As mentioned here last week, Democrat Congressman Pete Stark from California has outed himself. Wonkette says he is a “Unitarian”.
“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.”
Unitarian Universalism describes itself as creedless, meaning that it has no underlying authoritative statement of religious belief. While some members believe in God, not all do.
I still find it almost unbelievable that in 2007 this is such big news but there you have it. Do you think this means the rest of the US politicians actually believe in mythical beings? Or that they are just too scared to front up? Either way, it’s pretty scary. The LA Times says:
A USA Today/Gallup poll last month found that only 45 percent of respondents said they would vote for a “well qualified” presidential candidate who was an atheist. Ninety-five percent said they would vote for a Catholic candidate, 92 percent a Jewish candidate and 72 percent a Mormon candidate.
I would love to run a similar survey in Australia. Perhaps the Secular Coalition needs an Aussie operation?
And what’s with this “nontheist” crap? What’s that?
According to this blog:
a nontheist is someone who does not accept a theistic understanding of God, as described in the preceding paragraph. Such a person may reject all understandings of God, may embrace certain non-theistic understandings of God, may find God language useful and rich in trying to describe their experience of the world but not true in a literal sense, may believe in certain non-material, transcendent realities that have little in common with the common understanding of the word “God.†An atheist falls within this understanding of nontheist, as does an agnostic, a humanist, a Buddhist, and many Quakers who find the whole practice of labeling our belief systems an unfortunate distraction from genuine religious living.
We definitely need a better marketing term than “nontheist” or “atheist”. I prefer “rational”. Or “sane”.
Have you ever checked out a web site called “reason to believe”. Just google it & check out what they have to say. These are Christian believing scientists, I am told. I haven’t checked it out properly myself yet, but my informant tells me that science & the bible don’t contradict each other.
I always enjoy the American belief of “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
They’re always talking about the separation of church and state, but you notice how every politician uses the word “God” in every one of their speeches. Heaven (the theoretical heaven) forbid someone express a truth when campaigning and stand up and say “Look…I don’t believe in a supreme being, but what does that have to do with running this country?”
Does the American people believe that “God” is working through their President to make a better United States? Could be… look how many other wars were started on the basis of religion.
I would also be amused if they elected Clinton as the first female President… or even this Obama fellow. Imagine! A non-white or a non-male President! The horrors.
It would have been bigger news Cam if anyone knew who Pete Stark IS. Probably one of the least known members of the Congress. I think this may be the biggest thing he will be known for in his 30 plus years as a Representative.
He has been a ranking member of the Banking and Currency Committee and powerful Ways and Means Committee so he’s at least fairy influential, even if not well known.
mum, yes I have read that site. http://www.reasons.org/
It’s run by Hugh Ross, who is trying to find common ground between science and christianity. For example, he doesn’t think the Universe is only 6000 years old. The key problem from my perspective though is that any system requiring “faith” is irrational and inherently unscientific. I think it’s time for the human race to grow up, accept the evidence and stop cowering in the shadows hoping some great supernatural Daddy-figure is going to save our sorry asses.
Ranking just means he’s been around longer than anyone else, it’s not a sign of accomplishments. I worked there for four years I am familiar with the committees and his record. He is virtually unknown outside of his district and the Hill. I can’t think of a major piece of legislation he was the originial sponsor. That is why I said what I said.
Hey Cam…yeppers, I was very happy to see Pete Stark’s announcement. The sad thing to me was the fact that the survey had only had 3 other non-theists in the entire country (from the press release): “In addition to Rep. Stark only three other elected officials agreed to do so: Terry S. Doran, president of the School Board in Berkeley, Calif.; Nancy Glista on the School Committee in Franklin, Maine; and Michael Cerone, a Town Meeting Member from Arlington, Mass.
”
How sad is THAT? Heck, I’m on my Homeowner’s Association Board of Directors…I’m apparently pretty close to making the list myself! It’s a sad, sad little country I live in sometimes.
WRT the terminology…yeah, everything’s pretty clunky. I’m happy to use atheist, but it has been pretty demonized. “Free Thinker” is sometimes seen, and there’s been a movement for the past few years to use “Brights” (http://the-brights.net/).
