Local Congressman Jared Huffman Comes Out of the Closet–He Says He’s a Humanist

In an article in the Washington Post this morning, Jared Huffman, this area’s Democratic congressman, comes clean about his religious affiliation…he is a humanist. The American Humanist Association defines that as a “progressive lifestance that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability and responsibility to lead meaningful, ethical lives capable of adding to the greater good of humanity.”

According to Huffman in the Post interview, ““I’m not hostile to religion, and I’m not judging other people’s religious views,” he said. He also thinks that in 2017, people like himself should be able to be open about their basic faith perspective.”

The Post notes that in 2014 Huffman sparred with Stephen Colbert in The Colbert Report over his leaving his religious status “vague”.

Today, though Huffman took this a step further becoming, according to the Post, “only the second member [of Congress] in contemporary records to describe his ethical system as not being God-based.”



  • Nice.

  • anytime a politican wants to make something vague, it just means he or she is just like the rest of the fence sitters, they just want to be on the winning side, if you wanna find out what these people are made of ask them a direct question, like why are Ca. schools so far behind the rest of the states, or do we really need hi speed rail to go thru 3 different earthquake zones, why couldn’t you put that money into a railroad for the folks in norcal, we have no public transportation county to county. we lost that in the 60,s.

  • there are 134,000 people in Humboldt County. there are 175,000 in the City of Santa Rosa and 503,000 in Sonoma County. that is why they have 3 In-N-Out Burgers and we have Zero. we should be grateful Wendy’s hasn’t pulled out like KFC has.

    • KFC did not pull out 33 went out of business in the north state. only 2 left over by Chico. The Mormons owned them all so when they went bankrupt they had to close all 33 of them. I miss KFC.

      • KFC stopped the Northcoast delivery route, AKA pulled out of the area.

      • the misadventures of bunjee

        I don’t think Mormons were the culprit. KFCs require ownership of at least 3 to hold a franchise license from them and about $5mil in liquid assets. The owners had the one in Eureka, Fortuna and Crescent City. When they lost their franchise license in 2012 for a number of violations (e.g. unpaid wages, unwillingness to remodel, various health code violations) they closed up shop and no one has enough liquid assets they’re willing to put up to land a new license. There are still KFCs in NorCA. Mt Shasta has one. Cloverdale still has one too. Also, Brookings, Grants Pass and Medford all have one to the north. Chico has 3 still. KFC will grant you a license to be the new owner of a few in NoCA, but you’re going to have to pony up a chunk of change just to hang the sign on the building.

    • so we should sit in back of the bus, because our population lacks that of another county. well I mean! there are 750000 in SF and that’s a city and a county, plus its one of the smallest, an no wallmarts.

    • How about Ukiah, they have a brand new in n out

      • So does every girl with a new boyfriend. What’s yer point? Harris Ranch feedlot be damned….from where’s the beef to I smell the dung from a mile away. Dude what’s up, we got the no brand burger stand.

      • it must be the new slogan – wine, waves, and wilderness. and maybe the booming nature of the area with major redevelopment of the old rail yards in the works. meanwhile we are building a trailer park on the waterfront. that’s what the big pile of dirt is for. I wonder if the dirt is contaminated? as of earlier today runoff is flowing right into the bay.

  • Too bad being a Humanist is something that people still have to keep in their closet in order to be elected. BTW, Colbert is a raving Catholic, ex-choirboy, and I’ve seen him scold other guests on his show over their religious beliefs. He really needs to step down from the pulpit, at least on TV.

    • When you are as popular as Colbert, you can do as you please. Telling him to step down…pathetic attempt at forcing your belief system. Something Colbert does not do. He QUESTIONS

  • Is that different from an Atheist?

    • He’s studing to become a human being.

    • Yes, although the two are not mutually exclusive. Most atheist are secular humanist. Atheism is simply the rejection of the claim(s) that a deity or deities exist, based on a lack of evidence. Most of us are atheist when it comes to 99.99% of the gods that have been conceived. Some of us go one god further.


