just the opposite was being done because Washington, Madison, Hamilton and John Jay were pretty sure that things were going to hell in a hand basket as they say.

      Of course if you ask many republican conservatives who was responsible for the constitution and our form of government, the first name out will be Jefferson. Actually Jefferson was in France at the time and he was more interested in the next bottle of wine than creating a strong government.

      1. Your comment makes me think that if the Republicans had a sense of history they would want us to go back to the days of the Articles of Confederation that preceded the ratification of the Constitution. The constitution convention was called in reaction to the inadequacies of the Articles. In particular, it had created such a weak central government that the country was falling apart. Effective governing power was lodged in the states. And, of course, the particularly far-right Republicans essentially do not believe in a federal government with any real power (except for a strong military to wage foreign wars).

        Much of the American exceptionalism idea does go back a far time in American history. For example, in the early 1840s, the idea of “manifest destiny” raged throughout the land. This idea, a form of American exceptionalism, was that God intended the United States to dominate North America and to spread democracy throughout it. It provided the emotional justification for going to war with Mexico in 1846 and stealing its lands.

        1. I cannot disagree with any of that. Maybe part of their “exceptional feats” was that trick war with Mexico. Or Teddy marching up San Juan a few years later. Or maybe it was that we whipped Hitler and Hirohito almost single handed, though the Soviets may have played a small part. The main thing for them was that g*d issued all those liberties and freedoms directly to us. Just look who the chosen people are now. The Jews got nothing on us. I shouldn’t say any of this just after eating.

    5. And it filters on down to the smallest municipalities. Each state is The Greatest State In The Union, to hear each state tell it, especially in the bloviating speech each state gives before offering its votes at the quadrennial political conventions. And more than a few humble folk in the South will refer to their locales as “God’s Country.”

  13. Suppose you could go back to the 1950’s and tell people about the political situation in 2015.

    “Well, our current president is the son of an interracial couple and the next president is likely to be a woman, a Jewish socialist, a billionaire who can buy anything he wants, do almost anything he wants and only runs for the presidency out of sheer boredom and a creationist black neurosurgeon. Oh, and we have same-sex marriage now.”

    1. *the word ‘and’ between ‘sheer boredom’ and ‘a creationist’ has to be ‘or’ ofcourse.

    2. …and we have a free, unlimited energy supply, we fly to the moon daily, we mine all the planets, and the Cubs won the World Series.

          3. Cubs are baby lions or bears. Maybe that’s why they are beloved losers. Perhaps a name change would help. Something strong and domineering that would project “winner”.

          5. Just curious – exactly what does a sports team owner own? What exactly would he sell to a sports team owner wannabe?

        1. I think many people from the 1950’s have “evolved” on these issues, just like Democrats.

          1. I don’t know what happened, but my name suddenly disappeared. This is EvolvedDutchie.

          2. Obviously you’re evolving too fast for WP to recognise you.

            (Same thing’s been happening to me)

            cr

  14. Most people think politicians are shady characters. I think any competent ones who do not confess their atheism lack the courage to move forward and live in their parent’s past.

    1. Would you say that it takes a bit of courage for one to run for office in the first place?

      Or, I suppose one might rather say that it takes a significant amount of tolerance to deal with a mass of squabbling human primates, not a few of whom are significantly disagreeable/unpleasant and possessed of a monumental sense of entitlement, and are quick to refer to the politician as a public “servant.” (Of course, the reality is that private sector employees are no less “servants.” Who cheerfully views himself as another human primate’s “servant”?)

      George Carlin once reflected to the effect that shady politicians are elected by a less than stellar populace. “This is the best we can do, folks!”

  16. Hopefully wont see him as President because of his insane politics and socialism. Not because of his non-religion.

    Rich people bad! Welfare good! Free college for everyone! People actually take this moron seriously.

    3. “Rich people bad! Welfare good! Free college for everyone! People actually take this moron seriously.”

      Yes, everyone knows it should be

      Poor people bad! Welfare to the rich good! Keep the poor enslaved with debt!

      But seriously, only Christian white males should have power, because that’s what God intended.

    4. Can someone enlighten me – is “moron” an ad hominem or merely a psychological/psychiatric clinical term? (If the latter, then I gather that kindergartners should feel free to indulge in this non-name-calling with impunity.)

    5. Wouldn’t it be loverly if Bernie, and others, could respond with “Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy?”

