Secular Voices in Politics: Sarah Levin on Representation and Change

[0:03] We talked to secular political activist Sarah Levin about the secular Democrats, how voting for Democrats and non-religious candidates helps secular people, and why we need interfaith groups.

[0:21] I’m Doug Berger and this is Secular Left.

[0:25] Music.

[0:39] Welcome to another episode of the Secular Left Podcast. My name is Doug. I’m your host. And before we get into our interview with Sarah Levin, I wanted to address a concern that I’ve seen popping up in my social media channels recently.

[0:57] Last week or the week before, Vice President Harris campaigned with Liz Cheney. Liz Cheney is the former representative from Wyoming. She was the chair of the January 6th committee. She does not like Trump, and she endorsed Harris and wants Republicans who care about their country to vote for Harris.

[1:25] And so she went on the campaign trail and did a couple of town hall type campaign events with Vice President Harris. And she was allowed to speak quite a bit. And I’m getting some kind of pushback from some of the progressive people that I know and read about on social media, including David Sirota. He had a tweet the other night. He says, No idea what will happen in the election. I don’t want Trump to win for reasons I’ve reported on ad nauseum. Harris campaigning with Liz Cheney risked repulsing more voters than it detracts. Both candidates have run bad campaigns. The election has become a billionaire octagon. Now, I don’t disagree with some of his insights on the campaign and the two-party system. You know, I’m not a fan of the two-party system.

[2:30] But with Harris’ campaign with Liz Cheney, it didn’t bother me. I’m on the left. I’m a liberal.

[2:40] I’m not a Democrat, but I do see the point that Vice President Harris was doing in having Cheney join her on the campaign trail, trying to appeal to maybe some people that really don’t like Trump and either they’re not going to vote or they’re thinking they’re going to hold their nose and vote for it. I can see the appeal. And I know she’s also gotten, Vice President Harris has gotten some pushback from the left because she has said that she’s going to appoint a Republican on her cabinet should she win the election. And that’s something that people that are suspicious just of whether or not a candidate’s going to be bipartisan, you know, because that’s always an argument that they make. And I get that. Will it happen? Maybe. I think Louis Freese, I forget how to pronounce his name, was the FBI director. He was a Republican, and I believe he served with in the Obama administration.

[3:52] So it’s not something that’s unseemly, something that you don’t want to see done. And I just think that people that are playing this party purity in the face of what could happen should Trump win, I think that David Sirota is a white man.

[4:12] Some other people that I’ve heard the same pushback are white men. And those are the people that are privileged enough to be able to.

[4:22] Complain about it. And I don’t see a problem with it. So I just wanted to make that comment. It wasn’t going to be something I could do a whole episode on, but I don’t see a problem with Liz Cheney campaigning with Vice President Harris. Now, should Vice President Harris win the election, which I’m very optimistic that she will, do you think Cheney could be on the cabinet? Maybe. but there would still be philosophical differences between the two people and that would come out in a normal situation, a normal political situation, but we are not in a normal political situation. As Sarah and I discussed in the interview coming up.

[5:07] There are not just political considerations, but we have Project 2025 and we have the inherent danger of white Christian nationalists being foisted upon the United States. And sometimes you have to compromise your values in order to head off a more serious situation. And I think that’s what happens with bringing Liz Cheney along and trumpeting some of these Republicans that are endorsing her. They’re not endorsing. It’s not one of those things where both parties are the same. They both attract billionaires.

[5:55] At this point, that’s not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about here is that these Republicans, who normally would disagree with Vice President Harris on policy decisions, have come together with her to oppose Donald Trump and his intended fascism, authoritarianism government. And so they’re doing it for the benefit of the country, and that I can support.

[6:25] This is Secular Left.

[6:32] And our guest today is Sarah Levin. She is the founder and principal of Secular Strategies, which empowers policymakers, lawmakers, and changemakers to be effective champions for secularism in the United States. She worked for the Secular Coalition for America from 2013 to 2019. That’s where I met her the first time in various roles, including director of grassroots and community programs, director of governmental affairs. And in 2016, she helped facilitate the establishment of the first ever secular caucus in Texas and worked with secular Democrats to successfully incorporate three secular policy resolutions into the party’s platform. And she is also the executive director of Secular Democrats. And she proudly represented the secular community as co-chair on the Democratic National Committee’s Interfaith Council and helped pass a resolution at the DNC in 2019 that expressly welcomes religiously unaffiliated voters into the party. And thank you for being with us today, Sarah. It’s great to be here. The last time we talked was around this time in 2020. And I see that your company, Secular Strategies, has grown larger. You have more people to help you out. And that you’ve played a role in the Democratic National Convention. How is it in the Democratic Party for the Non-Religious currently?

[8:01] I would say that it has improved in multiple ways, but there’s still a long way to go. So we’ve taken some, I would say, some historic steps, starting with my election to the council. But also I would say there’s a few markers for me on how far we’ve come even in the last four years. Um, first of all, um, my ability to take a lead role in planning our interfaith council programming and to have the programs be focused on white Christian nationalism with explicit inclusion of non-religious voices like Congressman Huffman. And the other program we had was about values-based messaging that appeals to both faith and secular voters and we were able to have both a faith voice as well as a explicitly humanist voice present um and speaking from the same sheet of music about values-based messaging which was really nice to have a you know devout and humanist uh both political scientists and researchers present a data informed uh data informed methods for how to appeal to voters that are both faith and secular.

[9:12] Uh, of faith and secular, because, uh, really the message we were trying to get out with that program was you don’t have to choose. It’s not, you don’t have to choose one over the other. There are, there’s values-based messaging that appeals to both. Um, and so the fact that I was able to take a leadership role in planning that official daytime programming for the DNC, I think is a huge step. Um, I would also say that, um.

