Monday, March 19, 2007

A Confirmed Non-Believer In Congress

Via Wall of Separation, a reported milestone as been reached as the first congressman, Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), has come forward to confirm he holds no belief in a higher being.

“When the Secular Coalition asked me to complete a survey on my religious beliefs, I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being,” Stark said. “Like our nation’s founders, I strongly support the separation of church and state. I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services.”
While this is no great leap towards a secular government, it is a starting point. Maybe if more congressmen were to confirm their non-belief publicly there would be more valid discussion on the corrosive nature of faith itself. But don't count on that happening anytime soon. A majority of Americans claim they wouldn't vote for an atheist so there's not much incentive for politicians to be so forthcoming.

2 comments:

Johnny said...

Old Congressman Pete Stark…of 35 years plus in Congress is not only an atheist, but he is just an 'old fart' so to speak who wants to piss off the world. He rants and raves at his constituents and is not a nice guy…he's not a "poster child" that any organization would want to represent them…atheists or otherwise. Check out where he denigrated a constituent who just returned from an overseas deployment to Kosovo…the soldier wrote his congressman (Pete Stark) and got this angry insulting voicemail back. (See the link to the Fox News video below).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djeGqNVXjZE

Michael Caution said...

Thanks for pointing that out Johnny. It's not often you hear a congressmen being so candid in their positions. Obviously I made no sign of support of Stark as a politician in my post.

It just goes to show that atheism by itself does not equate to rational convictions. Atheism by its definition is a statement of a negative, the absence of belief. It doesn't make the claim of a positive, putting forth any specific ideology. In the end what man can't avoid is the necessity of a specific philosophy. Hopefully one based on reason.