Rep. Mazie Hirono is often cited as the first Buddhist to serve in the United States House. Recent references to the U.S. Senate candidate have suggested that if she wins the seat she seeks in 2012, she’ll be the first “non-theist” in the Senate. (One example we saw was this post from the political site the Daily Kos.)

Can Buddhists — even non-practicing ones — really be described as non-theistic?

We checked with Janet Gyatso, a professor in Buddhist studies at the Harvard Divinity School. Gyatso said she sees a number of problems with such a designation, first because of how wide-ranging a term “theism” can be.

“When people say they’re theists, what do they mean by god?” Gyatso said. “Is it an anthropomorphic idea or is it some basic existential truth about the universe? What do we mean by theism?”

Gyatso described assigning a label to someone else’s religious beliefs as “dangerous.” 

“Asking whether this woman is a theist or not a theist is a slightly risky route to go down anyway,” Gyatso said. “You can’t impute what (someone’s) actual beliefs are.”

Asked about how the congresswoman self-identifies, religiously, a spokesman for Hirono offered this response: “Congresswoman Hirono is Buddhist.”

On a general level, Gyatso said it wouldn’t be accurate to describe Buddhism as non-theistic.

“It’s not true that Buddhism doesn’t have theistic types of beliefs,” Gyatso said. “It definitely does. If she’s from Hawaii, she may well be in a Pure Land Buddhist school that has a way of viewing the Buddha that’s very, very close to views of theism as in Christianity.”