[9:38] So, well, since 2020, um, I also got another resolution passed at the DNC and it’s pretty remarkable because, uh, that was before the DNC convention and it condemned, um, all forms of white nationalism, including white religious nationalism, um, because at that time, and that was only about, uh, a year before, uh, the DNC convention At that time, there was still some reticence to discuss white Christian nationalism for fear of alienating Christian voters. But even since then, you saw at the DNC, we did not mince words. We were talking about white Christian nationalism. And I think that demonstrates that the party has really come a long way in recognizing that you’ve got to name the thing, right? Naming white Christian nationalism is not only important, but it’s also something that we have plenty of Christians who are concerned about Christian nationalism standing with us and saying those words. Um, so that’s even in a short span of time, we went from, you know, some concerns and some, you know, hesitation to really name the problem to, you know, fully accepting that we need to, to have that conversation. And another thing I would point out is that both the 2020 and, uh, the 2024 Democratic National Council.

[10:59] Uh, uh, excuse me, the DNC’s platform, uh, committee, that’s the word I’m looking for, the Democratic National Committee’s platform in 2020 and in 2024 included separation of church and state, the word separation of church and state as a, you know, and that’s, you know, people maybe don’t read platforms, you know, so take it with a grain of salt, but I will say platforms are important in that it is a statement of where the party is on issues, right? And the fact that Separation Church and State made it in 2020, stayed in in 2024. And those are the only times, according to my knowledge, that Separation Church and State has been explicitly included in a party platform is in 2020 and 2024.

[11:40] So the fact that we saw it in 2020, that it stayed in there in 2024, I think speaks volumes.

[11:45] And I’ll add one more, I think, marker of how far we’ve come is the humanist for harris event that we just had last week um where you know we worked with the campaign to get our raise link right uh to get uh to get that together so it had you know the blessing so to speak of the harris walls campaign and congressman huffman and congressman raskin um were there not just as co-chairs of the congressional free thought caucus and members of congress um who care about this issue but also um as frankly as surrogates for the campaign because they have been hitting the trail to elect Kamala Harris and Tim Walls. And so that kind of coordination with the campaign and their approval of having a Humanist for Harris event, I think, also speaks volumes. Now, does that mean we are fully included in all the ways that I would like? Of course not. We’ve got a long way to go. But a lot of my work is kind of, we’re trying to get a seat at the table, but we’re also at the same time building the infrastructure that earns us that seat at the table.

[12:50] Because, you know, at the end of the day, especially when it comes to politics and elections, if we want to have a seat at the table, and this is really the basis of why secular Dems came to be, is we’ve got to be able to move money and we’ve got to be able to move votes. Every constituency that builds power as a constituency delivers money and delivers votes. And we still have a long way to go to build that political muscle for the secular community. It’s still a relatively new concept. I mean, Secular Dems was founded in 2020, so it’s only been four years.

[13:19] And we’re still building at the state level as well. Yeah, I think one of the reasons why some people are still kind of have trepidations about secular Democrats is they’re worried about offending religious people. And I have to tell people that freedom of religion, it’s for everybody. It’s just not being opposed to religion. It’s making sure that everybody’s able to have their own beliefs and believe how they want to believe and not have the government intervene.

[13:53] Right. And we’re not opposed to religion. In fact, we are supportive of religious freedom for everybody, for people of all faiths and none. Religious freedom, in the way that it protects non-religious people, it affords the same protections to free exercise of religion and protecting religious minorities, in particular, from the imposition of religion on them, including Christians, by the way, because there’s not just one type of Christianity. And Christians don’t want the imposition of other Christians that have different views on say abortion than them. And the other thing I would note is that, you know, I learned really early on before we incorporated secular Dems as a, as an organization, you mentioned the Texas caucus. That was 2016. The first time we organized that we went back to the Texas democratic party convention in 2018 and had another caucus event.

[14:41] And that time I asked everyone in the room and it was standing room only, hundreds of people, to raise their hand if they were a person of faith, and about half of the people in that room raised their hand. And what that said to me is that not only do we have religious allies, but people raised their hand, and they had been listening to speech after speech about not just separation of church and state, but also inclusion of nonreligious people and the importance of increasing representation for nonreligious people in public office. And they had no problem with that message, and they shouldn’t. Because if you care about pluralism, if you care about religious freedom, it shouldn’t be offensive to you for your secular brothers and sisters to also have representation, right? It doesn’t take away from you. And if you think about it, any other constituency group, you know, I can be, you know, a heterosexual.

[15:34] You know, cisgender woman and go to an LGBTQ caucus and I am welcome there as an ally, you know, but I’m not going in there. The difference is I’m not going in there expecting my experiences to be centered. I’m there as an ally for them. And we bring religious allies into our work who do care about us, who do stand with us, who don’t see our increased representation and our increased inclusion as a constituency as anything taken away from them, because that’s what allyship looks like. So I think, you know, it’s important to note that not only do we have religious allies, But religious allies show up for us as they should. And it’s not in any way, secular Dems is not exclusive of religious people. We’re just centering our community and centering our issues. But that’s not in any way to the exclusion of religious people joining us. I was checking some information and according to the Pew research in the 2020 election, 71% of the religious unaffiliated voted for President Biden. Do you have any insights on how secular people feel about Kamala Harris this election?

