So today we learn that Rep. Pete Stark admits to being godless.
There is only one member of Congress who is on record as not holding a god-belief.
Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, Chair of the Health Subcommittee, and member of Congress since 1973, acknowledged his nontheism in response to an inquiry by the Secular Coalition for America.
Although the Constitution prohibits religious tests for public office, the Coalition’s research reveals that Rep. Stark is the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress. Recent polls show that Americans without a god-belief are, as a group, more distrusted than any other minority in America. Surveys show that the majority of Americans would not vote for an atheist for president even if he or she were the most qualified for the office.
Herb Silverman, president of the Secular Coalition for America, attributes these attitudes to the demonization of people who don’t believe in God. “The truth is,” says Silverman, “the vast majority of us follow the Golden Rule and are as likely to be good citizens, just like Rep. Stark with over 30 years of exemplary public service. The only way to counter the prejudice against nontheists is for more people to publicly identify as nontheists. Rep. Stark shows remarkable courage in being the first member of Congress to do so.”
In November, 2006 the Secular Coalition for America, a national lobby representing the interests of atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheists, announced a contest. At the time, few if any elected officials, even at the lowest level, would self-identify as a nontheist. So the Coalition offered $1,000 to the person who could identify the highest level atheist, humanist, freethinker or any other kind of nontheist currently holding elected public office in the United States.
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.
Surveys vary in the percentage of atheists, humanists, freethinkers and other nontheists in the U.S, with about 10% (30 million people) a fair middle point. “If the number of nontheists in Congress reflected the percentage of nontheists in the population,” Lori Lipman Brown, director of the Secular Coalition, observes, “there would be 53-54 nontheistic Congress members instead of one.”
I’m a bit amused that after Stark, the next highest elected officials who aren’t afraid to admit their unbelief are three (count ’em, three) school board members scattered across the country. Is there active discrimination to exclude non-believers from the democratic process? You know there is.
Oh, and I don’t know a thing about Stark’s politics, other than that he’s a Democrat. Any of his constituents out there who want to let us know if he’s a representative we should be proud of?
I’m not a Californian let alone a constituent of his, but I know that he’s one of the staunchest progressives in the Democratic Party. I wish he could be cloned.
Stark’s signature legislation is the “Stark Act,” the statute prohibiting self-referrals by Medicare/Medicaid providers. His focus is healthcare fraud.
…
…
In reply to the title of this post, “Should we be happy about this?”, the short answer is:
YES!
Someone, somewhere, sometime, has to be the first.
Doesn’t matter to me what sort of person Neil Armstrong was in his private life (I think he was a good one) — he was the first man to set foot on the Moon.
Granted, it would play better in public if Pete Stark was a saint, but … “You go to war with the atheists you have, not the ones you want.”
This opens a door. Long past time.
…
…
…
…
It will be interesting, very interesting, to see what sort of response there is. That’s the REAL story here.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was vicious attacks by wingers and evangelists across the nation, and a national hand-wringing by masses of nice Christians – all spinning this into a grease-chute-to-Hell for America …
… but I think I also wouldn’t be surprised if a great silence greeted the story. There’s a definite tipping point somewhere up ahead where “non-theists” get recognition, at least in public speech, as respectable citizens deserving of equal treatment.
Have we reached that tipping point? I don’t know. In my head, it feels like we may have. But I sometimes overestimate the intelligence and generosity of the conservative godder crowd.
If the response is silence, I expect more announcements. If the response is furor, I still expect more announcements.
From my point of view, if this story results in a big splashy tabloid-TV segment on the number of atheists in entertainment, arts, government, the sciences, etc., that would be pure gravy. THAT would be the tipping point.
…
…
It’s interesting that this didn’t seem to be such an issue when Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, was appointed to the court. Perhaps Supreme Court appointments just weren’t so politicized then?
His credentials on wiki are pretty solid.
MIT grad. Has been against the Iraq war from the very beginning.
Sounds like we should be happy.
Just so we don’t forget the past, we need to recognize Don Fraser, US Congressman from Minneapolis 1963-1979, who gave the opening remarks to the American Atheist convention in 1988.
Says PZ:
Not exactly. One is on a school baord, one is on a school committee (which may or may not differ from a school board) and the third a town meeting member.
One more thing, Don Fraser was Mayor of Minneapolis at the time he addressed the Atheist convention.
I’m ready to write the guy a check. I imagine whoever runs against him will probably use this against him.