      • Man is fallible. God is infallible.
        Man in charge can command for all to live out on the streets, barefoot and naked. There is no higher power than man’s laws and whoever is in charge, gets to make the rules over the individuals. We see this happening all across the nation, just replace the word naked with the word threadbare.
        God is infallible. Unflappable. Nature’s God, which the Constitution honors, consists of each person’s inalienable rights to decide where to live, what to wear, what to eat and what to dream.
        God’s laws do not consist of 10 pushups before breakfast or else! God’s laws consist of Principles. Principles are honesty, integrity, compassion, prosperity in order to help others, creativity, knowledge, beliefs..
        Man’s laws consist of non principled and often science related through paid for by government studies and do command 10 pushups before breakfast. Whoever’s in charge makes the rules for everyone. e v e r y o n e.
        No matter how “nice” a person may be this round, the next go around can produce the next Stalin or Hitler or creepy joe. This is why we do not bow to man, we bow to only our God given inalienable rights, even if we have to choose civil disobedience.

  • Coward. Anti-constitutionalist. Gives him the immoral invertebrate background he needs to destroy America piece by piece. Traitor. Inhuman (since most humans believe in a higher power). Confirms everything I thought about this slimy eel.

    The term “godless communist” is the best fit.

  • We didnt call him Puffman for nothin in Santa Barbara ,very green politician, fits right in here

  • It’s not a big surprise to have the Huff come out as a secular humanist. Most socialists are. They don’t think there’s any objective standards for ethics or morality. What’s right for me is right for me, and what’s right for you is right for you. Morality is relative to the person and situation. This boils down to “If it feels good, do it”. Secular humanists have a hard time with all religions.

    • You are conflating moral relativism with humanism. Humanism is defined as: “Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition.”

      Basically it means that you don’t need fear of a supernatural punishment to define what is morally and ethically right. Secular humanists have a hard time understanding why intelligent, rational people need religious dogma in order to behave appropriately towards other people but most are willing to make allowances for all kinds of nonsensical belief systems.

      • Since religions were, if you’re an atheist, created by man and to condemn them wholesale leaves the humanist idea that man is sufficient in tatters.

        Most people calling themselves “humanist” are really just run of the mill haters focused on religion. A pretty foolish subgroup of a philosophy much prone to really, really bad mistakes.

    • Sounds to me like religion-ists are having a very hard time with reality. Bit defensive are we?

    • moral relativism does not equate to “If it feels good, do it”. That’s just plain ignorant. Morality/cultures ect can and should be (actully are) all evaluated and valued based on relatives frameworks. You should read “The Moral Landscape” by Sam Harris.

  • Hogwash Hogranch! CA schools came in third in a study of high schools done by US News and World Report.
    And Huffman didn’t need to be asked a direct question because he outed himself, read the post.
    As far as a railroad is concerned putting one up here where we can’t even keep 101 open due to slippage and the instability of the terrain makes absolutely no sense. There is some county to county bus service available, but I agree, not enough. That’s because of low demand making it unprofitable for private sector operators. How about we spend some of your hard earned tax dollars to subsidize routes that you want, or is that too socialistic for you?

    • funny the nwp ran from 1916 to 1980 an they made it, an you better ck your school figures again. highschools are only 1/3 of our education system.

  • Trillium Hummingbird

    Seems like he is a politician-lite… Where does Humboldt get these folks?

    Proof positive that as long as the dope money comes in, they will say anything.

    And who the heck cares, anyway? Say you’re a Martian, fine with me… Just DO something to improve things in Humboldt!

  • I am not so concerned that he is an atheist but why be a coward and not just admit it?
    I am concerned he is a lightweight back bencher in Congress and has never accomplished anything in life other than get elected.

    • Lost Croat Outburst

      Why so concerned about how other people define their spiritual experience or lack of it? It takes courage to say what he did in a world of believers, and I think you know it. Wow, this defining people’s minds through my own filter is FUN! I can see why you dig it.

      I think you hate atheists/agnostics because we don’t believe in some mumbo-jumbo supreme personality and you can’t stand it and this was a good chance to jab Huffman under the guise of a strictly political critique. Getting rid of the toxic chemical disaster festering on the North Spit was one Huffman achievement but you and I both know you don’t care, it won’t matter.