[16:45] I don’t have any numbers on the top of my head, but I am expecting just as much support, if not more, in this election. Because I think our constituency is particularly motivated by a lot of the issues that are on the ballot. Democracy, the demonization of immigrants, the abortion is a huge issue for us. And I think we tend to be a little bit more attuned to Christian nationalism. Um, sure. There’s have always been, and always will be, um, you know, a, a smaller group of unaffiliated, religiously unaffiliated who vote for Republicans. Um, but that has always been, um, a minority. And I don’t, to my knowledge, it’s not growing in particular. Um, so I, I expect to see really high numbers, uh, from, we’ve been a really reliable constituency almost to the, uh, to a fault where we’re fighting not to be taken for granted and reminding Democrats that a lot of unaffiliated folks are independents. You know, we lean really strongly Democrat. We show up for Democrats in elections, but it wasn’t an insignificant amount of religiously unaffiliated folks who voted third party in 2016 because it is a fiercely independent constituency.

[18:05] And the distrust of institutions among the religiously unaffiliated, it’s not limited to just religious institutions. It does extend to other institutions, including political parties. And so I worry less about, you know, a bunch of unaffiliated, you know, religiously unaffiliated voting for Trump and and more about them coming out to vote for Democrats, because there’s also the fact that there’s a very large Venn diagram between the secular and the young, right? Our demographic does skew young. And there are a lot of young voters who are concerned about issues like Gaza, like other issues that are leading them to perhaps not vote in this election or to vote third party. That’s really what I worry more about. But unfortunately, I don’t have any numbers at the top of my head. But I’m excited to see post-election what those numbers look like. And uh you know i watched uh uh kamala’s uh acceptance speech at the dnc um are you troubled by the fact that she didn’t specifically include the non-religious in her speech um has she taken any actions that you are aware of that makes makes a secular person like me feel better about her in that way you know i i think.

[19:29] While I would have loved to see an explicit mention of us, we did have a mention from Secretary Clinton, who specifically mentioned people of no religion in her speech, and I thought that was very significant. We’re just not there yet. We’re still an afterthought. It’s not that – I don’t think we are even explicitly – I don’t think that we’re at the point where there’s like a deliberate decision to exclude us. I think the problem is that there’s not a thought to include us, right? We’re still fighting for that.

[20:01] And I think, you know, again, a lot of my advocacy is trying to get that message across so that we do one day see that. But part of that is also, again, we’ve got to build the clout to get there, right? We’ve got to be on the radar as a constituency that delivers votes and money. You know, we do have to build a lot more infrastructure to be visible. And then we’re much more likely to pop on the radar as a constituency to maybe mention with a few words in a speech. So I wasn’t surprised. You know, I’m still delighted at, you know, when we are mentioned, like Secretary Clinton’s speech, but we want to get to a place where that’s not a surprise, where that is more the default. And we still have a lot more work to do there. I mean, we only have one openly non-theistic member of Congress right now, Jared Huffman, and there are more atheists in Congress. They’re just not open, right? So there’s a lot more work to be done there. I think the more that we see higher level openly non-religious people like Congressman Huffman when he is joined by more non-theists, and that is more of a public conversation, and we are a more active political constituency or just better organized, raising more money, you know, just bringing home the bacon basically to the party. I think that’s when we can start to expect a little bit more. You know, you do kind of have to earn that.

[21:23] Not that we don’t by default deserve that inclusion, but that’s just, you know, that’s the reality of the situation. In terms of a few things I would note about Kamala Harris. First of all, as a U.S. senator, she was a sponsor of the Do No Harm Act. Which for folks who aren’t aware, if you remember the Hobby Lobby decision, which basically was the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, saying that a craft store chain, Hobby Lobby.

[21:50] Can impose the religious views of its owners on its employees. The question had to do with the Affordable Care Act’s mandate that employers provide insurance to their employees that includes birth control. And the owners of Hobby Lobby are a very conservative Christian family who are opposed to birth control and consider a number of birth control methods to be abortion, falsely, unscientifically, but that’s what they believe. Um and they were basically saying that it was a violation of their religious beliefs and and and it was an undue burden for them to have to provide their employees with insurance plans that cover birth control and the court ruled in their favor um and so the only silver lining of that decision was that the court was not interpreting the first amendment of the constitution they were interpreting a statute that congress passed in 1993 called the religious freedom restoration Act, or RFRA, which, by the way.

[22:48] Dozens of states then adopted their own version of RFRA at the state level as well. So the Do No Harm Act basically would amend RFRA to fix that problem, to basically say that you cannot use RFRA to cause harm to a third party or to deny someone else, say your employees, their religious freedom. She was a sponsor of the Do No Harm Act. Um, so I would point that out. I would also point out, um, that, uh, we do have Congressman Jared Huffman who has known, um, Senator Harris for quite a long time. Um, and I think, you know, I take a lot of, um.

[23:27] I it gives me a lot of hope that, you know, she has called him her OG climate advisor. Right. So Congressman Huffman in our community is near and dear to us for being the only openly non theist in Congress. But what a lot of folks may not know is that he is the climate hawk in Congress. And that is a huge issue for our community. We know that there’s only one life. There’s only one planet. There’s no deity that’s going to save us. Um, and we are running out of time, uh, to address the climate crisis. And so I do, um, I would say that while that, first of all, the Biden Harris administration has done unprecedented work on climate, um, there could, we could do a whole lot more, um, once they are, uh, uh, hopefully elected, um, very soon. Um, and we have not only, uh, an advocate for our community, um, who has known, um, Vice President Harris for quite a while, being from California himself.

