Rep. Stark applauded for atheist outlook

Rep. Stark applauded for atheist outlook

news.yahoo.com

The American Humanist Association applauded Rep. Pete Stark for publicly acknowledging he does not believe in a supreme being. The declaration, it said, makes him the highest-ranking elected official — and first congressman — to proclaim to be an atheist. The organization took out an ad in Tuesday's Washington Post, congratulating the California Democrat for his stance.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Great, another politician without conviction. And the masses applaud it?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It nice to see an atheist elected to office even if one person isn't enough to counter the wack jobs who have taken over the Republican party.
I do judge politicians on other issues as well and I have many convictions but it just so happens that the existence of a higher power isn't one of them.

Another step toward the ban of religion. On one hand, I believe that most (if not all) organized religion is nothing but brainwashing tactics to control the masses. But I also think that the hidden gov't wants to replace the current organized religions with something much more powerful. I don't know which is worse. I'm still on the fence.

Originally posted by theutahbigfoothunter


Great, another politician without conviction. And the masses applaud it?

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So because a politician admits that he cannot believe in an unsubstantiated story, written by men, that has historically been more of a political and social tool than anything else, he is somehow unfit for his civil service postition? So I suppose politicians would be better off believing anything they like all willy nilly because it means they have conviction?

Hell, we "believed" that the Iraq war would be over in six months.
We "believed" that there was no torture going on.
We "believed" that Iraq had connections to 911.
We "believed" that Iraq had WMDs.
The list goes on...

I suppose you're right, "facts" just don't have enough "heart." It's so much better to act on feelings.

No, there's no bias in this country at all.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
I suppose you're right, "facts" just don't have enough "heart." It's so much better to act on feelings.

No, there's no bias in this country at all.

Be careful. You'll tick off the sheeple

This is just the media trying to goad the right into a kneejerk reaction over this proclamation so they can poin their fingers and say, "look! they are fundamentalists."

Who cares... I dont care that there is a politician who, according to my beliefs, is going to hell. Just pray that he dont try to take others with him.

I do have my reservations about this. What exactly are his ethics and morals if he doesnt follow a christian model?

Homosexual orgies, intravenous drug use, and high treason? sounds like clinton. *smirks*

I'll probably get slammed for that remark, .


[edit on 14-3-2007 by XphilesPhan]

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Who cares... I dont care that there is a politician who, according to my beliefs, is going to hell. Just pray that he dont try to take others with him.

I do have my reservations about this. What exactly are his ethics and morals if he doesnt follow a christian model?

Baaa. Sheeeple.

Naturally, christianity is the only ethical religion.

Originally posted by Landis

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Who cares... I dont care that there is a politician who, according to my beliefs, is going to hell. Just pray that he dont try to take others with him.

I do have my reservations about this. What exactly are his ethics and morals if he doesnt follow a christian model?

Baaa. Sheeeple.

Naturally, christianity is the only ethical religion.

uh huh, and where did I say that?

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

I do have my reservations about this. What exactly are his ethics and morals if he doesnt follow a christian model?

[edit on 14-3-2007 by XphilesPhan]

And who is to say that the christian model defines ethics and morals. Are these the same warped christian values that have led thousands of catholic priests to hump alter boys and perform other sexual abuses? Its funny how squeaky clean the christian image is perceived to be when in reality its just a front to hide rampant disorders and deviants. Hey and I'm a catholic, certainly not by choice, and I don't practice because the church is flawed on so many fronts.

With nearly 1 billion atheists globally(and growing) there's a lot to be said by others.

brill

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
What exactly are his ethics and morals if he doesnt follow a christian model?

uh huh, and where did I say that?

Why not use the expression "religious values" or something akin, invoking all religions rather than your particular brand? You're just as hypocritical as our Muslim enemies.

Hate a Muslim. Hate an atheist. It's all the same to you. If you ain't christian, you're dirt.

Originally posted by Landis

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
What exactly are his ethics and morals if he doesnt follow a christian model?

uh huh, and where did I say that?

Why not use the expression "religious values" or something akin, invoking all religions rather than your particular brand? You're just as hypocritical as our Muslim enemies.

Hate a Muslim. Hate an atheist. It's all the same to you. If you ain't christian, you're dirt.

Well, since he doesnt follow any religous model, what are his morals and ethics and are the compatible with the people he represents, I think that is a fair question, dont you?

Oh well, so he believes in one less god than I do, big deal. It really shouldn't matter, I wouldn't mind a Hindu prime minister in the UK, if they got elected, or a buddhist or most for that matter. I might be bothered if he admitted scientology, but he didn't so thats moot.

Originally posted by brill

Originally posted by XphilesPhan

I do have my reservations about this. What exactly are his ethics and morals if he doesnt follow a christian model?

[edit on 14-3-2007 by XphilesPhan]

And who is to say that the christian model defines ethics and morals.

Since he is a representative of the american people, and since most of american culture has been influenced by christianity, not entirely, but quite a bit, wouldnt it be fair to assume that some of the morals and ethics he would have fall under the christian model?

I never implied that christian values were the only values, you did. I suppose it would be more appropriate to say, "does his cultural values fall in line with American Culture?"

I think its sad that something like this required an applauce. Why is this even an issue? Why does it matter if he's an athiest or not? What does that have to do with his political compitance? By applauding it, aren't we just showing that congress and the senate are filled with bigots?

[edit on 14-3-2007 by LuDaCrIs]

Originally posted by apex
Oh well, so he believes in one less god than I do, big deal.

It really shouldn't matter, I wouldn't mind a Hindu prime minister in the UK, if they got elected, or a buddhist or most for that matter. I might be bothered if he admitted scientology, but he didn't so thats moot.

carefull, you'll anger the far left crowd that is trying to goad you

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Well, since he doesnt follow any religous model, what are his morals and ethics and are the compatible with the people he represents, I think that is a fair question, dont you?

So you're assuming that one has to be religious to be moral and ethical?

Your question would be fair if atheists were allowed to live openly in this country. There are more atheists around than you think, but they have to live furtively due to prejudice.

You have no way of knowing if this man does not represent his constituents.

Originally posted by Landis
So you're assuming that one has to be religious to be moral and ethical?

No, Im saying he should share the same values as the people he represents! damn, can you overcome your brainwashing enough to understand this simple concept? and to think that you have the nerve to clal people "sheeple?"

Of course we all know XPhiles that you can't let FACTS to be contrary to your so called opinions. You're so ``ethical`` that you support war, torture, all the good old government say is okay.

As a christian wack job you hate muslims and all other who aren't christians. Who's the guy who reject everyone else based on their faith in a non-existant thing? A belief? An emotion?

Sorry but people who don't go in Iraq think about FACTS and don't BELIEVE. Wars happens in majority because of beliefs, not facts. That's why beliefs and emotions in those cases (politics) should be put aside.

You're so called representatives who called themselves ``christians`` are not even respecting christians values such as care for the poor, peace, equality, love... they are just self-centered power hungry criminals.

[edit on 14-3-2007 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
No, Im saying he should share the same values as the people he represents! damn, can you overcome your brainwashing enough to understand this simple concept? and to think that you have the nerve to clal people "sheeple?"

But not everyone he represents will be Christian, or atheist for that matter. The trouble is that there isn't any real neutral point when it comes to religion, and so this sort of clash of ideologies is guaranteed.