      I note Evangelicals re-defining the upper limits of hypocrisy though supporting Trump, Roy Moore, and Gov, Robert Bentley. Gosh, if only I was a believer, i could join in the glory. Oh, yeah, Mark Sanford of Appalachian Trail fame. Yes, friends, guided by The Lord like Jeff Sessions III, oh please . . . . . .

      • And on your side of the aisle: Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Stephen Paddock, etc. Atheists are just as worthy of contempt as any demagogue of religion. Just as full of dogma. But without the worry of hell to even give them pause so their damage is so much larger.

        And such a history should be of concern as to how other people “define their spiritual experience or lack of it.” Besides it’s inherent in Evangelical religions go want to save you. Get used to it. You are certainly not required to go along with it. You justvfind the attention irritating.

  • Bravo to the Congressman! This is just one of his strong and ethical stands.
    Isn’t it funny how some folks can’t conceive of good being done simply out of innate goodness, rather than only for reward in an afterlife?

    • You are right, brainwashing is serious business especially when it starts from birth.

    • It’s not that most people dismiss innate good in preference to the dictates of religion. It’s that most people don’t have enough lifespan to so easily dismiss generations of accumulated wisdom represented in religious writings by those who have struggled with moral issues for thousands of years. Religion has evolved. No single human can manage that on his own.

      Huffman and other humanists don’t either. He simply refuses to acknowledge that his sense of right was inherited from the same religious sources he dismisses. At best he’s a plagerist if he follows those writing but calls them ‘innate good.’ At worst he goes his own way and makes lots of mistakes he could have avoided if he accepted that he could use some guidance.

      Listening to innate impulses is good for learning to use the toilet but falls sadly short with higher thinking.

      • Religions are mostly structured around political tribalism — a way of separating your specific view of who are “good” people from “bad”. They proclaim guarantees of salvation if only you follow the specific rituals of their specific belief system and that you have to believe all other tribes (i.e. religions) are evil or wrong. They are generally conservative and traditional and the generations of wisdom you value are mostly useful if you happen to like patriarchal structures and are prone to reject any sense of equality towards those who are different.

        There are of course exceptions, notably some of the Buddhist paths, but most simply ascribe salvation only to those who support the religious hierarchy. What scares most religious folks about humanists is their deliberately egalitarian approach to all humans, regardless of race, gender, origin, or orientation because if every one is equal, then they aren’t “special”.

        • Yup. Those danged Quakers are especially awful. Lutherans are a close second. Mennonites you see after a disaster- I shudder. And of course that horrendously bigoted St. Jude Hospital who take care of anyone’s child without cost.

          I had a sneaking feeling you would except Buddhism from your universal condemnation as it is a religion focused on the individual’s path to perfection. All you have to do is ignore all that religious froufrou of things like hell, reincarnation, etc to get a humanist ideal. A surgical excision of religion. And voila!

          The biggest trouble with this ideal is that it is so infrequently useful. I’d say your ideal humanist is about as common as a modern Episcopalian saint.

          • Note that I didn’t condemn people’s behavior simply because they follow a religious path, I simply don’t think you have to follow religious dogma to be a good person. There are a lot of non-religious folks who donate to St. Jude’s because they like the cause of caring for children regardless of need. And there are a lot of humanists volunteering at disasters.

            Nor do I believe someone who believes differently is bad just that it isn’t necessary, or particularly rational, to accept dogmatic dictates. Nor is someone evil simply because they do follow a humanist philosophy as you seem to imply. But people throughout history have done great harm in the name of advancing particular religions or destroying others religions.

            And you cannot deny the existence of a tremendous amount of sheer silliness embedded in religions that simply isn’t rational. Or physically possible. The humanist philosophy simply says why put up with all that nonsense in order to live a good, ethical life?

            I should note that I don’t consider myself a humanist. I don’t feel like I have to fall into anyone’s system of labels to behave ethically towards the various components of reality I find myself interacting with. I don’t have any problems with cherry-picking good ideas no matter where they arise, but that’s just me.

          • Buddhism has nothing to do with perfection In fact that demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the most fundamental ideas in Buddhism.

      • You have it awkward , our sense of right and wrong is at its core a result of natural selection selection for behavior that increase fitness among groups of social primates.