        1. You know…it just occurred to me. Bernie could probably get away with my own favorite response, “Which god?” — and then follow it up with lots of quotes of Einstein. I suspect he’d be comfortable openly embracing Einstein’s Spinozan God, and could honestly do so in language that distinguished that God from the many Abrahamic gods the same way that the Abrahamic gods are different from the Hindu gods.

          He’s not going to upset any Christians with that sort of language any more than they’re already going to be upset that, as a Jew, he hasn’t accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior. He’s certainly not going to upset any Jews that way; pretty much every congregation is going to have openly atheist Jews amongst its regular members who would answer the same way. Secularists won’t have any problems with it. And the “You’ve gotta believe in some god or you’re worse than a rapist” crowd will be mollified because, hey, he believes in Einstein’s God.

          b&

          1. If there are Hillary – Bernie debates, I will be waiting and watching for something akin to “Which god?”.
            I have a hard time envisioning a debate ever being agreed to by Hillary. Why debate a fellow progressive in an election that will amount to a thorough renunciation of Donald.

  17. Atheist capitalist maybe some day.
    Atheist socialist, not likely.

    Especially since most Americans equate socialism with communism.

    Sanders was on Bill Maher last week and Maher read a poll of likely to vote for candidates based on their labels. A socialist candidate was (iirc) 10 points lower than an atheist; it was actually the least likely candidate to get elected.

    I think Bernie is trying to educate people on what socialism and especially socialist democrat means. The average American hasn’t come to grips with the fact that social security, medicare/medicaid, the military and VA are all popular socialist programs.

    1. I think I can say because I was once in it. We use to refer to ourselves in the military as – A poverty program in uniform. We use to make a lot less money, especially the enlisted class. They do a bit better today.

      1. Same here. I was a ship without a rudder at college and needed to do something, and it did pay something and “three hots and a cot.”

        Several years ago I took a tour of the U.S. Naval Academy. The tour guide was apparently feeling her oats, as she uttered the words, “We own them [the plebs/midshipmen].” Ah, the capitalist Master-servant mindset.

        What veteran wants to hear that? An early 80’s Navy OCS grad myself, I was steamed but held my tongue for the sake of “keeping the peace” and not making it rough on the other tour guests. I contemplated a letter to the Academy superintendent, but didn’t want to get her in trouble, though I still might do it so as to prompt a head’s-up to the current tour guide staff.

        The “We Own Them” attitude is too prevalent here in The Land of the Fee and the Home of the Craven.

  19. If I were running for president I would deflect all such questions as not relevant to the office. I wouldn’t name any religious figures unless it was to point to something they said that had nothing to do with religion. What people need to know about me is whether I can do the job or not. Suppose someone with the belief system of Kim Davis were president. That person would surely veto any bill that he or she thought went against her “Christian principles.” An atheist or agnostic or deist would not be swayed one way or the other by any consideration of religion, which is how it ought to be.

  20. If Bernie really wants to be President, he’s going to need to practice up on a whole bunch of Sophisticated Theology ™ gobbledygook for what he believes. I recommend Karen Armstrong. Her beliefs are so convoluted and incoherent there’s no way to make any sense out them, but they sound very poetic and beneficent. Mary Midgely is another one whose waffling could be turned to good account by an atheist unwilling to perjure himself but nonetheless in need of a lot of comforting blather on the subject of religion.

  21. I can accept that Bernie is speaking in tongues, for as as soon as he denies a spiritual life, it is over. This is a reality in the US and from an Australian perspective, I accept it. The most important thing is that he doesn’t have a dogma, such as the crazy Ben Carson. And I agree that it is sad that a secular Jew, or secular anyone won’t make it to the Presidency anytime soon.

  22. I don’t share the general feeling about Bernie Sanders chances in the Presidential Election, though his chances may have been dented a little after Hillary Clintons demolition of the GOP idiots on the Benghazi Committee.

  23. Damn near a given now that the Dems will put up a woman or a Jew for the general election — either way, it’ll be a first.

    That’s progress on its own, especially since it took the better part of two centuries to break the WASP stranglehold on the White House (excepting Jefferson and Lincoln, who held their religious cards close to the vest).

    1. It is interesting to think how hard it would be for a Hillary to run 15 or even 10 years ago.

  24. Seems to me a safe enough answer. We have on official religious test, but people will do it anyway still thinking that being religious is better than not. A myth that remains.

Comments are closed.