Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


US congressman breaks the last big taboo

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 March 2007
AFTER more than 30 years of hiding his true feelings, a United States politician has come out and admitted the truth: he does not believe in God.
In doing so, Congressman Pete Stark has become the only politician in Washington openly to deny the existence of a supreme being.

Mr Stark, a Democrat from northern California, is also defying one of the cardinal rules of modern US politics: that
politicians must be comfortable with their faith and capable of making strong public declarations demonstrating that fact. By declaring his apostasy, he crosses what is perhaps the last, or strongest, remaining taboo in American political life.

Secular groups hailed Mr Stark's "courageous" decision to come clean about his lack of faith in God. "With Stark's courageous public announcement of his non-theism, it is our hope that he will become an inspiration for others who have hidden their conclusions for far too long," Roy Speckhardt, the executive director of the American Humanist Society (AHA), said.

The AHA was sufficiently excited by Mr Stark's declaration that it took out a full-page advert in the Washington Post to salute him.

Mr Stark, who has served in Congress since 1973, admitted his "non-theism" after the Secular Coalition for America, an advocacy group in Washington, offered a $1,000 bounty to the person who could identify the "highest-level atheist, agnostic, humanist or any other kind of non-theist currently holding elected public office in the United States".

In all, 47 people across the country were nominated as unbelievers and four confirmed they were non-theists. After Mr Stark, the next most senior openly non-theistic elected official was believed to be a school board president from Berkeley, California.

"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," Mr Stark said.

Unitarians follow no creed and, though some believe in God, others do not, preferring to base their beliefs on first principles drawn from personal experience. Though other Unitarians, such as President John Adams, have attained high office, none in recent times has openly denied the existence of God, as Mr Stark has.

Atheism is fast becoming the last remaining taboo in American public life. In a Gallup/USA Today poll last month, large majorities said they would vote for a black or female presidential candidate and 55 per cent said a candidate's homosexuality need not bar them from office. But only 45 per cent said they would support even a "well-qualified" atheist.

Mr Stark has no presidential ambitions and his California constituency, Fremont, outside San Francisco, is a Democratic stronghold that will shelter him from any potential Christian backlash. However, atheists and agnostics in other, less liberal, districts are likely to remain in the closet for the foreseeable future.



The full article contains 484 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 14 March 2007 11:36 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Creationism
 
1

Scullion,

Canada 15/03/2007 02:06:08

He'll get away with it in Northern California but east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line, his political life wouldn't be worth a plug nickel.
Jefferson and Lincoln were never known for their love of preachers or dogma.

2

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 02:38:35

Good on him for being true to himself and for being honest. How sad that anyone should be expected to make a profession of faith in order to engage in their professional life. The people demainding it are no less than things who want to force their beliefs on others.

3

WisconsinPaul,

15/03/2007 03:24:57

Too bad his faith-spouting colleagues don't practice what they preach. I'll take an ethical atheist over a despicable believer any day.

#1 Your cultural-geographic distinction is bang on. There are southern states still trying to ban Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection and replace it with (Christian) Intelligent Design.

4

Sinnerman,

Another Planet 15/03/2007 05:20:41

Are our colonial cousins now going to add "non-theism" into the English language to replace atheism?

5

SouthernSkye,

Currently Köln 15/03/2007 07:29:47

#4 he could, of course, be agnostic ;-)
But I agree, a stupid word when suitable words already exist for his "lack-of-theism" stance :-))

Good on him for being honest though.

6

Colin Allcars,

Utopia 15/03/2007 07:44:03

The fact that this is news says so much about America. What a truly awful place it must be when people have to pretend to have faith. They truly must be moronic over that side of the water IF they genuinely believe that all their politicians are men of god.

Perhaps they need to rush through a policy like they did for the gays who wanted to serve their country, but couldn't - don't ask, don't tell.

American society is one of the biggest jokes in the world.

Does anyone wonder why it is that the most fanatical Christian country in the world also has the biggest amount of social problems?

On an individual level, Americans can be as nice as anyone. But their country truly is beyond belief.

7

Djookers,

15/03/2007 08:15:20

"Mr Stark, a Democrat from northern California, is also defying one of the cardinal rules of modern US politics: that politicians must be comfortable with their faith and capable of making strong public declarations demonstrating that fact"

The founding fathers would be turning in their graves to read the above on how much religion has encroached on goverment.
"Amendment I (abridged)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

All of that said, well done the man for his courage, even though his constituency will continue to elect him I have no doubt he will be attacked and vilified by the religious right.

8

,

15/03/2007 08:51:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason: Scotsman Import, Original comment id: 445759, Article id was mapped to record!
9

mrd,

fairbanks Ak 15/03/2007 09:05:53

Come on guys, is this news, not over here, no ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX coverage, this rates some where south by 10 miles of Anna in the current cycle. The only people who would even notice are some small groups consisting of web sites, and off the scope newsletters, that have double digit mailing lists. Who cares, and more to the point, he still believes in his God, its called power and public attention, in other words an elected offical and especially from Ca. who is suprised, now he just won't be telling that lie by omission. Much more important things today like the Operation Pink are now attacking the dem's in Congress. They eat thier youg don't they.

10

,

15/03/2007 09:31:54
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

mrd,

fairbanks Ak 15/03/2007 09:40:55

please forgive, youg should be young, #8 musicismylife, tell scaramouche the poem/song works both ways, Industrial science,ie, grant searching club members, change ID to CM, ie , comereical science university based and grant seeking, only the politically correct get the grants. they have their own religion, the high priests; the garb, the white coats;the churches for gratification, the labs and institutes, the directions from on high, the juried journals. It is all relative, check out Berkley, an old englishman, possible Scot's orgin, he was the first to present Idealism.