        Religions inherit our morality, not the otherway around.

  • what a piece of garbage. A humanist is a person who does not need a religion. Therefore the USA declaration of independence and the bill of rights don’t appear to him. A humanist follows the UN standards, not the creation of the United States and the blessing of God for all 50 chartered States of the Union.
    He’s a Communist/socialist supporting the taxation of all for the poor downtrodden lowlifes who vote democrat. Wake up sheeple-rub those dubbies eyes, and smell the deceit he represents!!!

    • In case you haven’t noticed, a lot of things have changed since the signing of those documents. You say “does not need religion” like it’s a bad thing. I would call it a well evolved human who can come up with his own moral judgements without being threatened and coerced into it. Would you prefer to bring back slavery and witch burning?

      • Burning witches is a humanist tendency. It happens in the presence of religion and in its absence. It comes from fear, greed , anger, ignorance. Relying on humans to do the right thing without guidance is a path to failure. Those who would do such things as burning witches can not be relied on to do their own thinking. Even with guidance people fail. Without it, those driven to burn witches are without check.

        Religion has its problems but nonreligion has no authority to stop any other human whose “innate goodness” is in short supply.

        • But all those” witches” were burned by religious people.

        • it was determined that the “witch” was actually just a victim. a victim of rape and when made attempts to expose the evil perp, the perp blamed witchcraft. not much has changed as it sounds like Roy Moore’s version of his assault against a 14 yo girl. A judge in 1692 made this determination in Plymoth, MA and nothing has challenged it to date.

    • The only thing you said that was right was “A humanist is a person who does not need religion.” The rest is just gibberish and nonsense. Kind of like most religious dogma.

      • Kind like non religious dogma too.


  • Would be nice if he actually lived in Humboldt County…
    then he might understand the lack of jobs, druggies, and despair.

    • Speaking of a lack of jobs, did you note that Humboldt County has a 3.9% unemployment rate which is lower than the state or country averages? I know local companies who have been trying to find people to work for skilled jobs for over a year without finding anyone qualified or willing.

  • What a surprise, he didn’t know his nostril from his bung-hole. A politician at their prime.

  • Who is more holy; the person who does the right things because he believes he will be punished in the afterlife if he does the wrong things, or the person who does the right things simply because they are the right things to do?

  • I believe that if there is a God, he/she/it probably got pretty bored with our inability to learn from our mistakes, and has moved on to other, more interesting and promising projects. We are going to have to figure this out for ourselves.

  • Who knows what the right thing to do is ? He says “anyway the wind blows” , first, let me know who the winning side is, hypocrite he is coming out, I am sure he is gay also.

  • Huff man puff man

    Wonder if he puffs man

  • On one side, we have the religious who know their rewards will come in the afterlife. They keep their eyes, minds and hearts on their end goal, and appreciate all bonuses that also come to them in this life.
    On the other side, we have the non-religious who know their rewards come in the here and now, because to them, there is no after life. They keep their eyes, minds and hearts on their end goal, and can’t seem to ever be satisfied with the bonuses that also come to them in this life.
    Greed can be found in both arenas, but there seems to be a more forceful need with the latter. They are running out of time. They think that the “avoidance of punishment” is what the other side is accepting as rewards. The religious side knows that giving in to greed creates a life of unhappiness, which is a punishment in the here and now as well as in the afterlife.
    Either side can take an oath to secure the God given inalienable rights of every individual, but only one side actually believes that individuals have God given inalienable rights.
    Carry on.

    • Which is which?

    • Well said!

    • On one side, we have the religious who claim to know their rewards will come in the afterlife. They keep their eyes, minds and hearts on their end goal, and fail to truly appreciate all that comes to them in this life.
      On the other side, we have the non-religious who think that most probably, based on a lack of contrary evidence, their rewards come in the here and now, because there is no after life. They keep their eyes, minds and hearts in the here and now and are able to truly appreciate life.

      Greed can be found in both arenas, but there seems to be a more forceful need with the former. This is very evident in history.
      They are living in delusion. The religious side believes that giving in to greed creates a life of unhappiness, which is a punishment in the here and now as well as in the afterlife. Yet in this regard, they act against what they claim to be their morals almost to a tee.