[24:23] But he would be advocating on our behalf as a community, but also on a critical issue like the climate crisis, where I know that she has has really taken very seriously his his positions on those issues. And is it going to be perfect no but you know as congressman huffman has often said especially on the campaign trail recently um in advocating um for for folks to vote for the harris walls ticket he’ll say that with this administration i have a chance to get to get further on these issues with the trump administration there’s absolutely no chance that we’re going to get better climate, policy, or that there’s going to be, of course, any inclusion that’s very serious of our community.

[25:13] Yeah. Was that this past weekend that Representative Huffman was campaigning in Pennsylvania, or was that just a couple of days ago? So it was just a few days ago. He was in Arizona, and the week before, about a week, week and a half before that, he was in Pennsylvania. Oh, okay. Yeah, because I saw a picture of him. And so, you know, that allays my fears. I mean, If he’s going to come into another state and campaign for Kamala, then it should be okay.

[25:41] But I’m sure you probably share the same view that I do, that while the presidential race is crucial, we shouldn’t ignore the races down ballot, especially in the Congress and the Statehouse. How can a secular voter make sure that they have a voice in those elections?

[25:58] Oh, I’m so glad you asked that. Well, first of all, you want to educate yourself about the down ballot races. And a great organization to join for free is the Center for Freethought Equality. Um it membership is free and that’s a great way to track not just general um races but also secular candidates that you may not know about who are running in your state or elsewhere they are tracking all the openly secular candidates that you can support with your time and with your dollars we are seeing year over year an increase in openly non-religious people running for public office at the state and local level and this is where what we were talking about earlier, Doug, of how do we get to a place where we’re mentioned, right? We need to show up for our own people. At the very least, if people are sticking their neck out and they are running as openly secular, they should be hearing from us. They should be getting our donations. They should be getting our praise and our support because we need to show that if you show up for us, we’re going to show up for you. So that’s first and foremost. Definitely check out the Center for free thought equality at cf it’s cf equality.org join and then you’re going to get those kinds of updates um and of course you can join your state or local democratic party to get as those kinds of updates on just like the general ballot and and how to get involved obviously.

[27:20] It’s secular left, so I hope I can be partisan here. And I think, you know, that’s where, you know, consider volunteering if you’re thinking about volunteering for those candidates because they are the ones that get the least attention often. And you can make a huge difference. In fact, Secular Dems of Pennsylvania has really focused on state and local races. And thanks to their activism, they got a school board member. I think this might have been 2020. They got a or maybe it was the 2022 midterms. They got a school board member elected by a very small margin in a year where a lot of Democrats were losing at the state and local level. Um, she was one of the few, um, who got in things to help from Pennsylvania secular Dems. They also focused on, um, a race in the state house that turned out to flip the state Senate that year. So, and, and these are, this, this is back when they’ve had an enormous amount of growth in recent years, but even a small group of people making a lot of phone calls, you know.

[28:26] The, the lower the office, uh, that you are volunteering and supporting, I, the, the more, kind of the higher impact that those kinds of things will do, right? I mean, and it’s impactful no matter what. If you spend your time volunteering, if you’re donating to the Harris Wells to get that as valuable. So I’m not at all saying that’s not valuable. But what I am saying is when you donate your time to a local candidate, to a state candidate, it really is, it’s really felt, right? Because that’s not where all the time and money tends to always go first, right? And a very little bit of effort can make a huge difference in those kinds of races because The amount of staffing, the amount of money they’re working with, and the ground that they’re covering if they’re running for a local office or a legislative district at the state level versus a statewide Senate candidate, for example, or, of course, the presidential. You’re just working with a smaller area. So you can really have a huge impact. And it’s important if you do that as a secular dem, they will remember. They will remember that few hundred bucks that you sent. They will remember that time that you spent because they need every single person, every single dollar. And the pool of people that they’re hearing from is smaller. So you can have an outsized impact. So I would say if you want to figure out who is on the ballot.

[29:49] Definitely reach out to your state Democratic Party. You’re going to get all that information. But also make sure those secular candidates are on your radar as well by going to Center for Freethought Equality.

[29:59] Yeah, I second that Center for Freethought Equality. Um i donated to a candidate not not really close to me but here in ohio uh was a trans woman and she’s running against one of the christian nationalists that had tried to ban uh drag queens.

[30:17] And so i sent sent some bucks and in following that campaign so i hope it turns out i hope my money helped, Yeah, absolutely. It did. And remember, you know, even if that candidate doesn’t win their race, a lot of candidates run several times before they win. It’s not unusual. And even even a campaign that loses does have an impact, especially if it’s an area where there haven’t been Democratic challengers for a while. It really it builds infrastructure. So even a kind of long shot race, especially if it’s in an area where there just hasn’t been a lot of outreach to Democrats in that area, it brings out people that that maybe haven’t been reached before who maybe just felt forgotten about. It builds infrastructure for that either that candidate or another candidate for the next race. Right. Because this takes time. I mean, look at Georgia, you know, Georgia was was not a flippable seat for a state for quite a while, but that did not happen overnight. That was years and years of building the ground game and infrastructure and lots of candidates running who lost. But every single race where they were building that infrastructure, building visibility.

[31:32] IDing those Democrats in their area and showing up and taking the time to say, you know, I’m running for you, even when they lost, you know, at least you have Democrats, lots of Democrats in Georgia in areas where they didn’t have representation for a long time. That takes time. That takes building infrastructure. So even that donation you made, Doug, even if that candidate doesn’t win, that’s still not an investment lost, right? Because there is that longer-term game that there is a return on investment for just having those conversations, enabling that candidate to have the conversations with voters and get the lid out and building that infrastructure even for next time.

[32:12] For more information about any of the topics covered in this episode, check out our show notes at secularleft.com.

[32:20] Music.

