Senate Impeachment Trial, Atheistic Humanism is the Loser

Atheism is easy to ignore, as the very word means the absence of something, specifically a belief in an all powerful entity who created the world who will receive his followers in an everlasting state of bliss. Just as there are a myriad of beliefs or religions, so to are versions of non-belief, the very essence of it being an individual formation that rejects quantification.

If one were to take the one hundred members of the U.S. Senate as a statistical sample of high achieving citizens of the United States, based on the solemn oath that was taken at the beginning of this ceremony the percentage of atheists in this country would be zero. The oath of office had an element of variation, even though the words spoken, "Do you swear of affirm that you will .....by Justice John Roberts, concluding with "....so help me God" was responded by all in unison with, "I do."

The very next day, one of the Senator-Jurists sent a message to Justice Roberts that the oath that he took was not acceptable to him. I held my breath, knowing that over the last year, the inclusion of these four words had been contended at an open committee hearing in the House of Representatives. After a Republican member demanded that they be included, on one occasion they were, but in another the Democratic Chair refused to do so. (2) Inclusion of ceremonies of religious prayer in Congress goes back to the very beginning, our Constitution conspicuously devoid of any reference to a deity, never once including the word God. However, the document did state that each house of Congress shall make their own rules, one of the first being to employ a chaplain to open every session importuning  the blessings of a creator.

It turned out that the change to the oath of office requested by the Senator was on another point, the corrected oath quickly administered . Atheism is not defined by formal membership in movement, so gauging percentage of the population is only available by independent effort by professionals in the complex field of epidemiology of cultural values. One of these is the Pew Research Institute, with a special department in this field. Based on their research somewhere around twenty Senators would have excluded the four words of faith.

Not a single member of the Senate chose to alter their personal oath that would have defined him or her as an atheist. It could have been done with respect and decorum that would not have disrupted the procedures. It turns out that a single Senator did show such courage and integrity. It did not come from an atheist or agnostic, but the antithesis, the devout Mormon Mitt Romney. To be in politics is to often to be completely cynical, overtly operating in a way to advance a political career, with personal integrity being far back in second place. Politics is from the "polity" the people, and to gain their support it must be from fallible human beings, not from philosophers.

I had held Mitt Romney in contempt until this week for very specific reasons. In his campaign for the Presidency in 2012 he attacked atheists with abandon, not only for resisting the intrusion of God in official government events, but then for hiding it, such as those who don't speak the words "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance. He was as a candidate, and possibly had he been elected could have used overt hatred of atheists in the same way as the current President, which was to enhance his standing with the majority of believers.

His actions of this week in casting the single and only vote ever from the party of the impeached President, in my judgement, was sincere, not calculated for any reason other than as he stated, his love of his God. I tend to believe this partly because of the vindictive nature of the individual he voted to be guilty of a constitutional crime against our country. Mitt has over thirty descendants, many children. He is aware that this decision, would incur the personal hatred to a man who has no compunctions against spewing hatred with the hope that one of his admirers will act on it. It need not be a threat of violence, but as little as spreading rumors about a young child that causes distress.

This turn of events, a person whom I despised for his intolerance towards atheists, has illustrated how his genuine personal, and yes- irrational, belief in an afterlife provides a comfort that allowed him to do something that made no sense if life ends absolutely at death. Romney's vote to convict can be seen as retribution for the calumny heaped on him by the President, yet he spewed such venom at just about all of the other Republicans who still voted for his acquittal.

I had a long talk today with a man I've know for several years, who verified to me that he does believe that Christ has risen and there is eternal life after death. Only a few months ago his mother went through with her plan, which was when she turned a hundred she would stop eating to end her life. Dan visited her every day, and even set up a remote video feed at her hospice. There was a Priest in attendance when she passed on, as her death was a good one.

I do wish that the Democratic party had the courage to have taken advantage of the opportunity to express to the country and the world, who we are. That we remain dedicated to being the "reality party" while being able to understand that part of this reality is a need to believe that there is something beyond the untenable absolute ending in death. If it happens that Donald J. Trump is the rather paradoxical precipitant of such insight, then so be it.