Political Faith

Rep Pete Stark, (D-California) has become the first congressman to declare that he is atheist. This makes Stark the highest ranking elected official in US history to publicly acknowledge that he doesn’t believe in God, or any other supreme being. Political annalists claim that Stark has little to fear over his proclamation, as California is one of the most, if not the most secular state in the Union. Claims were made by others that such a proclamation just a few years ago, would have been “political suicide”.

Let me see if I have this straight. A congressman declares that he is atheist, that he doesn’t believe in a mysterious, unprovable conjecture with no supporting empirical data of any kind, and this would constitute “political suicide”?

If that doesn’t give a prime example as to the dangers of mixing religion and politics in general, I don’t know what does.

Frankly, I’d rather have a political servant devoid of dangerous delusions and immune to the wiles and wills of any religious organization, than one who firmly believes in the unprovable assertions of any supernatural dogma. Why is it that ignorance and uncritical thinking are given merit in someones personality, anyway?

The facts are simple: there is not a single religion that has been able to prove that their religious beliefs are valid. There is not a single religion that has been able to even provide the tiniest shred of evidence for the existence of their god, or any other god. They depend entirely on faith: belief in spite of lack of evidence or the presence of contrary evidence.

Putting aside all religious questions for the moment, is there anyone who can logically argue that electing individuals who believe things that have no evidence to support the belief, is a good thing? You would think that just a casual glance at the Bush administration would be proof of the dangers of belief without evidence.