[32:27] I’ve noticed that you wrote a series of articles for TheHumanist.com titled Representation Matters, and you highlighted some elected people around the country who identify as non-religious, and I believe they’re not candidates, but they’ve all been elected. Is that correct? Mm-hmm. And in those interviews, you asked them how their constituents responded to the fact that they were not religious. and most said that there was no negative reaction and that most voters didn’t seem to care. Yep. But I wanted to ask you about one in particular. It was the reaction from, and I’m probably going to mispronounce her name, Farah Chai-Chi? Chai-Chi. Chai-Chi? Oregon, yeah. Yeah, she’s in the legislature of the state of Oregon. She stated, as an atheist, which to me just means an absence of God, I don’t find my non-religious identity a relevant talking point with voters. Because I’m not at their doors to convert them. I’m there to talk about their needs, which helps them see I am here for them, not an ulterior agenda. Do you think that that’s true, that someone’s religious identity plays absolutely no part in their actions as an elected official?

[33:43] Well, I wouldn’t read that quote quite the way that you are. I think what she’s saying, and a lot of, um, folks, um, in those interviews are, are saying is that, um, they like, it doesn’t come up, right. Because it’s not something that most voters, and this is a good thing because, you know, really, ideally we want to live in a world where there’s no religious test for office and voters don’t care what your faith background is, right. They just want to know, are you a good person? Are you going to represent me? Well, um, unfortunately that’s not the world we live in. and it depends on the district, but for some voters, it does matter in terms and might determine whether or not they’re going to vote for you. And we have to balance those things, right? Because representation does matter, right? We want to make sure that folks who are elected to public office look more or less like the public, right? So we have an underrepresentation. That’s why I do these articles. That’s why I do the work that I do. But two things can be true at the same time. On the one hand, we do want more representation, but we also… Are not trying to do what our opposition is doing, which is to reinforce this idea that you are more or less qualified for office just by being ex-identity, right?

[34:59] Candidates who are openly secular are many other things, right? They stand for many other whole people who have a worldview and on multiple issues, and they’re not one-dimensional in the sense that they are they’re atheists and or secular and that’s the most important thing about them it’s just one of many things to know about them um so what i get from what she’s saying is that just like we don’t want to see christian candidates say i’m you know leading with the fact that they’re christian either to pander or to suggest that they are more qualified for office we’re not expecting openly secular candidates to run on being secular there’s a big difference between running on it and leading with it and just not hiding it. And I think for a lot of candidates, um, uh, like Chai Chi, when she was, you know, when she was running, if it doesn’t come up, there’s no reason to bring it up. But I think if she’s asked and clearly when she is asked, she will share her views. She’s not, she’s unapologetic about being secular, but she’s not going to run on that, right? She’s not going to lead with that. Just in the same way that, you know, we would hope that most religious people wouldn’t lead with that as if that is like the reason to vote for them, right? I think it’s more about what we want is people to just be open. And when we ask, are you, you know, what’s your religious affiliation that they’re honest about it? Because frankly, there’s a lot of legislators, there’s a lot of politicians who pretend that they’re religious when they’re not.

[36:26] And it’s not that we want to see them run on being secular. We just want them to be open and honest, authentic when asked the question. But if they’re not asked by voters, it’s kind of like, why would you bring it up? You know what I mean? In the same way that we don’t really want to see candidates of faith bring it up apropos of nothing as if that makes them more qualified. Does that make sense? Oh, yeah, that makes sense. Yeah, you were talking about some religious people put it on their chest and they’re like, hey, I’m a Christian, vote for me.

[36:58] Um i think it’s kind of ironic though that the non-religious they kind of i i wouldn’t say they hide it it just makes it harder to find out because usually you’re not finding that out until maybe they give they fill out one of those surveys that some of the uh political groups send out to to get biography information but it’s not something that they like highlight on their website or something like that. And it makes it kind of hard for me as a secular voter to find people specifically, because I am looking. Don’t you think that maybe they should at least point it out somewhere?

[37:39] Well, I think, you know, and to your earlier question, I do think that being a non-religious influences your worldview and therefore influences who you are as a person and how you make decisions. So I think it’s totally fair to say that your belief system does impact who you are. So that’s why I think it’s fair to ask somebody who’s running, you know, what their beliefs are and how that impacts their or would impact their policymaking, which is a different question than kind of like, you know, a litmus test, right? Because if someone is a christian or jewish or buddhist and they have a good answer as to how that impacts their values but then also as everyone who’s running for office should say you know they should personalize it and say but i will serve everybody but here’s how my views impact my you know my theory of governing right like that’s totally fair that’s the line they have to walk you know be honest and authentic tell us where your value system lies ensure us that you will be representing everybody, but don’t hide who you are, you know what I mean? And don’t make it as if your identity, whatever it is, makes you more qualified than somebody else of a different faith background or non-religious to be in public office. So setting that aside for a second.

[38:58] I think your question about like, well, how do we find this, folks, is exactly why secular Dems exist and why Center for Free Thought Equality is so important. Because the thing is, Because most of the time, as you can see from those interviews, nobody’s asking.

[39:13] Nobody’s asking, right? So we need to be showing up as a political constituency, asking them that question. The LGBTQ community is certainly asking. They’re not going to miss out on somebody who is running for office who is openly LGBTQ because the network exists that is asking that question, that is tracking, and that is then sending, has a network of organizations that are going to show support for those candidates, right? So it’s it’s not just on these candidates. It’s on us to ask those questions, because a lot of those folks in those interviews are saying no one’s asking them. Well, if that’s something that’s important to you as a constituent or as a potential constituent, you should be showing up to all those town halls and those campaign stops and introducing yourself and say, I’m a secular voter. And you know what’s what’s your belief background you know i’m curious right will you represent me i’m as a as a secular constituent and you’ll find out are they a person of faith and if they are do they value you as a constituent and and your um and will they commit to you know supporting separation church and state and that’s the moment where if they’re not they will tell you right so the center for free thought equality is is is really the organization out there that’s doing its best to track all of this.