12

jim lad,

the capital 15/03/2007 10:09:02

30 Years to tell the truth, might there be something else we don't know about him? course not he is a honest politicion

13

Swilly Tisher,

Loch Maree 15/03/2007 10:12:13

The Stark truth is...there is no God.End of two thousand year old story !

14

bill-alba,

fife 15/03/2007 10:23:39

#13 agree

15

mrd,

fairbanks Ak 15/03/2007 10:33:44

for #13 and #14,
Descartes handled the question, hope you chose well.

16

Fortunado,

15/03/2007 11:25:16

Congressman Pete Stark says: “…I indicated I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being”. Does that mean he rejects “trinity” and believes in unity of god or is he an advocate of the unity and centralisation in politics, which is another accepted use of this term.
If it’s the former, then he is not pure enough for me. I want to vote only for those that are confirmed non-believers in anything that has to anything with any religious term whatsoever. Only then can one perhaps hope of not voting for someone with a hidden celestial agenda.

17

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 11:35:34

SIR ISAAC NEWTON

Creation is a Miracle still
That will never be lost or sold or killed.
When Sir Newton’s apple fell to the ground
God’s greatest gift to us did still abound.

Newton’s discovery changed mankind
But it never changed Sir Newton’s mind.
He believes yet it is God’s hand with mirth
That holds gravity, orbits and the earth.

“Gravity controls the earth- yes it’s true.
But who set the planets in motion, and you?
The answers do not change with timely wind
The answer remains with you, deep within.

The debates have all become polemic
And sadly, wrongly, too academic.
Creation is a Miracle too
God never meant to be taken from you.”


-words in the quote rise from Newton’s Principia

Sir Newton’s views are a truly fascinating read. He asked the questions, if not God, who set the planets in motion? He is the world’s most famous scientist but few know he explained with mathematical proofs the existence of God.

18

Cadgers,

Perth 15/03/2007 11:40:37

There'll be a lot of weeping and wailing amongst the faithful if God doesn't get his finger out and do the lightening thing on Pete. Unless someone mows him down first of course.
By the way, well done Pete Stark.

19

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 11:42:42

oops-
#8
I meant to say I was responding to Scaramouche/music is my life:
Sir Newton DID prove the existence of God.

That the universe is mathematically and carefully balanced is a no brainer: and it isn't rocket science.

To be a Newtonian is to have belief in a Greater being yet not attach the belief to a religion.

20

I'm no really here,

15/03/2007 12:27:33

Just in case you missed what #11 said:
#8 Musicismylife:
Phone the Glasgow number on the contacts page for reinstatement. This is where I called when I was sent to the Siberian salt mines:-)

#19 That's a great quote "To be a Newtonian is to have belief in a Greater being yet not attach the belief to a religion." There is an enormous difference between Faith and Religion. All those that have no Faith (except in themselves), and want Religion banned, are mixing up the two.

All the rubbish that has been spouted by Religion, all the wars started "in the name of God", have all been MAN"S doing, not God's. Man following their own lusts. The Lust of the Eyes, the Lust of the Flesh and the Pride of Life - sums up all our problems.

21

musicismylife,

15/03/2007 12:31:15

Why on earth has me post at #8 been pulled??

22

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 12:35:51

#19 Carolyn 1

"Sir Newton DID prove the existence of God."

No philosopher, scientist, theologian or bricklayer has ever proven the existence of God. As Camus noted, all attempts to prove God's existence end in a leap of faith at which point reason is exhausted. I would think that Christians would bristle at any claim to have reduced God to a theorem or philosophical treastise. It reduces God to something that can be subordinated to the human mind.

Whether or not you believe in God should be a personal matter. There is no reason our public officials should be required to profess their belief in God, no reason that we should only consider Christians for the presidency.

#20 Reading Public

"hopefully after these bleeding liberals with their PC Bu@@@@@t will go the way of the Dodo bird"

Wow - wishing the annihilation of your political opponents. How Christian of you.

23

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 12:40:35

#22 Musicismylife

I am sure there was nothing wrong with your post. The Scotsman does not (at present) review posts when someone flags them as inappropriate. They are removed by an automated system. Any user can remove anyone else's post at will.

Because of this policy, someone has been deleting posts willy nilly for over a week now irrespective of content in order to harass and probably to spark conflict between posters of opposing political views. It is extremely annoying and the paper is in the process of tracking the individual to ban them and is considering new policies to make this a much less troll friendly space.

24

Cadgers,

Perth 15/03/2007 12:45:37

#22 Post it again Musicismylife. That was the song was it not?

25

Aoda,

Pennsylvania Wilds 15/03/2007 12:49:17

A cardinal rule in modern politics? That is new one on me. Fact is that they are pretty netural of religion in public, Too many different religions and churches. No. #1 Scullion, you said East of the Mississippi and South of the Mason-Dixie line. I live East of the Missippi and North of the Mason-Dixon Line and out side of the corrupt cities religion is very strong here. The difference is the city folks see the what man has made and we in the country see the wonders of God every time we take a walk.

26

mrd,

fairbanks Ak 15/03/2007 12:49:36

# 22 ,yes, I agree, post again, I may not agree with you, but there was not anything in your post that was untoward.

27

Aoda,

Pennsylvania Wilds 15/03/2007 13:02:18

#21 Your last paragraph was good but disagree with you in a way. The first part of sentence one, I would change to, Man has corrupted the true Christian Church. I won't commont on other religions because, it isn't respectflu and because I don't know that much about them. Also making judgements about them or judgements on other persons isn't my way. Judge not that they mabe judged.