As far as God being used in speeches by American Presidents – all you have to do is check out speeches by GEORGE WASHINGTON or ABRAHAM LINCOLN…God or the Supreme Being is mentioned COUNTLESS times. So there is nothing new or wrong with it being mentioned…Separation of church and state does not abridge our freedom of speech or mean God cannot be mentioned. All it means is there can be no “church of the United States” as in the colonial days people’s $$$ went to the official Church of England. People have completely twisted the meaning of separation of church and state to try and impose ultra-secular humanist beliefs on a nation that was not only founded on the ideals of the Enlightenment but also on JUDEO-CHRISTIAN, not ATHEIST values.
Our laws are based on the 10 commandments. I personally could care less what religion or non-religion a politician is – what matters is that they respect the Constitution. American is not nor ever has been a socialist utopia as Western Europe is fast becoming.
By the way – the reason so many people oppose Clinton and Obama has nothing to do with the fact that she is a female and he is black. THey are both socialists and that is what scares so many in America. We fought one Cold War – we don’t need back door Communism.
Sorry Mike, your spiel about the US being founded on “judeo-christian” value is a total crock.
According to eminent scholar Joseph Ellis, who has been posting at the Encyclopaedia Britannica blog:
“Although the Declaration of Independence mentioned “Nature’s God†and the “Creator,†the Constitution made no reference to a divine being, Christian or otherwise, and the First Amendment explicitly forbid the establishment of any official church or creed. Franklin and Jefferson were deists, Washington harbored a pantheistic sense of providential destiny, John Adams began a Congregationalist and ended a Unitarian, Hamilton was a lukewarm Anglican for most of his life but embraced a more actively Christian posture after his son died in a duel.”
http://blogs.britannica.com/blog/main/2007/02/the-us-founding-fathers-their-religious-beliefs/
I like this quote from Jefferson:
And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
I cannot think of a more wonderful day than todayl We are actually admitting that there may be no God, and that mortals are responsible for themselves. I call myself agnostic, more out of fear, than anything else. Just in case, you know. It is very difficult for me to believe that the son I adored no longer exists anywhere but in my heart, but my brain tells me it is true. Wars have been started over this so called superior being, and people starve the world over. What parent would do that to their beloved child, let alone such a superior being as God. I believe in humanity I am a humanist, who feels that we can help each other and ive my ife according to the 10 commandments, when I can, simply because they make sense and are good rules for people to follow. Jesus existed, of this I am sure, but he was one of the greatest phrophets of all time, and there was no immaculate conception, nor did an all loving father send him to die a horrific death to pay for the sins of others. If it makes you feel good to believe than do so, but if you were really honest with y oursellf, you would know there are no punihments and rewards and very good people live wonderful giving lives without a belief in a superior beingl At the same time, those who cal themselves Christians have commitedsi sins against humanityin the name of their Lord. Live and let live and condemn no one for believing what is in their hearts; After a;;.if you are right, it is that very same superior being who put those thoughts there. They are selling fear and you are buying it.. I have a bridge in Brooklyn I would love to sell you too.
So now atheists are going to start coming out of the closet. I wonder, will there soon be a Hollywood movie about atheistic sheepherders?
To imissmyson, I couldn’t have said it better.
Cameron,
My biggest problem is not with atheists at all. My problem is that extreme secularists are in fact ignoring the constitution in the US to try and BAN religion. Which, as the French Revolution and Russian Revolution showed, never works out well.
As long as someone respects the constitution, I could care less if he or she worshiped the great purple flying squirrel in the sky!
An excellent interview with the authors of “Washington’s God” (interesting read by the way)…
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/qa200602200722.asp
Q: Who is Washington’s God?
AThe Great God Jehovah who led the people of Israel long ago, the same benevolent Providence that led the way through many dark times to the independence of the United States. That is the God Washington described in his letter to the Synagogue in Savannah, after the war.
Washington was an active vestryman in his local Anglican parish; he came from a long line of Anglican worshipers and even ministers; and his children by marriage continued the tradition. He cherished the Book of Psalms and read from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.
Yet like many in the Anglican tradition, Washington leaned towards philosophical names for God, rather than confessional names. He almost always used names such as the “Supreme Author of all Good”; the “all wise disposer of Events”; a “Bountiful Providence” that watches over us, and “interposes” his actions in our favor. Almost never: “Savior” or “Redeemer,” or “Holy Trinity.”