[40:31] And that’s why it’s important for us to be a part of those networks so that we know who is secular, who we can support. But it’s also on us as a community to ask those questions. Because if you think about it, what right now do they stand to gain by putting it out there, right? If there’s no constituency that they’re aware of that is going to suddenly send them checks and volunteer for their campaigns, why would they make a big deal out of it, especially because a lot of them, I think, feel the same way that a lot of us do, which is, you know, it shouldn’t be a disqualifier, but it also shouldn’t make a, we’re not trying to say we’re more qualified. You know, we’re not running on being secular. We’re just being our whole authentic selves as good candidates, right? So I think we really need to put it on ourselves as a constituency to show up for these folks and ask those questions. Because I think for a lot of them, frankly, I don’t really see what they stand to gain by, you know, wearing it on their chest unless we deliver that benefit. We deliver a constituency that’s going to be excited and show up for them because they are out and open and, you know, putting it out there for everybody to see. Now, you mentioned earlier, you talked a little bit about it, that you’re the co-chair of the Interfaith Council for the DNC. For a long time, I personally have had an issue with interfaith anything.

[41:59] I think it makes non-religious people like me feel like ugly stepchildren being shoehorned into a group of religious people because it’s like, It’s like you’re walking into a room where you’re barely tolerated, but you’re not wanted, if that makes any sense to you. Because everything is based on people’s religious beliefs and supernatural beliefs. And they’re like, oh, yeah, well, you’re the token atheist.

[42:33] And I don’t know, you probably don’t feel that way in the Interfaith Council or you wouldn’t be the co-chair. But how could, and not just for the DNC, but for any group that attempts to be interfaith anything, how could they better invite or accept the non-religious into those groups? What would be the best way for them to do that? So I’ll start by saying, I think it’s important to step back and ask yourself why interfaith initiatives exist, because I think there’s a misunderstanding about what their purpose is. Most interfaith organizations are not coming around, they’re not coming together around shared beliefs because they, by default, have different beliefs, right? So they’re not sitting around talking, you know, talking about religion and, you know, and theology.

[43:31] Sure, you know, a lot of times it’s the one common thread is that there is some kind of faith, but it would be pretty awkward, I think, for most interfaith organizations to be like discussing theology because then you’re just going straight at all the things that make us different and that we’re not going to agree on, right? Interfaith organizations come together usually by a values-based proposal, whether it’s.

[43:55] They’re trying to do something around homelessness in the community or, you know, whatever it may be, but it’s usually getting something done around a shared value, right?

[44:05] So that’s why we belong in those spaces because we also have, just because we don’t have supernatural beliefs doesn’t mean we don’t have very sincerely held beliefs about the world and the world in which we want to live. And we have very strong values and we care about the same things that people of faith do. We care about our communities. We care about saving the planet. Like we care about all those things. We care about electing Democrats up and down the ballot. So we belong in those rooms. I think what you’re speaking to is the unfortunate reality of our lived experiences that we’re not always welcome in those spaces. And there are still people who question whether secular people should be included, either because they, again, misunderstand the point of an interfaith organization, or because they still don’t understand who we are. And they don’t understand what we, the fact that we do have beliefs and values, right? Because one of the worst, um, stereotypes and misconceptions about our community is that we can’t be moral or that we don’t stand for anything because we lack beliefs in God. And that’s something that we have to, you know, change hearts and minds. So I completely understand and empathize with people who are reticent to try to join an interfaith organization, because frankly, whether or not you’re going to be included depends entirely on the leadership of that organization. It is a 100% true. I’m not going to sugarcoat it.

[45:27] Not every interfaith organization is welcoming non-religious voices, but that is changing and it is not necessarily always the case. And I think we should still be elbowing into those rooms because we do belong there. We do add value. And one thing I’ll say from my personal experiences is that.

[45:46] Personal relationships go a really, really long way. And just showing up and doing the work, even if it’s uncomfortable you might be you know the token at first and you might be kind of but if you show up for whatever the purpose of that group is and you do the work and you you know you end up breaking bread or spending a lot of time on zoom where you know you meet each other’s cats and kids and all that kind of stuff there does come a point where you’re you’re not just the token atheist, like you’re Doug, you’re Sarah, and you show up and you do the work. And then once you get to that point where you have a relationship, then you have those conversations that are really meaningful where your co-workers, your colleagues in the interfaith organization, whatever it is, might start asking you some questions that they might have otherwise felt uncomfortable asking. And I’ve had those conversations. I love when my co-chairs ask me, So like, what is humanism? Like, what it is that you guys believe? Because you have to remember a lot of these folks.

[46:49] You might be the first secular person that they know on a personal level or that they feel comfortable asking those questions. And so having those personal relationships, being in the room, you can actually do a lot to change their minds by just showing up and, yes, maybe sitting through an uncomfortable prayer, maybe sitting through some things that make you cringe, right? But at some point in the future, by being in the room and showing up and building those personal relationships, you really do have an opportunity to change their minds and change their worldview and be that person. I am like the atheist that like a lot of people call when they like need a humanist panelist or they’re, you know, they just need a secular person to help them handle something. Right.

