Missing the Point
Yesterday, I congratulated Ron Brownstein for his first op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times. I went back to that paper this morning to see if the Times was finally turning itself around after firing Bob Scheer and hiring Jonah Goldberg as his replacement. I shouldn't have bothered.
Oh, there was an extremely provocative essay by Sam Waters, the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation," in which he asserts that liberal Christians are simply providing cover for the delusions of the Religious Reich and in which he makes the statement that "mythology is where gods go to die." No doubt that next three days of letters to the editor will be filled with howls of outrage from both liberal Christians and Dominionists at the skewering. Offsetting that rather bold move, however, was one of the lead editorials.
THERE ARE A gazillion ways to get into trouble in Washington, but Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont) has picked one of the rarest: He has come out of the closet and acknowledged that he does not believe in God.
Stark outed himself in a questionnaire from the Secular Coalition for America, which searched for elected officials willing to identify themselves as nonbelievers. It found only four, including Stark, and it claims that he is "the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress."
... those who fail to profess at least a vague belief in some kind of supreme being are not likely to succeed in politics. In a Gallup poll last month, 53% of respondents said they would not vote for an otherwise well-qualified atheist — far more than wouldn't vote for a homosexual (43%), a 72-year-old (42%), someone married for the third time (30%), a Mormon (24%) or a woman (11%).
That's perhaps unsurprising given that 47% of Americans in a 2002 Pew survey said religious belief is a prerequisite to be a good person. ...
The statistics cited in the editorial are depressing. What is more depressing, however, is that the editorialist completely passed up an opportunity to inject some rational discourse into this issue du jour. The point should have been made that Rep. Stark's "non-theist" beliefs are no more relevant to his ability to serve in government than Rep. Keith Ellison's (D-MN) Islamic beliefs or former Gov. Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs. The religious sphere and the government sphere are different and should not overlap even slightly.
The editorialist could easily have reminded the reader that our Founding Fathers knew that such a separation was essential in a democracy, so essential that they made it clear in the Constitution that religious tests could not be imposed as a qualification to hold public office.
Rather than trying to remind people of this, the editorialist instead chose to end the editorial with a weak bit of snark which suggests that statistically Rep. Stark is probably not the only athiest/agnostic in Congress.
What a disappointment.
Oh, there was an extremely provocative essay by Sam Waters, the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation," in which he asserts that liberal Christians are simply providing cover for the delusions of the Religious Reich and in which he makes the statement that "mythology is where gods go to die." No doubt that next three days of letters to the editor will be filled with howls of outrage from both liberal Christians and Dominionists at the skewering. Offsetting that rather bold move, however, was one of the lead editorials.
THERE ARE A gazillion ways to get into trouble in Washington, but Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont) has picked one of the rarest: He has come out of the closet and acknowledged that he does not believe in God.
Stark outed himself in a questionnaire from the Secular Coalition for America, which searched for elected officials willing to identify themselves as nonbelievers. It found only four, including Stark, and it claims that he is "the first open nontheist in the history of the Congress."
... those who fail to profess at least a vague belief in some kind of supreme being are not likely to succeed in politics. In a Gallup poll last month, 53% of respondents said they would not vote for an otherwise well-qualified atheist — far more than wouldn't vote for a homosexual (43%), a 72-year-old (42%), someone married for the third time (30%), a Mormon (24%) or a woman (11%).
That's perhaps unsurprising given that 47% of Americans in a 2002 Pew survey said religious belief is a prerequisite to be a good person. ...
The statistics cited in the editorial are depressing. What is more depressing, however, is that the editorialist completely passed up an opportunity to inject some rational discourse into this issue du jour. The point should have been made that Rep. Stark's "non-theist" beliefs are no more relevant to his ability to serve in government than Rep. Keith Ellison's (D-MN) Islamic beliefs or former Gov. Mitt Romney's Mormon beliefs. The religious sphere and the government sphere are different and should not overlap even slightly.
The editorialist could easily have reminded the reader that our Founding Fathers knew that such a separation was essential in a democracy, so essential that they made it clear in the Constitution that religious tests could not be imposed as a qualification to hold public office.
Rather than trying to remind people of this, the editorialist instead chose to end the editorial with a weak bit of snark which suggests that statistically Rep. Stark is probably not the only athiest/agnostic in Congress.
What a disappointment.
Labels: Free Press, Separation of Church and State
posted by Diane at 9:10 AM
1 Comments:
It's not shocking, or surprising to me at all.
What would shock people is that there are probably at least 100 other members of congress who lie about believing with people unaware of it.
It's a silly dance. More often than not, a person will have a different sect than you. So you are supposed to vote for the guy or woman who "is wrong" about God?
Post a Comment
<< Home