Atheist Congressman Praised
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Being a Libertarian makes politics so much easier 
Recently, Representative Pete Stark “came out” as an atheist, making him the highest ranking public official to ever admit to his lack of belief in a deity. All over the “secular” and “humanistic” world, Stark is being praised for his courage and valor in his public acknowledgement of his atheism.
To me, this is sort of like the first black baseball player, or the first woman Supreme Court Justice. Although it really SHOULDN’T be all that big of a deal, because it is a FIRST, the public is going to go nuts over this, some in a good way, others in a bad way.
No doubt “conservative” organizations will react in typical fashion bashing America for actually electing a man who, *gasp*, doesn’t believe in a deity. They’ll continue to beat the old drum of “this is a Christian nation” and “Christians should only elect Christians”.
Places like the American Humanist Association will treat this guy like a hero, making sure to write blogs in praise of him, giving him lots of money, and of course, pressuring other “nontheist” public officers to “come out” too.
Ok, so now that we know what everybody else is going to do, let me tell you what I think.
I don’t care. No really, I could care less what this man’s religious affiliations are.
I think that a man should be elected based solely on his commitment to American ideals like liberty, constitutional democracy, capitalism…oh and did I say liberty? I think Representative Stark does believe in these things to a point. He said
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,
Hey now! I like that Not necessarily the “Secular Coalition” part, but the other stuff
However, he’s a democrat from the more liberal region of California, so chances are he’s only committed to liberty where it suits him best. Liberty to be gay? Sure. Liberty to pay a fair tax? Not so much.
So, obviously I wouldn’t vote for the guy. Not because he’s an atheist, but because he’s a liberal.
So yeah, I’m happy for him for his public acknowledgement of his atheism, but it really makes no difference to me. If he’s a liberal who wants government to grow and take more of my money to do so, he doesn’t get my vote, simple as that.
Told you being a Libertarian makes things easier
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically each day to your feed reader. If you don't have a feed reader, you can always have these articles delivered to your email inbox every day. Click here to sign up.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Fatal error: Call to undefined function: show_manual_subscription_form() in /nfs/c03/h05/mnt/48320/domains/nathanrice.org/html/wp-content/themes/ElegantBlue/comments.php on line 108
Whenever I hear people accuse others of having a “narrow” belief system, they rarely define “narrow”. Usually, “narrow” means “doesn’t agree with mine”. And being open or liberated really means “agree with me”.
I too, am tired of the constant push in the Church to insist on elected officials claiming a Christian religious affiliation. Most politicians claim such affiliations for political reasons and not faith-based reasons anyway!
I don’t really care either. What I want to know is what are you going to do with my country while you are in charge? Will you make things better or worse? Will you get out of my way when I need you to, and intervene only when necessary? Will you protect religious freedom? Really? Will you help me get some decent health insurance, fix the welfare system, balance the budget, secure our borders, feed the poor and get some closure in Iraq?
If an atheist can pull that off, I’ll vote for him.
Hi,
Looking for themes ideas , and happy to read much more than “cool wordpres stuf”.So, my coment :
I stop here , just a self reaction, wrote in one throw.
I apologize for my english i’m native french speaker.
So i’m french
All my education, my “world” was made in a system named “laicity”
take a look at ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9”
For me, and after reall and durable thinking thrue years, this world “aprehesion” is at least the best.
And trust me, i’m often chocked when i see, ear, look some US news and i’m thinking : ‘ But why such a “puritain” (in french acception of the word) society, why the idea “god” (higly respectable) have to be written in a constitution ? … and so on
I apologize for the mistakes
have a good life all !
quick Thought and question while i’m editing my css style sheet :
is there any religious loobying group that will at last fight the usage of this diabolic color code #666666 ????
It is a sign of deep problems in our society that this is seen as special at all. A congressman revealing himself to be atheist should not be big news, nor should Muslim congressman Keith Ellison’s election- no more than a Catholic’s election to the presidency should have been. You are absolutely right that a candidate’s religious affiliation, or lack thereof, should not matter at all, that their goals and ideals and policies are all that should matter.
Unfortunately, that is not the case, so I do see this as a victory. I don’t agree with Stark on a lot of things, yet I still think his ‘coming-out’ is important. Not just because it means we are moving closer to acceptance of atheism, but because it means we are moving closer to that ideal: that religious affiliation simply doesn’t matter in politics and society at large.
Ben,
I agree with you questions. Although I’m not sure how it’s the government’s job to get us health insurance
(goodness, I just ooze libertarianism).
I like you conclusion though. Very nice.
George,
Well put as always. I eagerly await the day when politicians stop pulling out the “Christian card” when they’re campaigning. It really makes me sick, especially when guys like Jackson and Sharpton use it. Gag.
Give me a candidate who speaks only on the issues, has good personal character, and does what he promises, and I’ll give you the America that we SHOULD be.
Nathan – I have to disagree with you about high taxes, partly because I’m Canadian. Medicare is a non-god send, as are other social programs. Although it is important for a government to laissez-faire to a certain extent, and for citizens to be able to obtain capital freely, I favour a more organized, rational, ethical, and humane attitude towards economic management. It is ethically *obligatory*, I think, to mandate a tax or spending of around 20% (like Peter Singer does) of citizens’ income (if sufficiently affluent) to a charitable / humanistic / humanitarian / ethical, but this would be far too radical (and change-y) for everyone to swallow. It would be political suicide.
Ubuntu,
I assume you’re talking about European socialism when you say “I favor a more organized, rational, ethical, and humane attitude towards economic management.” Essentially, you favor a fair income distribution via government dispersal. You certainly have a lot of faith in the individuals in power
I can’t for a minute imagine a system of government where the state controls the income (even a relatively small percentage such as the 20% you mentioned) where it would not corrupt them. I believe the facts demonstrate that a government given the resources to grow, will inevitably do so. Me, I’ll take my government small and limited 
Obviously you and I deeply disagree on this, not only from an ideological point of view, but a historical one as well.
American values are what they are, and until someone can demonstrate a system more efficient than raw capitalism and reckless constitutional liberty, then I’ll stick by the constitution