  |
|
|
|
Study of Pete Stark (Cal-Democrat) and how a lack of belief in a Supreme Being affects legislation in government.
U.S. Representative Pete Stark (D-Cal) has become the face of future politics. This thin, gray-haired Liberal with an impish grin serves the 13th district of California. He is currently turning politics inside out with a single declaratory statement : "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." "I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services" (3/13/07, Los Angeles Times). This is a study of how his atheistic stance may have influenced his political legislation. Pete Stark entered Congress in 1973. He graduated from MIT, attended UC at Berkeley earning a MBA, and as a businessman and banker, he opened "Security National Bank" in Walnut Creek, California, in 1963. Last summer he told the Washington Times that the death of terrorist Abu Musab Zarqawi was "just to cover Bush’s [rear]" (6/8/06) and then objected to the war in Iraq. Stark is currently Chair of the Ways and Means Healthcare Subcommittee dealing with issues on Medicare and public assistance. Opponents say the "Stark Law" legislation on compensation between Medicare and physicians was too complex and interfered with doctors participating in managed care programs. Proponents advocate his long-standing record for peace, reproductive freedom and protecting the environment. Stark’s past voting record is shaky, particularly surrounding faith-based initiatives. This is probably why NARAL and the ACLU whole-heartedly endorse him, but the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family do not. He voted YES on stem cell research and legalizing medical marijuana, but NO on banning same sex marriage (9/4); NO on AMBER alerts for missing children (4/3); NO on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance (the "under God" language presumably) (9/4); and NO on vouchers for private schools (11/97). Stark is Chair of Starr King School of Ministry in Berkeley run by the Unitarian/Universalists. Founded in 1904 with an "intention to do good," there were no women until 1981. They advocate: 1) mental freedom in religion; 2) unrestricted use of reason; and 3) generous tolerance of religious views rather than an insistence on uniformity in religious doctrine. By now this should be setting off alarm bells for voters content to sit back and watch a kind of "survival of the fittest" among the religious occur. Politicians may not endorse your faith or even be religiously rational. This makes Pete Stark an interesting figure in politics. Although he champions the underdog, there may be a price to be paid. For example, he promoted cutting waste in social programs, but voted NO to work and marriage incentives (faith based no doubt) to recipients receiving assistance (2/03). Further, in his determination to get the U.S. out of Iraq, he may have forgotten why we went there in the first place. The US Constitution guarantees no religious discrimination when running for office. Separation of church and state, which in essence means Congress shall pass no law stipulating a preference for one religion over another would also mean that a candidate having no religion or belief in God would also be protected. However, If a politician says they can depend upon nothing greater than oneself to decide matters with far reaching consequences, then we can thank Stark for the heads-up. But for those Americans whose ethical center rests upon a governing God, the God-less politician who has turned out the light might not appeal.
The copyright of the article Pete Stark Politics Without God in US Elections is owned by Cynthia Smaagaard. Permission to republish Pete Stark Politics Without God in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