28

matthew in davao,

philippines 15/03/2007 13:21:40

right on, colin. i am a u.s. citizen. they are the biggest bunch of hypocrits in the world. look at dubya." god told me to invade iraq " the sick part is that millions of americans believe him. even in the churches they have boards inside. with the names of " our heroes, in iraq, fighting for freedom " i attended church daily, for many years[wont say which one] i asked the priest " why dont we pray for the iraqis as well as the u.s. troops ? " i suppose we should, he replied " well his answer was to not pray for either. later i boned him about the "war" but saddam was a bad guy no ?" he answered. the clergy are so scared to lose the parishioners money, that they will go along with anything. so sad, but true.

29

Scullion,

Canada 15/03/2007 13:32:50

#15 & 17
These two brilliant men still approached their philophical problems from an a priori point of view i.e. their ideas were geared to prove something that they already believed rather than let the facts lead them to a conclusion (a posteriori).
Descartes, although a Catholic, still had his books banned by the pope and Newton, though a believer is never associated with the mathematical proof of God as was Blaise Pascal (which isn't very convincing). Einstein's theories on relativity now challenge Newtonian physical laws in certain circumstances. Besides, all of us who have struggled with calculus have a natural distaste for Newton. Troublemaker.
Leave theology to the theologians and science to the scientists. Once they enter into each other's domain, things don't go well at all.

30

mrd,

fairbanks Ak 15/03/2007 13:42:57

#29 matthew in Davao
Are you upset at your supposed church, or at being an american? You are in the Philippines. If you are so embarrassed by your fellow citizens just renounce your citizenship. The philippines will accept you, but I do suggest you move to the south, there you will find fellows of your mind set there.

31

Robin Bather,

Mexico 15/03/2007 14:09:23

Publicly professed religious beliefs are of course part and parcel of the US political scene but like everything, are abused by false people.

We see and hear it all the time "He needs the Jewish vote" or the black vote, or the Hispanic vote, so the politician will give his words a distinct spin to fall like honey upon the ears of the listeners.
What is far more worrying, to my point of view, is the huge US population of Fundamentalist Christians who are convinced that the world is shortly coming to an end and actively urge on this day as they believe a New World Order will result.
Blind support for Israel can be explained by these extremist groups lead by fanatics such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell etc.


32

mrd,

fairbanks Ak 15/03/2007 14:13:30

Scullion, #30
Newton and Decartes were both 18th century men by definition and attitude. They wrote on many subjects, and would have looked askance at you for just describing them as scientists by our current definitions. Just like Maxwell and Davey, they were not limited to a single subject, generalist not specialist. By the way your car works on Newton not Einstein, still to this day, best wishes

33

Robin Bather,

Mexico 15/03/2007 14:36:46

Recently I have noticed a clear tendency of some people on this blog, to present an arguement which basically runs like this:

"What the hell right do you have to give an opinon, I see from your address that you live in _______!"

Fill in the blank with your choice of Mexico, England, Cambridgeshire, the Phillipines, the US, France, Timbuktoo or whatever.

I would humbly suggest, if you forgive an expat giving his view, that a filter be added to this blog to prevent comments from people who do not live in Scotland.

34

Aoda,

Pennsylvania Wilds 15/03/2007 14:50:22

#34 Robin, I agree with you that those kind of comments aren't necessary or to any benefit except to show the character of the person writing them. However this is on the web and if they were to filter non citizens of Scotland your comment would not have been posted.

35

matthew in davao,

philippines 15/03/2007 15:35:21

dear m.r.d. both. i do live in the south. deal with muslims every day, no problem. been in iraq many times as well as other eastern countries. lived in quite a few countries. i just dont condone the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, of any country, to kill one bad guy.

36

mike - across the pond,

his goose is..... cooked 15/03/2007 16:06:39

the guy just alienated a portion of his constituency...

his juices ran clear..... he is done... come back in 2 years and see what happens... my guess is that he just took a 5-7% hit... and that may well be his undoing...

who knows he may have just gotten bored and wants to find himself a new job...

37

Ricardo,

15/03/2007 16:18:53

Excellent..!! Sanity at Last..

38

Media 1,

15/03/2007 16:32:59

The founding fathers were athiests and they built their new nation as a secular one..

Jefferson himself said : shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness the existence of a god, for if one should exist, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear..

Proof that America was not founded as a christian state...

This imaginary god and his adopted Old Testament book is a joke and its about time the whole thing was brought to an end..Its time for human beings to grow up and leave this archaic bronzed aged fixation about a divine creator behind.

I applaud this politician for speaking his mind.

39

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 17:02:28

#23
Newton DID prove a Greater Being mathematically in "Laws of Motion." and further expanded on it in his book Principia. The thoery has never been disproven.

Sometimes what is true is true because there is no other explanation of the unexplainable.
If God had another name, and it wasn't associated with a church or a synogogue or a religion or a spoof, would a Being Greater Than Ourselves be accepted?

I think fear of religion is not the dismissal of God or denial of The Ten Commandements.

NO ONE should be allowed any kind of govermental responsibility or duty unless he believes in the Ten Commandments. That includes the right to have the Ten commandements on display.

40

Media 1,

15/03/2007 17:18:11

#42 Carolyn 1: this god they all speak about broke the ten commandments more than once..

Read the Old Testament! The dude who apparently made us was a savage bloodthirsty monster.

41

WisconsinPaul,

15/03/2007 17:18:16

#30 Scullion

Well said indeed.

All arguments for the existence of god suffer the same Achilles heel--they are equally valid/sound as compared to those for the non-existence.

The problem lies with how one verifies ("truth-ifies") the conclusion. And the believer who sees the face of the divine in a sunset cannot trump the non-believer who sees light refracting through atmosphere.