      Either side can take an oath to secure the inalienable rights of every individual, but only one side actually believes that individuals have value aside for that assigned by a magical deity. A deity that favor some people over others.


      • Hmm, Fear is the devil’s favorite tool. Fear of greed is a tool of the devil.
        When Principles are cast aside, fear takes over. When Principles are safe guarded, extreme heights of esoteric joy are abundant.
        Believers know that abundance of prosperity can only come when Principles are honored. When eyes, hearts, and minds are on the end goal, and not on the immediate and temporary satisfaction, fear of greed is squashed.
        Principles create value. Money does not create value.
        When we value Principles, Principles have value. When we value money, Money torments.
        A lot of brainwashing has taken place in church, academia, media, and government.
        Everybody knows that Jesus told Simon Peter to sell his cloak and buy a sword. Yet, the indoctrinating tells followers of Christ to give it away and go steal from your neighbor. The Principles are no longer the guiding principle of many lives. They have lost the ability to discern right from wrong. They now believe that consuming is more important than producing.
        To achieve over abundant joy and love, we only need to break away from the indoctrinating that has been forcing non principled rules upon the kingdom.
        We are our own agency, we are a self governing nation. Self governing through Principles. Without Principles, we cannot self govern. Without Principles, we are subject to being governed by oppression once again. This oppression is what the Founding Fathers broke away from. Even after they broke free, some of the King’s indoctrination followed some of the churchy people. The King’s religion and teachings was the law, a law that most did not agree with. It was a law worth fighting against. When the Founding Fathers realized that some of the indoctrination came over to the new world too, they wrote up the First Amendment with 5 laws that forbid government from interfering in the people’s right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to assemble, to write, to read called freedom of the press, the right to be themselves freed from any oppressors. We rule our own thoughts, beliefs, words, we are our own agency. Government agencies are forbidden from tangling within. This is why the Constitution limits the Governments, not the people.
        In summary, prosperity, is the healing act, not enslavement. Principles create value, not conveyor belt sameness. Values create freedom and joy. Fear creates misery.

  • It is quite telling that many of the religious supporters in the comments vilify Huffman or the humanist philosophy while Huffman himself states he isn’t hostile to religion or other folk’s religious views.

    There seems to be a good bit of intolerance on one side of this discussion and it isn’t with the humanists. It’s as if the religious simply cannot accept that someone thinks differently than they have been told they must if they want to be “saved”.

    • You are right with your observation and while it is quite telling, I hate to admit that it is not in the least bit surprising. Non acceptance of opposing views, logic, and reason are all the lifeblood of their doctrine.

  • I like him- he’s a little bit sterile- politician, but he does good work. I don’t judge the character of my plumber either as long as he does a good job. It’s strange how everyone holds politicians up to these standards. Who cares as long as he’s doing a good job?

  • Title 5, Section 3331 of the United States Code. It reads: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

    • So, anyone who takes this oath of office and considers themselves an atheist or humanist is committing an illegal act? Lying on an affidavit?

      I met this guy once. He didn’t impress me then, and doesn’t now. He seems nice enough, but a bit of a phony. Like many politicians, both sides of the aisle.

      • While there is no religious Litmus test, the Oath is an important affirmation that our natural inalienable rights do not come from humans, but instead we are born with them. Those who betray this simple Supreme Law of the Land’s Oath, are considered traitors, liars, and thieves.
        This is one of the main reasons we are to choose principled people who honor the Constitution and our God’s Natural Laws of self governing. This is one of the main reasons the political parties are nothing but one big ball of corruption. We have been securing politics instead of our own Self Governing and God given inalienable rights.
        When we secure politics instead of the Constitution, our nation crumbles.

    • I’ve taken that oath three times, and had no problem switching “so help me, god” to “I do so affirm.” It’s important to remember that that oath is to the allegiance of our Constitution, not gods.