[47:33] And that’s because they know me and they trust me. They’re like, oh, Sarah will know. Sarah can help me with this. Right. And that’s from building those relationships. And one other thing I’ll add is that I have been on interfaith panels where I’m, you know, I’m the atheist, the humanist voice, and people change their language because I’m in the room. Like, I’ve literally been on an interfaith panel where someone said, you know, started listing off faith organizations or faith backgrounds and then looked at me directly and said, and atheists or and non-religious people when they said it, right, just to kind of be like, and you guys, right? And I feel like if I wasn’t there, they wouldn’t have remembered to do that. And it’s not always intentional or it’s not always like militias. It’s just we’re an afterthought. People don’t think about us. But when we are literally there sitting next to them, right, they, they, I think, you know, give people the benefit of the doubt. A lot of folks really do want to be inclusive.

[48:26] They may not know how to be. They may be never had that conversation or never thought about it before. Because for so long, the default has been that interfaith is just for people of faith. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for us, but to some extent, we kind of have to elbow ourselves in and we have to, you know, win them over. And I know that’s frustrating, but it’s important because not everybody has the privilege of being able to have the time and the resources to join these organizations. And when we change the minds of people like that in those spaces, it does have an impact on everybody else. Like we need to be destigmatizing the non-religious because it has a real impact on people’s lives. I’ve talked to people who are afraid about being open at work because they might lose their job, right? Being ostracized by their community. There’s a lot of non-religious people out there who are going about their lives and have to keep it quiet just to protect their livelihood. But for those of us who are in a position to volunteer in interfaith coalitions, interfaith organizations, and the worst we have to deal with is like a little bit of awkwardness.

[49:33] And, you know, that that’s worth doing. It’s worth doing that work, because if we are working with well-intentioned people who are willing to evolve, and I have met a lot of people like that in the faith and interfaith community who just didn’t know, they just didn’t know. They never had a conversation with an atheist about this stuff. And then they change the way that they thought and they change the way that they talked about about non-religious people. That has an impact because then what can happen is they can become our advocates and our allies when we’re not in the room. If you would like to buy some secular left swag to show your support and to express your politics, then check out our merch store. We have branded items for sale, such as T-shirts, hats, mugs and many other unique items.

[50:21] Check it out at secularleft.us slash shop.

[50:30] I have some progressive friends who are refusing to support Vice President Harris because of what is happening in Gaza. Obviously, it’s a humanitarian crisis. But my friends kind of refuse to see that it’s also a complicated political issue. Do you think that the deference the U.S. seems to give constantly to Israel is from guilt from not doing anything to prevent the Holocaust? Do you think that plays into it?

[51:01] I, uh, yeah, I, I would not put it that way. Um, I think there’s a lot, uh, of global politics at play with the U S as revelationship that I would not, uh, simplify to, to just guilt around the Holocaust. Certainly not. Um, there’s it’s, and it’s not something I could easily summarize and in a few seconds, um, it does require, I think there is this tendency to kind of simplify the conflict, um, and, and black and white in the way that a lot of issues are, but there’s, there’s a lot at play in terms of global politics and why things are the way they are with the U.S. as a relationship. Um, I certainly would like to see changes myself in the way that we, um, uh, I think we’ve, you know, we’ve given the Israeli government, um, a blank check, um, for far too long and have not even been enforcing our own, um, laws when it comes to conditions on international aid, I would like to see more enforcement, um, and maybe go a little bit further on, on those conditions, uh, because I don’t think, uh, they should be getting a blank check. And I certainly don’t think, um, that, uh, there’s, there’s a partner, uh, clearly we don’t have a whole lot of influence. Um, you know, you would hope with the amount of aid that we, that we give to Israel, that we would have more influence on their policies. And clearly we don’t. Netanyahu is kind of just giving us the middle finger and doing whatever he wants because he feels that he can.

[52:30] And I don’t think that’s a good position for us to be in. And I don’t think, I personally don’t think it’s in our national interest because look at what’s happening in the region thanks to their actions and bringing the US right into that. So I think that there’s, but when it comes to voting in November. I mean, it’s very similar to really any other issue you might have. You’re not going to have.

[52:55] Any conversation with a Trump administration around restraints or conditions on aid, that is at least a conversation you can have with a Harris-Walls administration. You’re going to get the Trump administration.

[53:11] I mean, remember, they moved the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. I mean, they will give Israel whatever they want and say, go for it. They go further because they are extremists. And remember that Christian nationalists, and there’s this whole network of Christians united for Israel, they believe that the Jews have to be in Israel for a prophecy to be fulfilled. Right. Like they it is they have a they have religious zealotry motivating their policies. So there is no nuance. There is no rationality. There’s no conversation to be had there. Right. They are they are going to let the because we have right now a right wing, extremely right wing party in charge in Israel. And they have been changing the situation on the ground for years, letting settlers illegally settle, like changing the pot, like making it nearly as impossible as they can for a future Palestinian state to exist. By changing the situation on the ground and doing things that are illegal, that they get a slap on the wrist, but nothing really happens. Right.

[54:28] So and they’re not even supporting publicly a two state solution anymore. You know, our government is saying two state solution. That’s not what the Netanyahu government is saying. Right. But that’s not something that that Trump is going to. I mean, he used the word Palestinian as if it was a slur in the debate.

[54:47] Right. So, I mean, I can completely understand the frustration with Trump.