Back to religion and politics in the US: Generally speaking, the more overtly religious the figure, the more tawdry the actions from him/her. So we have gay-hating Army generals (how does one lead only 95% of his soldiers), an economic imbalance morally unsupportable by any religious standard (save, perhaps, Satanism) and a government full of liars.

I'd like to see a lot less religious mouth and a whole lot more ethical action.

#42 Carol
'Do not kill' would include acts of war--war, of course, being the ultimate expression of denial of a benevolent deity.

Also, theories are not 'disproven.' They are modified so that they fit the empirical evidence--exactly the opposite process that religion uses to 'explain' how a universe is 4400 years old and dinosaurs sneaked into the earth by the divine as a test of faith.

42

musicismylife,

15/03/2007 17:30:37

Reposted!
Scaramouche (still being disallowed from posting) wrote this in the hope the Scotsman gave us an article where he could "shoehorn" it in. This senator's words have given my husband the excuse he wanted. The last bastion of the Christian Ultra Right must be stormed!
(Frankly, my husband's going stir-crazy ... and his language isn't getting any better either!!)

There isn't any science in Intelligent Design
The opposite of what proponents seem to be implyin'
And if you say there is, you're either stupid or you're lyin'
It's all a load of bull

Irr'duceable complexity is often mooted, too
But only by non-scientists who know not what they do
Two words, and nine syllables, so hey, it 'must' be true
It's all a load of bull

Please, just get some education
Proof, and not imagination
There ain't no proof for creation
It's all a load of bull

The scientific case for ID isn't very strong
They don't care what is right, they just say evolution's wrong
Which is their main objective, and it has been all along
It's all a load of bull

ID'ers point at "missing links", no matter how small
And reckon it's a hole which evolution's gonna fall
But with Intelligent Design, there's nothing there at all
It's just a load of bull

ID isn't a solution
Tries to disprove evolution
Just by pointing out confusion
It's all a load of bull

The central point of science is you have to change your mind
If contradictory evidence is something which you find
You don't just pick and choose and be selective-ly blind
Or what you'll have is bull!

There are some diehard crackpots want it in the science class
Would they force their students to believe in it to pass?
It's time these blinkered idiots stopped talking out their ass
It's all a load of bull

ID isn't scientific
Its predictions

43

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 17:34:44

#42 Carolyn 1

This is nice - we do agree in part. :)
I am afraid I did not fully understand your initial post because the term God is so semantically loaded - thanks for your explanation.

I am Buddhist and believe that the order of the universe is the Greater Being. In that, Newton's theorems do point to the existence of a Higher Being as you and I understand it, although that is not the same as proving the existence of one. Rather, it substantiates what you and I believe about a Higher Being.

I don't spurn religion per se, but I am wary of any religion that says "my way or the highway." Buddhism teaches that there are many paths up the mountain, but they all lead to the same top. As such, I don't discredit any religious view, and I also do not discredit atheism or agnosticism. Where religion and I get into each other's hair is where one path starts discrediting the other paths.

I don't care of politicians acknowledge their spiritual or religious views, although I question the need to do so and think this is much abused. Religion is used as a calling card the way some people use the Ichthus symbol in advertizing for their company. (What exactly IS a Christian towing company?)

A belief in a Higher Being should not be used as a litmus test for those who wish to serve in government. This is becoming more and more prevalent.

Last year I had my first position as a professor, thankfully only a one-year gig. Upon the arrival of the new faculty, we were reassured that we would not be required to teach that the earth was 8000 years old, nor that Adam and Eve were chased out of Eden by a dinosaur, although that was the college's official position on the matter.

I was glad I didn't have to teach that, but I was profoundly disturbed that the subject even came up... It gives me the sense that we are not far away from being told we must teach it this way, and frankly, that scares me.

44

WisconsinPaul,

15/03/2007 17:39:21

#45 musicismylife

Awesome!

reminds me of a bumpersticker:
Intelligent Design--preparing the youth of the nation for the 10th century!

45

Cadgers,

Perth 15/03/2007 17:52:42

#45 Good on ya Musicismylife and by the way do you know how HARD it is to type your name withoot spaces? LOL!

46

Nietzsche,

USA 15/03/2007 18:53:15

God's only excuse is that He doesn't exist.

47

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 18:54:00

#46
Bikewoman
Where do you teach?
I just wrote Sarah Lawrence college in reference to some of my work/poetry which can't be read in school because discussion of creation violates a US Supreme Court ruling. Newton is not taught past the theory of gravity yet thoery of the universe consumed his life and writing and was the pinacle of his fame at the time.

48

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 19:07:59

#50 Carolyn 1

They won't let you read it at Sarah Lawrence? Were you going to give a presentation? I can't recall any poetry or work being disallowed at any University I have taught at. I attended a lecture at the University of Texas that dealt with the compatibility of creationism and evolution, so I know that in some circumstances at least, it must be allowed. I suppose it would depend on the use. I hope you can get a resolution for that. Nice to know you also write :)

I expect Newton's later writings would fall under metaphysics. Most of my research is in philosophy (of language, metaphysics, ethics) and I will have to have a look at some of his later writings. Thanks for bringing it up - I am always interested in any attempt to understand the universe.

I won't say what University I am at but only because the troll might be able to work out who I am from past posts about what I do. As he seems to have made me his pet project over this past week, I am afraid I would start getting harassing phone calls and emails. Sad that one wretched person can impinge on our communication.

49

Guga,

Rockall 15/03/2007 19:12:54

#50 Carolyn 1. Just a point of information. If your going to use the "sir" bit with Isaac Newton, it should be Sir Isaac, not Sir Newton. Most people just say Newton, or maybe Isaac Newton, using the "sir" bit is just pandering to the establishment who like titles as it implies that they are better than the rest of us.