      • I agree with you, Anon, that our Oath is to the Constitution which SECURES our inalienable rights by limiting governments.
        The “I do so affirm” that our natural born rights come from within, not from government and not from man’s laws, is basically what the “So help me God” is saying. Our rights are secured by a higher power than man’s powers. Man does not have the constitutional power of authority to declare man’s laws as the higher power. The constitution was written to limit government. The Bill of Rights was written to remind future generations what an inalienable, natural born, god given right is. The right to privacy, for instance. I know of some king wannabee’s who have created crisis’s in order to be able to spy on people while showering. They have replaced our natural rights to privacy with glass houses. They have replaced the higher power of Principles with a low life power of deception and corruption.

    • Good point, we def need to get rid of that. In many cases this spooky language was added in the 1950’s. Such as the case with the pledge of allegiance.

      • Which is why in grade school I politely declined to take part in the Pledge that they did every morning. Some of my teachers were so offended that they made me stand outside in the cold until it was over then I could come back in the classroom. I think it kind of blew their mind that a 1st grader could think for himself rather than just following orders.

        • That’s so cool that you’re still proud of your 1st grader educational level and that you’ve never allowed further knowledge to change your stance.

  • Its the least they can do.

    His actions are 100% business as usual. He’s full of empty words around predictable politics. No revolutionary in him whatsoever, he’s in the pocket of his big development/industry sponsers just the same.

  • The guys full of shit, he probably has a bible in his pocket, look at his lying face. It’s obviously a ploy to look different from the rest of the pack of lying politicians that are in the process of destroying America and stealing as much money from taxpayers as they can, but he is one to a T, don’t believe the hype.

  • Big deal. So that’s what a “humanist” is? Just sounds like trying to be a decent human being. I guess everything has a special trendy label these days. Or is it that trying to be a decent human being is a special thing now? Anyways- declaring yourself as such is …kind of …conceited?

  • amimissingsomething

    Has he done a good job? On the North Coast we had a fee imposed on us for Fire Prevention. Huffman as a Democratic insider knew it was a tax not a fee, yet what did we hear from his office on the matter? I’ll tell you what we heard. SILENCE! The North Coast overwhelmingly voted for Bernie yet Super Voter Huffman dissed his duty and voted for Hillary instead of the peoples mandate. He can’t be trusted. He is a slimy run of the mill politician who will sell his soul (no pun intended) to the highest bidder. Why leave him in a place of having our votes on major problems we face, only to have him play, follow the leader. This is why when you vote for someone you need to pay attention to the whole person not just his or her affiliation. He needs to be defeated at the polls and have someone with integrity put in his place. We can do much better!

  • I was in 4th grade when the pledge of allegiance was changed to include the words “under god.”
    Miss Johnson, our teacher, carefully explained to us that communists don’t believe in gods and that this change would identify them.
    She added that if one watched the lips of people reciting the pledge, and they didn’t say “under god,” that they could be a communist.
    It was the age of McCarthyism, with a communist under every bed. I’ll never forget the sterling example of fascism she presented. And the beat goes on…

    • I really feel sorry for the kids that they had to be taught by and had an authority figure who was so close minded and ignorant. I dealt with similar from some of my teachers while respectfully declining to participate in the pledge.

    • I was astonished to learn that the Great Seal of the United States was created by many committees of 3. Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and many more of our Founding Fathers labored intensely to get the symbols just right.
      It amazes me that people can’t read symbols anymore, nor do they wish to.
      The truths lay hidden within the symbols.
      The words chosen for anthems and oaths also reflect upon the symbols that were carefully chosen to represent our great nation. Even when plain english is used, many still do not understand the concept of the higher power.

  • Sounds like he withheld information so he could be elected.

  • The term “humanist” doesn’t go far enough, as far as i’m concerned. Sure, get rid of the concept of a supreme being made in our likeness… our imaginary construct of a big invisible thinking, emotional person in the sky; but then carry on and get rid of the idea of a human as the best thing going or possible.
    I would go more to “earthist” or “naturist” or “universalist”–“humanism” is really just another sentimental and chauvinistic elevation of our species. It makes membership in the chosen and deified group all too easy… just being born human, you’re one of the elect. I don’t believe it.
    Also, the term “atheist”–“a” (without) “theo” (God) maybe goes too far. I would call myself an areligionist, though not necessarily an atheist. Is there a wisdom and/or a power greater than humans’ anywhere in creation? Clearly. Is it understood and represented by any of these human-written religions? Of course not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *