Congressman Peter Stark and his untroubled humanism
Posted: 05 November 2007 09:19 AM   [ Ignore ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  135
Joined  2007-10-12

I did a search and didn’t see any previous mention of this, so I thought I’d see if anyone here finds it interesting.

Peter Stark

Earlier this year, Rep. Stark, an 18-term congressman representing the East Bay region near San Francisco, was asked by the Secular Coalition of America if he believed in God. Stark said no. Would he admit that to the world? Stark said yes, and followed up with a statement to the Associated Press on March 12 announcing that he is “a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being.”

[ Edited: 05 November 2007 09:53 AM by PaineMan ]
 Signature 

“If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another… after the war is on.” - “Fighting Bob” La Follette

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2007 02:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5508
Joined  2006-10-22

It would be great if others did it too, but I’ll bet that even in his strongly Democratic district, if he runs next time, his majority will be smaller than it was in the past.  It’s fascinating that the prejudice against atheists is even stronger than racial and sexual discrimination, yet all the efforts on equality over the last fifty years have ignored that area.

Occam

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2007 03:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4081
Joined  2006-11-28

HERE is a previous thread on this topic. I suppose it’s something, but pretty lackluster as far as a “blow for the cause.”

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2007 04:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  135
Joined  2007-10-12

Thanks, mckenzievmd.  I guess I didn’t search back far enough or use the right words.  If someone wants to merge this thread with that one, its fine by me.

I tend to think that this IS of significance particularly with the way both parties in the US, and possily the Democrats more than the Republicans lately, are trying to win over voters from the Religious Right (or perhaps it would be better to say to draw them away from the Religious Right).  I think some people are getting fed up with this and someone like Peter Stark comes across as a refreshing change.

And as far as being disappointed that he’s not an out-and-out Atheist, at least its a non-Theist foot-in-the-door.  If you want the world to change over night, you’re going to be disappointed every time.  If you want progress, you take it where you can get it and expand from there.

That’s my opinion anyway.

 Signature 

“If there is no sufficient reason for war, the war party will make war on one pretext, then invent another… after the war is on.” - “Fighting Bob” La Follette

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 November 2007 04:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4081
Joined  2006-11-28

Well, it’s not that I expect the world to change rapidly or that I care whether he’s an avowed atheist especially, it’s just that people seem to want to see significance in this small thing when the larger picture shows, IMHO, an expansion of conservative religion’s influence on the body politic. The actions of the Bush admin., esp the judicial appointments, have created a negative movement in the government as a whol with respect to church/state separation. I applaud Stark for the courage which, sad to say, is necessary even to make the admission he did, but I am not convinced it represents anything significant in terms of the overall picture. Not disappointment, just my assessment of how things are.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet
The SkeptVet Blog
Militant Agnostic: I don’t know, and neither do you!

Profile