On the question of gods, there are none. Any god worth his salt would not allow all the death and misery there has been in the world. Religion is the opium of the masses, and a crutch for the feeble minded.

50

sandy,

USA 15/03/2007 20:15:21

pete stark is 1/of many in Congress that is a member of the "communist party", & is a coward, at best. he's a coward because he knew he wouldn't have been re-elected thru the years if his constituents were aware of it. his actions while debating on the floor of the House of Reps & his voting record indicated his "no-faith" & communist views. i am not surprised!!! the reason he has "come out" now is, he probably will retire in '08.
pretty typical, fool them while your in & come clean on the way out.............

#20--Reading Public---DITTO!!

51

Penquinboy,

Auckland NZ 15/03/2007 20:32:12

Carolyn they now discuss Newton's "first mover" argument in philosophy 101 "introduction to philosphy", it is a well discredited falacy but it sure separates the thinkers from the believers at level 1 philosophy.

52

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 20:43:22

#53 Sandy

The "communist party"? Wow - are you channeling Joseph McCarthy or something? Why do you equate somoene's lack of belief in a Supreme Being with Communism. It certainly appears that you use Communism not in its literal sense, and instead just mean it as "any political view I hate."

He is not a coward at all and you refute the notion yourself when you say "he knew he wouldn't have been re-elected thru the years if his constituents were aware of it." Was he supposed to sacrifice his career to prove a point. It is not his constituents business what he believes and this attitude that it is fine and dandy to boot someone to the curb of they don't believe in God (in whatever form the person making the demand believes) is yet another throwback to McCarthyism.

53

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 20:47:08

#54 TSW

I just noticed that too. What a bummer. I also see that troll is back posting inflamatory things under one of his favorite names. What a pity - I had so hoped he had tired of his lame sport.

54

Robin Bather,

Mexico 15/03/2007 20:53:39

Aoda, Pennsylvania #35
I'm afraid my feeble attempt at sarcasm was lost on you.
Of course we should all be allowed to give our opinion.
best wishes

55

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 20:54:45

#43
And you would have evil conquer us all?

56

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 21:03:06

#52
Pandering?
Newton was esteemed by everyone.

There are times when I really wondering why society has become so abrasive to each other? Is it your chosen sport?

Newton deserves a look by those who wonder about what is beyond the black bowl up there but can't get themselves into a church.

he makes sense...
if you call that pandering..
then everyone should pander!

57

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 21:08:02

#55
Philospohy is thinking.
Math is the logical answer for those who need logic.
The way I understand newton's theory: there is no explanation for creation of the universe or what regulates it. But the universe is a mathematical equation. The only thing capable of such perfection is a greater being- and to newton that meant God.

58

Penquinboy,

Auckland NZ 15/03/2007 21:38:25

#62 : So where does that put the philosophy of mathematics?
So are you a Pythagorean or just another closet intellegent design advocate? As someone earlier has pointed out Newton has been superceded by the likes of Einstein and I would add Kurt Godel (Godel's incompleteness theroems).Quantum Mechanics renders Newtonian physics useless at certain levels. Knowledge keeps moving on as one theory is redered obsolete, one on the basic problems with religion, something that may have been useful two thousand years ago should not necessarily have the same value now.

59

Alec in Chicago,

15/03/2007 21:49:14

20 Reading Public

This was never meant to be a Christian nation. The founding fathers were mainly Deists, children of the Enlightenment.

The founding fathers kept god in mind so that they could be certain to keep him out of government.

60

Finnking,

Finland 15/03/2007 21:57:36

"If God DID exist, it would be necessary to overthrow him!" Bakunin

The Evolution/Creation argument gets right on my (make) nipples and raises my hackles.

Sandy: Communist? I'm not being nippy, but what is your definition of communism?What did the politician say that made you think he was communist?

61

Alec in Chicago,

15/03/2007 21:58:26

26 Aoda

Neutral? The screamers in the Republican party are neutral with regard to religion?

Those lunatics are continually inserting their religion into politics - and trying to insert it into governmental policy.

We have much of nature here in Chicago: a grand long lakefront, a multitude of parks, even a wood large enough to 'get lost' in. But none of these things are works of god(s), only nature.

62

Finnking,

Finland 15/03/2007 22:00:30

Male nipples! I need glasses!

63

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 22:01:27

I am not a mathematician, but I try to be a latitudinarian (I need spell check).
Still I must admit geometry works for me better than Freud or Plato.
I am curious (and pleased) that newton is taught there. Kudos!

64

Alec in Chicago,

15/03/2007 22:03:40

Carolyn 1

Einstein didn't seem to think it was necessary to believe in a god - and he was a pretty good mathematician.

65

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 22:06:30

#63
Ah gee, I forgot to answer. I am not a closet design advocate. I do however like to think for myself and flatly refuse to swallow whatever garbage is the cyllical opinion of the decade. Newton makes one extrapolate all possibility and think its possible- to think out of the box. He somehow does the impossible melding of opposites and makes it work.
isn't that math?
Or is it philosphy?

66

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 22:11:15

Einstein was a product of his time; which was after Newton. Newton erally struggled for answers of the universe. EInstein's theory has led to the string theory which to many once again is proof of a greater being - who to some is called God- a God who is simultaneous and eternal. Puts it right back to a mathematical equation.

67

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 22:24:07

#70 Carolyn 1

In Newton's time there was still not a rigerous division between philosophy and theology. The two were intertwined. In fact, mathematics was also not relegated to its own wing - In his Ethica ordine geometrico demonstrata (Ethics demonstrated in geometrical order), Spinoza attempted to use mathematical proofs to prove God's existence and the validity of ethics.