OMFG athists, STFU! Christans are teh minority!!!11!11one1! Resist the GODLESS EMPIRE! Every nee will bend on judgemint day!
(Was that a good troll? Am I ready for the big leagues yet?)
The “OMFG” didn’t ring true. ;-)
I hold out hope that people will notice that Rep. Stark isn’t a baby-eater, a serial killer or a Satanist, and perhaps think twice before saying that all atheists are. The gay marriage kerfluffle has done done tremendously good work in humanizing gay people; hopefully nontheists coming out publically will do the same thing. (I do appreciate that Richard Dawkins appears on CNN every so often. Well, at least once.)
Actually, the wingnuts thought those things about him already. They won’t even be surprised, since most of them have always believed that “godlessliberal” is one word.
Whoever he is, that’s absolutely incredible. I hope more of them come out now.
Kseniya,
Really? I thought there was supposed to have been some incident with Mary…
Woohoo! As California goes, so goes the nation!
One down, 534 to go.
Pete Stark is an incredible representative. He is incredibly smart, and is one of the bravest men in the world of politics today. He’s definitely someone we should be proud of.
The worst anyone has on him, aside from not liking his politics, is that he’s “hot-blooded.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/07/23/ED251350.DTL
He once made reference to an opponents children being born out of wedlock… in a debate…. and… they weren’t.
So there is plenty more leeway to paint him as the stereotypical ranting, angry atheist than most members of Congress. Still, he sounds like a lot of fun regardless. :)
Yes, we should be happy about this – Pete Stark’s voting record is excellent. He’s pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-stem-cell research, anti-death-penalty, he was against the Iraq war, against the Patriot Act, and best of all, he has only a 7% voting record from the Christian Coalition. (I believe he was ranked the most liberal member of Congress for at least one year.) He’s a true-blue progressive and we should be glad to have him on our side. And I am. :)
Here’s a list of some of his more notable votes.
Ah, so I’m “without a god-belief” now. It’s good to keep up with the latest jargon.
Bob
If I were a right-wing media strategist, I’d try to bury this story. The alternate strategy, demonizing Stark, could be very risky since it would make people think about whether denying nonbelievers legitimacy in politics is consistent with other, perhaps more deeply felt American political values. Even in the short run, giving the microphone to a bunch of Fundies so that they can rail at Stark is guaranteed to irritate a public that may be mostly theist but is also increasingly worried about mixing politics and religion. Stark has wrong-footed the bigots.
Previous quibbles noted, I just say that there are few places in public life where nontheists are desperately needed than in public school governance. I’d trade a secularist in congress for one on my school board any day.
I don’t think so. I think it’s more self censorship as evidenced by the recent ‘atheists should be quiet’ aspect of the science debate.
Look we all rub shoulders with alot of people everyday and with a few nutty exceptions most people give little thought to religion other than as a matter of ceremony or habit. There are far more atheists and agnostics in America than any poll will show simply becuase it’s not PC to identify as one. That is changing and I have no doubt there are 30-40 functional but not admitted atheists/agnostics in congress now. I suspect they will be the last group to self identify.
Oh, I think it’s the priests and ministers who would be the last to admit their atheism.
I’m an appointed member of the Charter Commission for my city, as a nontheist. But the application form doesn’t ask for religion and in issues regarding cleaning up language for initiative, referendum and recall religion doesn’t play any role. But there are openings.
In St. Paul, a DFL city if there ever was one, the issue doesn’t come up, so we could have some nontheists on that council.
I like Stark. Good on him for this.
Apparently he’s a Unitarian, which means, I suppose, he’s a nontheist who still needs a church to go to…
Fantastic news! He used to be my representative, back when I lived in the Bay Area, and I was always pleased to be represented by him. Now I’m under the heel of the objectionable Dan Lungren. Ick.
Stark’s my rep. We’re pretty happy with how he does.
theophylact, it means he’s part of the diminishing minority (compared to a much stronger position of influence in the past) of non-theistic humanists (I used to be one myself till I got fed up) who have stuck it out in UU congregations despite the decreasingly welcoming atmosphere for our views in the more and more “God-talking” denomination.
There’s a lot of Unitarian Universalists who are nontheists or just plain atheists. In U.S. society, birth/death/community rituals are bound up in religious forms, as is a good part of the social justice tradition. Plus, almost all UUs like to argue.
