Eco-Hero of the Month: Representative Pete Stark
First of all, an admission: I haven’t followed Fortney “Pete” Stark, Jr.’s long political career for much more than 48 hours. That is, not since it was announced that Stark has publicly acknowledged that he does not believe in a supreme being. That’s right, Stark is the United States of America’s first congressman and highest-ranking elected official to come out of the closet as a bonafide atheist. That he’s the first and only absolutely flabberglasts me.
Why does his declaration of non-belief make Stark an eco-hero? I’ll tell you why: Because as an atheist and humanist, Stark believes that moral values are relative to human experience. To quote that source that should never be quoted, Wikipedia:
“Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationalism.”
Now, let me ask the perhaps obvious follow-up question: Who do you value as a leader more highly - a person who makes decisions based on rationalism and the desire to do right by his or her fellow humans simply for the sake of doing right OR a person whose decisions are governed by the fear of eternal suffering in a lake of molten lava? Me, I’m going with the guy who does right because it’s the right thing to do, because the other guy is only doing right for personal reward. You follow? Christians, God bless ‘em, do good so that they can get something at the end - admission to a fabulous palace lined with streets of gold. By definition, there’s no such thing as a selfless Christian. Atheists, hell, they’re not keeping score as they go. For them, the only reward is in the here and now.
Back to the eco-hero bit. I’ll sum this up quickly as I’m late for a hot date with my pillow and blanket. Compelled as they are to do good for rational, human-centered reasons, atheists tend to come to the conclusion rather quickly that what is good for humanity is continued existence on this planet, as we’ve nowhere else to go. In short, atheists are natural naturalists. Perfect environmentalists. They don’t waste time parsing words, quibbling over “dominion” vs. “stewardship” issues. Stark, by finally making it okay for atheists to run for public office (maybe it won’t be easy, but Stark is the new Jackie Robinson - and the parallel is a hell of a lot stronger than one would think), has paved the way for rationalism to do battle on a more even footing with the religious doctrine that permeates U.S. government - and, woah Nellie, but this is a very, very good thing for the environment.
Song O’ the Day time. Yes, it’s a REALLY OBVIOUS choice, but how can I not drag out R.E.M. for this one? [audio:religion.mp3]
Tags: environment, news, Politics, Ruminations
First of all, I’m happy to hear that we have a openly non-theist member in the House. But let me correct some factual mistakes here:
Stark didn’t say he was an atheist, in fact he said he wasn’t. In a questionnaire submitted by the SCA, Stark answered “Yes” to the statement “I am a non-theist,” a term the questionnaire defined as “a humanist, atheist or other freethinker who does not believe in a supreme being or beings.”. He didn’t select “atheist” in the same questionnaire (which others did), so clearly he doesn’t self-identify as an atheist.
Stark didn’t pave the way for the election of other non-theists. He was already elected, having been in Congress for over 30 years, before “coming out”. If he wins re-election, he may make a tiny difference (he’s a super-incumbent, almost guaranteed to win unless he kills someone). Jackie Robinson didn’t hide the fact that he was black until after he made the team … for 30 years, so please don’t compare the two. They’re not even in the same ballpark ;).
Stark is not the first church-going Unitarian to be in Congress. He’s right there with many of the Founding Fathers in this. He isn’t the only non-theist either - there are several buddhists in the House.
So, I’m happy to hear this news, but let’s not get carried away here. It is miniscule progress.
I do have some other comments.
“Me, I’m going with the guy who does right because it’s the right thing to do, because the other guy is only doing right for personal reward.”
There are immoral believers and moral non-believers. Anyone who considers religious belief in chosing their representation is sorely misguided. That includes chosing non-believers just because they are non-believers. Whether or not one believes in a supreme being is entirely irrelevant to their voting behaviour.
” They don’t waste time parsing words, quibbling over “dominion†vs. “stewardship†issues. “
Pet peeve of mine: I’ve never read or seen a real discussion on “dominion versus stewardship” between believers. Have you? Aside from some crackpots, I don’t know any theist that would argue that the world is ours to do with as we please, without regard to how we leave it for future generations. Similarly, atheists could argue that the lack of a god means that we can do whatever we darn well want to without regard for others, or that it means that we should do what is best for humanity as a whole. But aside from some real crackpots (Objectivists, for instance), I don’t see many atheists arguing for utter selfishness and against altruism.
The environmentalist movement is largely christian, and it better be if it is to be of any importance to the US. Based on the ARIS data, there are about 2 million atheists, agnostics, humanists and secularists in the US, i.e. about 1% of the adult population. It should therefore be obvious that painting religious belief as anti-environmental is very, very counter-productive.
How is it possible that you’ve spent your entire life living in a world full of Christians and yet act like you know so little about the religion? “Christians, God bless ‘em, do good so that they can get something at the end” is either willful ignorance — are you so insecure about your beliefs that you have to misrepresent someone else’s to look superior? — or else just a pointless stirring of the pot, to what end other than make more enemies, I don’t know.
And I echo the first commenter — most environmentalists in this country are Christians. Duh. Can you think about that for a second? You should be trying to build bridges instead of insulting people.
Endorendil -
Nice points, all. By \”paving the way\” I meant that the discussion about his belief system is vital to starting the process of incorporating \”non-believers\” into government. Like you said, it\’s a baby step. Also, I do recall battles of this issue, pointed out to me during my years as a Religious Studies student. The Southern Baptists, in particular, seem to rally around the \’dominion\’ interpretation, if memory serves (which it may not). I agree with your assement, and have been posting on the topic of the necessity to incorporate Christians into the eco-battle. However, from time to time I think it\’s fun to poke a little fun at a (generalization, yes) overwhelmingly defensive bunch, especially as represented by the current administration - the type of religious belief that IS very anti-environmental and the type of religious belief that has been supported by 50% of the voting population. While it may not be reflective of the belief of these voters, they do endorse it nonetheless. Oh, nice \”ballpark\” comment. Heh. Maybe I should have invoked Larry Doby instead, in deference to your point that Stark isn\’t a bonafide pioneer?
Charles -
My words reflect quite accurately the motivating power of millions of U.S. Christians. Christianity is, especially as represented by Catholocism, a fear-based religion. At one time, it was clearly based on LOVE and little more, but one will be hard pressed to find that reflected in the religious positions of those who have been voted into office as Christian representatives of our nation to the world. As for building bridges, I agree with you. However, as I stated above, the Stark news was just too juicy to resist needling the far-right Christians, who won\’t be coming \’round to the eco-table in this lifetime. The rest, well, they are secure enough in their faith to not be bothered whatsoever by my comments, as they look upon me, and the rest of the world, with nothing but love. For a true Christian to be turned off by my words is not at all possible - too many of Jesus\’ teachings must be denied for this to transpire. I don\’t mean this as a cynical statement, though I fear it will be interpreted as such. Further, given the whimsical nature of this blog, my regular readers understand that much of my \’venom\’ is utter nonsense. There are true bridge builders out there, and while I\’ve tried my hand at it, I discovered years ago that my hands are not those of a carpenter.
Oh, and it is worth repeating that our Founding Fathers were non-Christians. Not atheists, but not Christian. Their belief system can be accurately divined in Albert Pike\’s \”Morals and Dogma.\”