68

Alec in Chicago,

15/03/2007 22:33:31

71 Carolyn 1

Who says the string theory proves the exitstence of god? Most physicists are atheists, so how could that be?

"No one should be allowed any kind of government responsibility or duty unless he believes int he Ten Commandments." That is un-American. The founding fathers were absolutely against a religious test for public office.

69

Alec in Chicago,

15/03/2007 22:35:50

re: 73

Sorry got a phone call, interrupted my train of thought:

Most physicists (or scientists in general) are atheist or agnostic.

70

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 22:40:17

The string theory proves eternity. God is another 'word' for eternity. To Newton God was his word for 'perfect absolute'
If man continues to attach God to religion man will never answer the questions of the universe or understand the universe.
Most of my friends are scientists. We all believe in a greater being. We believe everything is a balanced equation- or a balance of scales.

71

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 22:42:29

The Ten Commandments is something that can unite people without them shouting at each other. It sheds the cloak of religion and lets people be humanitarians.
Every religion has the Ten Commandments, and for the most part they are almost identical.

72

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 22:43:54

#72
Bikewoman-
You have got it together...

Zen Buddhist?

73

Alec in Chicago,

15/03/2007 22:51:09

I say 'cop-out'!

The religious test comment still holds.

That interpretation has nothing to do with "the Ten Commandments." Read the first three: they deal with worshiping a (personal) god. (How can eternity be "jealous"?

Eternity is not a being.

Your nomenclature is fuzzy. Your argument is muddled.

74

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 22:53:34

#77 Carolyn 1

Thanks Carolyn. :)

I am a Tibetian Buddhist going on 12 years now.

I like that we can disagree on some things and then still find common ground.

Have you read any Paul Ricoeur?

75

Djookers,

15/03/2007 22:58:31

#75 Carolyn 1

"To Newton God was his word for 'perfect absolute'"

If as you say old Newton provided proof of a perfect god who created a perfect universe, how do you explain the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which points to a great flaw in all the work that preceded it, and changes how you measure everything at the sub atomic level.

76

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 23:03:17

#75 Carolyn

Sometimes I get a little confused in your argument - some of the things you say are very rooted in a more dogmatic religious tradition, for instance at 59 when you say "And you would have evil conquer us all?", or when you call for the 10 Commandments to be used as a litmus test for public office. Other times you are definitely at a deeper more spiritual level such as when you explain how you see God in string theory and the order of the universe.

Maybe those can't be separated or maybe having the two sideby side is part of the struggle to understand one's own spirituality. It definatly helped me to see the more spiritual side of how you view this.

77

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 23:05:55

#80

Evening Djookers! :)

78

Djookers,

15/03/2007 23:08:17

#82 Bikewoman

good evening Bikewoman

good evening all

79

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 23:08:35

79 Bikewoman
Tibetian is close to my thinking- heatr and mind.
Buddhism is pure. Like the newtonian theories, I can only believe what is believable. The starting point of eternity as creation: the theory that everything was always eevrything and will always be everything is my foundation in God who is everything. (This is Buddhism- in case readers here don't know that.)
Maybe others who are posting will try to understand the concept of everything.

80

Alec in Chicago,

15/03/2007 23:12:02

Hello, Djookers!

----
Correction to 78: eternity is not a *conscious* being.

81

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 23:15:01

The Ten Commandments is part of the Buddhist.
I try to live by "Do no harm.."
Yes, I blieve polticians and those who govern must be held to a high ideal of humanitarianism: that includes endorsing the Ten Commandments (but not a religion)
Howver much I believe in the work of the Dali Lama, I believe the strong must save the weak and help the weak. Truly my heart breaks for the suffering women and children in Iraq. I do support George Bush.
I still feel if anyone can bring peace to the Middle East, it will be someone from Tibet, not America.

82

Alec in Chicago,

15/03/2007 23:15:06

Maybe Carolyn1 will devote more energy to straightening out her arguments and less to condescension.

Good night Djookers!

83

Finnking,

Finland 15/03/2007 23:16:47

72. Bikewoman

Hi!

Spinoza's "On the Correction of the Understanding" was/is fantastic.

84

Finnking,

Finland 15/03/2007 23:24:01

86. Carolyn 1

"I still feel if anyone can bring peace to the Middle East, it will be someone from Tibet, not America"

I'm glad you sid that.

However, applying such philosophy, should it not be, "I still feel if anyone can bring peace to the Middle East, it will be the people from the Middle East, not America/Tibet etc." I.E. a philospohical force (promoting peace and understanding and rejection of capital gain) spread by social interaction.

Smash the Buddha!, I say!

85

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 23:26:24

If as you say old Newton provided proof of a perfect god who created a perfect universe, how do you explain the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which points to a great flaw in all the work that preceded it, and changes how you measure everything at the sub atomic level.


I have a wierd little theory in my head.... think of how it is a swing swings high enough to eventually swing over the top of the swing set....
(this in itself is a mathematical equation)
I believe the uncertainity proof adresses this in a way... there is a point of weakness, where the 'string' warps, yet it is still eternal, once again, positive and negative.... at these opposite warps... one side is stronger and one side is weaker (yet they are still part of the equation although they are now variables, if not constants) Night and day. Sunrise. Sunset. Man. Woman. Death. Life. etc.. etc..
Did I express that to make sense?
Sorry about the spelling.
Sorry about the posting.
I have to log off and come back on?

86

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 23:30:20

I was answering Djookers in the above post.
Really I've had a really really long and intensive day. All I did was post a little poem I just sent for Sarah Lawrence- which they can't discuss because of the US Superior Court!!!

87

Djookers,

15/03/2007 23:30:58

#86 Carolyn 1

"that includes endorsing the Ten Commandments (but not a religion)"

Please explain how you can have the 10 commandments without religion when the following 3 commandments are all about god( a religious figure)


1. You shall have no other Gods but me.
3.You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4.You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.

88

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 23:35:41

#86 Carolyn

Buddhism and in fact all of the world's spiritual traditions share a common ground in terms of ethics. The practice of universal compassion and non-violence (ahimsa) are very close to many Christian values. When Jesus gave the commandment "love thy neighbor as thyself" to supercede the preceding commandments, that really was a commandment to universal compassion. (I was raised Catholic and I never really understood Christianity until I learned about Buddhism.

Buddism does not share a belief in good and evil - that is one of the main differences and one of the reason that evangelical Christianity is so difficult for me to relate to. The Buddhist view of the world is very much a quantum view of the world in which there is one unified field of energy and beyond space, energy and appearance, nothing. For me, the 10 commandments are too much a part of the Evangelical movement for me to be able to embrace them.

I know that you and I don't agree on why we are in Iraq and we don't agree about George W Bush. That is because I believe in my heart that there are selfish and greedy people expoliting human misery for wealth. I also see that you believe with all your heart that we are there to help the people. We will probably never see this the same way.

Ultimately it is the same impulse that makes us feel as strongly as we do, however. We're all on our path up that mountain - can't wait until we meet at the top. ;)

89

Djookers,

15/03/2007 23:36:06

#90 Carolyn 1

What you posted made sense, in that I understood it, unfortunately it was nowhere near Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle, which states briefly that an observer, by the simple act of observing, changes the thing he/she is observing, so it is impossible to observe things as they really are: ie there is always uncertainty in any observation

90

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 23:38:06

#88 Finnking

Thanks! I haven't read that yet. I may pick it up when I am at the Uni tomorrow - I am sure our lirary will have a copy in. :)

91

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 23:40:11

#90 Carolyn

Did you post your poem on here? I would like to read it.

92

Bikewoman,

15/03/2007 23:40:45

Oops - will they even let me into the library if I spell it lirary?

93

Djookers,

15/03/2007 23:42:34

#94

Carolyn 1

If you want/need more information here is a more detailed account of the uncertainty principle,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

94

Djookers,

15/03/2007 23:45:26

Thats me of to me kip, see you all later

95

Penquinboy,

Auckland NZ 15/03/2007 23:45:49

Carolyn 1:

Surely Philosophy is literally "the study of knowledge". The philosophy of Mathematics has so many paradigms that it's frightening, however, some advocate that it is part of logic, formal logic, but is logic not thought? If so then mathematics is no less a priori than any other aspect of philosophical investigation. If not as some would have it you invariable return to the circularity of Cartesian, Kantian, Newtonian "logic" that God is not an evil doer so he wouldn't fool us as in Descarte, or Kronecker's "natural numbers are God's work, everything else comes from man" (apologies if misquoted). These are rationales made to fit beliefs.

96

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 23:47:46

#93
I must confess.
I worked with Barbara Bush years ago, (on the historical committee for Kennebunk, Maine, where they have a summer home) before she was first lady. She is a truly, truly remarkable woman. I remember when Bush made a speech after the attacks... he had been to Japan earlier in the year and then was dealing with a crisis. He spoke about looking into the eyes of the Japanese leader and seing what is possible. Bush is driven to do this because he believes it is the right thing. He truly believes he is helping the women and children. I may not have looked into his eyes, but I looked into his mothers and saw the same compassion...
as my daughter would say-
that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

97

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 23:50:40

This is what happens when you're overworked with a cat on the desk who thinks it can type.. Are we merging postings?

I posted Sir Isaac Newton #17

98

Carolyn 1,

15/03/2007 23:57:20

re the uncertainity principle
When I went to college (Catholic University- where everyone paid someone to pass their religion classes) I lived with a nerd architect who was also a genius. Everything was mathicamtical. he was also a zen buddhist.
At some point I relaized the simplification was a purity for me and gave me clarity.

Imentioned the swings because it is based on a variable within a working equation.. and can only be proven by math... you can't swing over the top of the swing set... yet you can envision it... you can feel it.. yet you have never done or will do it...but that doesn't mean it can't be done..

99

Bikewoman,

16/03/2007 00:00:33

Cya Djookers - have a great evening!

100

Bikewoman,

16/03/2007 00:02:53

#102 Carolyn

I think it may be that your posts and kitties are merging or at least passing like ships in the night - I thought I saw something about catnip up there...

101

Carolyn 1,

16/03/2007 00:04:37

#100
Logic is thought, Yes.
I think logically, at least I try to.
Howver, Just by reading the postings you must realize few people think logically. They go to school, learn what is taught and then pass the test without ever having to think it rfom beginning to end.
There is knowledge in learning something from the point of infancy to the logical end.
Is that the philosophy?
I actually refer to my 'style' of thinking as a creative logic. being able to think beyond the box that education places over us..

102

Carolyn 1,

16/03/2007 00:40:24

#78
Alec: " Eternity is not a being. "


Eternity IS being because eternity is everything.
Its hard to understand Alec but when you understand it you'll understand 'everything'
I am eternity.
I am being.
I am everything.
The alternative is to accept that everything is nothing, but nothing is an impossibility.

103

Penquinboy,

Auckland NZ 16/03/2007 00:49:38

#106 Yep that's all good, I guess that was why I chose philosophy, I find it very satisfying because one is encouraged to think and keep thinking. Rote learning is good for the 3 R's but not much else.
Better go and do some work now!