“which means, I suppose, he’s a nontheist who still needs a church to go to.”
More accurately, it means he’s an atheist who likes to go to meetings on Sundays. Jeez, I hope you guys don’t insist on examining my typical Sunday morning agenda for evidence of purity.
He’s one of ours, people. Can we keep the family infighting behind closed doors? Thanks.
I hold out hope that people will notice that Rep. Stark isn’t a baby-eater, a serial killer or a Satanist,
Posted by: grendelkhan | March 12, 2007 10:41 AM
Well, not yet or that anyone knows. But, give him time. He may yet come through.
One bad thing that nobody’s mentioned yet – Rep. Stark is 75, which means that he is more than likely on the verge of retiring, and, like so many people on their way out the door, is tying up a few loose strings before he goes. What will be truly momentous is when an elected official at the height of their popularity makes this announcement.
What will be truly momentous will be when a candidate for high office can make this declaration and then still get elected.
But don’t wait underwater for that to happen.
It’s possible that he only agreed to reveal this information because he is planning to retire and not run for re-election in 2008.
He wants his wife to run for his seat.
He’s got to be a better public representative for atheism than Hitchens. Very happy to hear about this. Good luck to him.
The “Controversies” section for Stark’s entry on Congresspedia has this to say:
During his time in Congress, Stark has made several controversial statements. In 2003, he called Rep. Scott McInnis (R-Colo.) a “fruitcake” and was alledged to have hurled additional slurs. In 1995, he called Rep. Nancy Johnson (R-Conn.) a “whore for the insurance industry,” which conservatives criticized as being sexist.
The following section on Stark’s “Acknowledgement of non-theism,” already added to the page as of today, is longer — though I wonder if that’s supposed to count as a controversy.
“Sexist”? Everybody knows corporate whoredom is entirely gender-neutral.
BTW, I’m pleased to report that Rep. Stark has outlasted the Hon. Ms. Johnson, whom we Nutmeggers retired last November.
The latest Pew research http://pewresearch.org/pubs/278/a-portrait-of-generation-next is heartening- in a number of ways. More atheists, more democrats, more acceptance of homosexuality and a good majority believe we’ve evolved.
That’s merely supposed to explicitely include the agnostics.
That’s merely supposed to explicitely include the agnostics.
I request that we all support Rep. Pete Stark in any way we can to further the cause.
More info about Pete Stark:
“He is known to have a longstanding interest in health care issues and has been critical of the fate of the uninsured under the current administration. In addition, Stark was one of the most vocal Congresspersons who spoke out against the war in Iraq.”
– Wikipedia
“The bottom line is I don’t trust this president and his advisors”
– Salon
“Stark once brought up President Bush’s personal battles with alcohol during a debate on federal funding of faith-based programs.”
– Sfgate
“Throughout his career in Congress, Stark has been a consistent advocate for peace, freedom of choice, and environmental preservation. He has been a tireless advocate for children, the elderly and the disabled as well as for the workers”
– Buzzflash Interviews
“Educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California, Berkeley, served in the United States Air Force, and was a bank executive before entering the House in 1972 ”
– Sourcewatch
You know, maybe we should come up with a more Latin/Greek-sounding version of “without god-belief”. Lets break it down:
without = a-
god = -the-
belief = -ism
Put it together, we have a neologism…oh wait…
It’s bad form here in Canada to ask people if they’re religious, unless they are friends. It certainly isn’t a requirement for public office, thank Freya!
Maybe we could drop godless and God-fearing in favour of god-free and god-ridden.
We had a textbook case here in Brazil:
Fernando Henrique Cardoso was a atheist and was running for mayor of the city of São Paulo. A reporter asked him about his beliefs and he told the press he didn’t believe in god. Ergo, he lost the election.
But he was a clever guy and learned to lie. He started attending church, at least in front of the cameras. People bought it, and he was elected president. Twice!
I still don´t know if there is a morale from this story…
Is God-ridden like lice-ridden? If it is, we need to figure out how to concentrate atheism and put it into a shampoo.
Heh, I’d love to see the fine print on that one:
Use of Atheism has been associated with increased persecution by zealots. Side effects of this nature are generally mild enough that treatment need not be discontinued. Occasionally, serious complications have been reported, such as being burned at the stake or forced to recant under threat of death. If, while using Atheism, you develop the urge to spout tautologies or read “Atlas Shrugged”, stop using Atheism immediately as this is a sign of a rare but serious complication known as “Objectivism”.
Oh for pete’s sake. The article said that the way they found these four god-free elected officials was to run a contest among their members.
And we’re therefore concluding that there are only four? People, there’s a reason the Zogby organization doesn’t use that method.
I’d be more interested in three other categories: (a) elected officials who claim to use their religion in making decisions that affect the general public; (b) the ones who actually do use religion in making those decisions (scarier than (a), though it’s a near thing); and (c) elected officials who, no matter what religion they affiliate with, or don’t, have the sense and intellectual maturity to differentiate between it and the world in front of them.
Wow? In Brazil? The country of Lula and where a Tropicalia musician was arts minister for a period? (I’m probably inflating this last one, I know, but I think it’s pretty close). Just goes to show that the rest of the world isn’t _that_ much more sensible than America.
If a sans-god candidate can ever be elected outside the bay area, that will be the true test. It’s the best place ever… we should all be challenged to reach that sort of perfection.
Honestly, if an atheist _alderman_ were to be elected here in Chicago, I’d be shocked.
This “Secular Coalition for America” seems very fond of their “nontheist” tag. Their web site uses “atheis-” for older entries & “nontheis-” for the more recent items (which all seem to be about Starke).
In the limited time I can give this tonight, I haven’t found an explanation of the difference between “nontheism” & “atheism” on SCA’s or Starke’s web site. I suspect that this could be considered either a slightly innovative way to get people to think about being god-free, an appeasement of those who cooperate with atheist-demonizing, or a better phrasing of what’s called “weak atheism” (the position that there is no evidence for any god, as contrasted with the positive denial of such entities – at least by my off-the-cuff definition).
In any case, a neologism which offers so many facets for the meaning of one’s choice to be projected upon seems destined to persist (long after “bright” has been extinguished, at any rate).
Actually, no. He got angry with Casoy because he had promised not to mention religion on the interview, di not confirm or deny it at he time and later did deny it on an ad on days later that he was an atheist. it’s on You Tube, look it up.
He danced around the issue on a Playboy interview last year, admitting and yet not quite admitting that he is an atheist. Which is irrelevant now anyway, since he can’t get elected for anything other than administration of his own condo now. And it has nothing to do with religion.
Note for the future: either proofread comments or stop writing after midnight. I ate up a couple letters and put others where they shouldn’t be…
Andre, here is the video. And I thought my opinion of FHC couldn’t sink any lower…
I’m ready to write the guy a check. I imagine whoever runs against him will probably use this against him.
Nah, he’s in an extremely safe seat in the SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA. No Republican could ever dream of winning that seat (much less some fire breathing Christianist), and no Democrat would be so tacky as to challenge him during the primaries. He need not worry.
Why does there seem to be the assumption that atheists are all progressive Democrats? Many atheists are conservative regarding both fiscal and international policy. Granted, an atheist is more likely to be progressive on social issues, but that may be the result of a Libertarian rather than liberal Democrat philosophy.
I’m not sure that his politics are a reason to be happy or not. The relevant fact is that he is an atheist. Assuming Condi Rice was going to be elected president regardless, would it be a bad thing that she is black? Of course not. There are, of course, conservative atheists. It is quite possible to be intelligent and conservative; morals are hardly an empirical question.
Whts th bg dl wth ths nnncmnt?
Mny grt ldrs hv bn tspkn thsts.
Lnn, Trtsky, Stln, M, Pl Pt nd hndrds f thr lss wll knwn sdkcks.
There are, of course, conservative atheists.
No kidding!! Over here in Italy, there is a whole, extraordinarily dangerous, movement of neo-Machievalians who are called “atei devoti” (devoted atheists). They are “devoted” in the since that there ideology is 100% consonant with that of the Catholic Church (anti-abortion, anti-contraception, anti-gay, anti-feminism, everything!!). Some prominent examples are Marcello Pera (former President of the Senate, the third highest power in the nation), Giuliano Ferrara (owner and publisher of the newpaper “Il Foglio”, prominent public intellectual and commentator, the late (psychopath) Oriana Fallaci, and Enrico Mentana. Most of these are ex-Communists or ex-socialists who flipped from one extremism to another. They are the paradoxical godless theocrats of Italy. So, you can certianly declare yourself atheist or agnostic and still get elected in Italy. You just CANNOT go against the doctrines and dogma of the Vatican or you will be declared an EVIL COMMUNIST and therefore lose and chance of being taken seriously by the idiotic, hypocritical public !!
Why does there seem to be the assumption that atheists are all progressive Democrats?
Since no one here assumed any such thing, the seeming would seem to be in your pointy little head.
Pete Stark: Raving lunatic
Yeah I know it’s WorldNutDaily. Yeah I know it’s Michelle Malkin. But neither I do not dismiss it out-of-hand. I will reserve judgement.
Getting back to the original question, here are what Project Vote Smart and On the Issues have to say about Stark’s positions.
If that’s what Wingnut and Malkin said then he’s definitely someone to be proud of.
I’m not one of Stark’s constituents, but I thought I’d share this comment from Free Republic:
I haven’t found an explanation of the difference between “nontheism” & “atheism” on SCA’s or Starke’s web site.
Years ago I filled out Michael Shermer’s survey when he was working on How We Believe. As I recall he defined agnostic as “Don’t know,” nontheist as “No belief in a god,” and atheist as “There is no god.” That would seem to equate nontheist with “weak atheist.” Perhaps SCA feels nontheist is more inclusive?
I want to know what Rep. Virgil Goode has to say about this. Thank god he is protecting us from these heathen Muslims and atheists.
There are a couple of Buddhists in Congress as well, and I think at least one of them is from a non-theistic version of Buddhism. (Some versions of Buddhism have lots of spirits and gods of various sorts, e.g. traditional Tibetan and Pure Land and such, while others like Zen don’t go that direction.)
So Stark may not be the first to admit non-theism, though he may have been around longer than the others.
Of course, there have always been Congresscritters who don’t let the ethical or moral requirements of their religion interfere with their practical politics, either regarding negative behaviour like lying, greed, malice, theft, bribery, or positive behaviour like caring about other people. But that’s not the kind of secular values you’re talking about here…
He’s my rep. out here in Fremont. He’s a great guy with a nice family.
That said, it takes incredible honesty to actually admit your beliefs, even though the public may backlash. So kudos!
Okay let’s get this straight- nontheism actually holds that the existence of god cannot be proven or disproven, so we shouldn’t be hung up on it, because it’s not important.
atheism is the belief that there is NO god.
atheism is the belief that there is NO god.
I disagree.
Atheism is not a belief. It is the view that it does not make sense to believe in a God (or anything else) for which any evidence is lacking. According to your definition, Dawkins would not be an atheist since he admits that one cannot completely disprove a supernatural being.
This is more than semantics, since it reflects the essential difference between rationalism and superstition.
“In the limited time I can give this tonight, I haven’t found an explanation of the difference between “nontheism” & “atheism” on SCA’s or Starke’s web site.”
In strictest semantic terms, theism is the belief in a God with being. Therefore atheism is a lack of belief in such a being. ‘Nontheism’ can be either atheism or the belief that God exists without having being (what we in the biz call reification): a state akin to Buddhist nothingness or some sort of universal wholeness. The latter is sometimes seen as the result when Unitarians reject the traditional Christian trinitarian theology.
Since Stark differentiates himself as a “nontheist” instead of the common “atheist”, and professes to be a Unitarian, he is either: a) lying about his beliefs, most likely to cover his ass in elections, or b) what he says he is, a believer with a different concept of God. Either way I’m not sure what the story is or that he deserves your accolades.
Bill, in comment #66 is partially correct: the presence of Buddhists in Congress with the last election means that their are at least two other non-theists in Congress. One of them, from Hawaii, is a Pureland Buddhist, while the other (from Georgia, I think) is a Nichiren Buddhist from the Soka Gakkai International.
Both of these traditions have “spirits and gods of various sorts” — to use Bill’s language — but it is not what it might at first appear. All Buddhists reject the notion of a creator deity; all Buddhists reject the notion of an effect without a cause (ie, there is no “first cause” and hence no God in the Abrahamic or even Hindu sense). Even the word “god” when applied to Buddhist cosmology is misleading, and is really a western attempt to make sense of Buddhism rather than any real sense that Buddhist believe in “god/God/gods”. To make a long story short, even the most adventurous of Buddhists is an atheist.
This is not to say that Buddhism is not a religion, but certainly Buddhists have far, far more in common with regular western atheists or “non-theists” or “those who lack a god-belief” (I am at a loss for the current terminology) than they do with Christians, Jews, Muslims and even Hindus.