[54:53] With the current policy, I’m not satisfied personally with the current policy. But the reality is that it’s a choice between a party that will go way farther than the blank check that has already been given versus a party that will listen and has the capacity to change and engage in those conversations. Right and that may not be a very exciting choice but it’s certainly if you i i would say if you do care about the future of palestinians i would not with your vote or lack of of of voting give that over to the trump administration because that is going to be uh much worse for palestinian rights in the future of a palestinian state if if trump is in office versus a harris administration i understand the frustration it is it is very real um but a vote is not an endorsement of every position a vote is a strategic choice um and the day after the election you can vote for the harris walls administration and hold them to account immediately the day after and have a chance at a change in policy i don’t hear republicans calling for a change in policy i do hear democrats talking about things like conditions on aid and maybe changing the way things have been done.

[56:09] I’m sure that change is going to be glacial and not as satisfactory as we want. But to me, it’s a really, really clear choice if you do care about the possibility of there being a future Palestinian state and any sort of restraints being exercised.

[56:27] Yeah i was uh pleased at uh kamala’s uh response to that that situation you know she condemned the the uh the humanitarian crisis going on and but she also said israel needed to defend itself and and i’m fully on board with that but yeah they’ve they’ve kind of overstepped i think a little bit more than a little bit and yeah there needs to be a change of policy for sure, And so as we wrap up our interview, and again, I appreciate you joining us today, Sarah, we know that there are some atheists who support Donald Trump. And we know that there’s non-religious reasons to oppose social justice issues.

[57:12] One example I have is when there was the debate over same-sex marriage One atheist thinker made an argument using the federal tax code Claiming that it was going to cost too much if you got married It was just weird, Why do you think, or can you tell us why It is a bad idea for secular voters to support Trump? He is a vehicle for Christian nationalists to achieve their wish list of policy ideas. Just look at Project 2025. Lots of Christian nationalists policy in there. Look at the organizations behind it. It’s not just Heritage Foundation. It’s all the big Christian nationalist organizations. And, you know, it really annoys me when people say, well, Trump is probably an atheist anyways. I don’t care. I don’t care if he’s an atheist or not. He has delivered on a lot of what the Christian nationalist movement wants and will continue to do so because that is a loyal base for him. And Christian nationalists have taken over the Republican Party. And that’s not an exaggeration. We have polling to show from Brookings and PRI that came out. PRI is Public Religion Research Institute. They did polling last year to see where Americans are on Christian nationalist ideas and where their party affiliation is.

[58:31] And over 50% of Republicans subscribe to Christian nationalist ideas.

[58:37] Things like the idea that the U.S.

[58:39] Was founded as a Christian nation, the idea that, you know, that they would prefer that this nation be made up of Christians as opposed to a diverse pluralistic one. Like all of these things they have captured the republican party and i i my view with atheists who vote republican is frankly that they may be atheists but that’s kind of incidental to their worldview um because uh and separation of church and state just clearly is not a priority for them um they might care about it nominally but it’s not what’s driving their vote because if it was what was driving their vote they would never vote republican because republicans do not support separation church and state they are christ they are the christian nationalist party the white christian nationalist party um so look at any of their policy proposals as it relates to the role of religion and government they want to privilege a narrow set of beliefs that they believe is the right type of faith the right type of christianity uh that they believe to be synonymous with being truly american and they want to uh base our laws on that and they are going to impose those views on atheists and religious minorities and christians who disagree with them that’s just that’s what they’ve done in at the state and local level where they have power that’s what they did under the trump administration they’re going to continue if he um if he were to be elected so you know i just don’t i you know when it comes to atheists who are republican i just don’t take their you know i just don’t.

[1:00:07] Think that their atheism or church-state separation concerns make it even close to the top of the list for them. They clearly have other issues that they’re voting on, or somehow they’re blind to the fact that they are voting for the Christian Nationalist Party. I mean, I don’t know what other evidence you would need, or if you just aren’t paying attention.

[1:00:28] But that’s really my assessment, is that, you know, probably a lot of people are holding their nose or holding a blind eye. It’s just not, it’s just not what they vote on. They vote on other issues that make them more, you know, that put their conservative ideas and conservative, um, principles far, uh, ahead of any note, you know, any of their values around religion and the role of religion in government. Yeah. I think it was kind of, it’s kind of like how I just saw a recent, uh, news report about Latinos favoring Trump because they don’t believe that his anti-immigrant rhetoric is going to affect them. And I think the atheists that vote for Trump, that’s the same way. They think that their Christian nationalism isn’t going to affect them. It’s like, I wouldn’t take that gamble at all. I wouldn’t either. And I think certainly I wouldn’t be surprised, I don’t have the numbers, But I would venture to guess that the demographics of atheists voting for Republicans probably skews pretty white and male because those are the folks who have the least to lose or, you know, are pretty comfortable regardless of what happens. Right there. I still think that they will be impacted because everyone will be impacted. But I think that’s the demographic that tends to have the kind of privilege to think that they’ll just be untouched.

[1:01:51] All right. Well, Sarah, again, I appreciate you joining us today for this election special. And, you know, I’m pretty excited. I already voted. So I’m out of that. And we had a lot of people at the early vote center. So that’s really exciting to hear. Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of people are voting. I think, would they say 17 million already? In Ohio? No, nationally, 17 million nationally. I don’t remember the population of Ohio now. No, there’s only 8 million people registered in Ohio. So I’d be happy if 17 million voted. But anyway, again, I really thank you and good luck on your future endeavors. Thank you so much. It’s always good to see you, Doug. Thanks for having me.

[1:02:40] Thank you for listening to this episode. You can check out more information, including links to sources used, in our show notes on our website at secularleft.us. Secular Left is hosted, written, and produced by Doug Berger, and he is solely responsible for the content. Send us your comments either using the contact form on the website or by sending us a note at comments at secularleft.us, Our theme music is Dank and Nasty composed using Amplify Studio.

[1:03:26] Music.