104

US Mother,

middle US 16/03/2007 02:15:07

whew- this story thread went from being about a politician who stated he"didn't believe in God" to the whole "my religion is better if YOU only understood it"- poppycock I say- we all can CHOOSE to believe or not...I for one DO believe! Remember the "religion" itself and the dogma of any given religion was put to word by man.
Ask most brain surgeons if they believe in a "God" and they will tell you even if they didn't before they became doctors, they cannot help but believe it now.
As far as the mathematical side to the world- everything can be broken down to equations - one book I have read and reread many times and STILL cannot understand all of it it "_The Mind Of God"- "Proving God exists in a mathmatical world"- apparently I did NOT pay enough attention to quantom physics in college as I still get lost in chapters...
my really deep deep belief n God came the first time I looked into one of my children's eyes........what a gift God loaned me-........

As far as the politician being so "brave" to say he doesn't believe in God- good...maybe heaven will be free of politicians.......they all tend to think of the MAJORITY of themselves as supreme beings anyhow once they have tasted the corruption of power.

105

unclesmrgol,

Culver City, California, USA 16/03/2007 05:03:30

#7 Djookers

Stark is making a statement about his faith. To state that he is a Unitarian gives everyone a reference point to rate him as to how well he follows the moral precepts of his faith. I note that under Unitarianism belief in God is optional, but the moral system it requires is not.

As you point out, statements about religion are very common from politicians. I take them as a means by which to associate a moral compass against the person. To the extent that the person follows the moral compass of their proclaimed religion, I rate them as truthful; to the extent that they do not, I rate them a liar.

Additionally, if a person claims to be of a particular faith, and I have no other data for the person, I am able to compare the stated beliefs of that faith against my own moral compass and make a decision about my desirability of that person to hold office.

For example, I am quite aware of the moral imperatives my own Roman Catholic faith places on my behavior. For Catholic politicians, I expect the same deference to imperative: attend Mass (commune with your fellow religionists), follow the Great Commandment, do no sins of omission (in which you fail to act against evil), nor abortions, nor divorce.

The last prohibition is amusing to me; when the newspapers make much to do about Mitt Romney's Mormonism and his family's history of polygamy, when he is one of the few aspirants to the high office who has been married exactly once to exactly one woman. Rudy Giuliani claims to be a devout Catholic, but has divorced twice and married thrice. (I'm neither against Giuliani nor for Romney, but you get the picture -- as you claim to judge yourself, so are you judged).

From what I just stated above, you can sense where this all goes. We each develop by sundry means (including the teachings of any religion we follow) our own moral compass (the two Buddhists posting above can surely relate to that), and we then rate polit

106

Bikewoman,

16/03/2007 13:43:16

#110 unclesmrgol

Well put. As one of the Buddhists posting here I do indeed agree with what you say about each of us developing our own moral compass.

Religion can be a good thing, but all too often it becomes a way for a person to impose what they believe on others, i.e., project our image on the world as though this were the norm. Unfortunately in the case of religion, people attempt to claim that their imerative to do so comes from God. Or by claiming some benevolent motivation - "I am slaughtering these indigenous people so that I can convert them and save them from Hell."

Ultimately we create our higher truth (whether a being, the ordering principle of the universe etc.) in our own image, and we cannot do otherwise because we are constrained by the limitations of human cognition. That is the best we can do - the only harm comes in denying others their experience of the numinous by imposing our own will and our own beliefs on them.

107

Bikewoman,

16/03/2007 13:49:50

#109 US Mother

"As far as the politician being so "brave" to say he doesn't believe in God- good...maybe heaven will be free of politicians......."

This sounds alot like what you call " 'my religion is better if YOU only understood it'- poppycock"

As for chosing to believe - there is no volition in belief. It isn't something that is actively chosen - it is experienced. This is just a way of making a "virtue" out of some characteristic you ascribe to yourself much in the same way that some straight people inisist that being straight is a choice - and hence somehow a "virtue."

108

funboy,

World 16/03/2007 23:49:42

Wow - is he in trouble! He needs to review the US Constitution as amended by George W. Bush.

I cannot find a way to show it here, but if you want to see the gif, email me at funboy1@rogers.com

Or let me know how I can post the image here if it is possible. I assure you it is not vulgar.

109

Djookers,

17/03/2007 00:02:39

#109 US Mother

"one book I have read and reread many times and STILL cannot understand all of it it "_The Mind Of God"- "Proving God exists in a mathmatical world"- "

The bit "Proving God exists in a mathmatical world" are your own words I take it, the book does not prove god exists mathematically or otherwise and I doubt a mathematician would use the word mathmatical

I would more take your next statement

"my really deep deep belief n God came the first time I looked into one of my children's eyes........what a gift God loaned me-........"

as a better proof of the existence of god,but only to you on a personal level

110

funboy,

world 17/03/2007 00:16:43

Sorry - somehow #113 was posted to the wrong site. Was intended for the McGreevey article - I am at a loss to explain how this happened.

111

funboy,

world 17/03/2007 01:11:53

See Descartes' Meditations for his proof of god's existence. He was first a mathematician (often referred to as the "Father of modern mathematics") and second a philosopher.

He did not reason on any religion's definition of god, rather he used rational thought to prove the existence of god as the supreme and perfect being.

His work on this proof was originally banned by the Vatican and placed on the prohibited reading list - probably giving it even more widespread a distribution.

Many argue that his "proof" has flaws. That may be, but it is still an interesting read.

And Nietzsche, in writing "God Is Dead", did not literally mean that god was actually dead (I don't think he actually believed in god). His writings were to explore the concept and convince people that the human race no longer had a need to believe in the existence of god.

However, I think he was wrong. The children of god (us I guess) have made god sick and St. Peter has been in charge for quite some time - but he is inept. That's why the world has been so messed up for so long. You figure out when he started. :)))


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.