They Even Live Among Us!

I'm still not sure how comfortable I am with the Secular Coalition's "outing" of Rep. Pete Stark. It reminds me of that weird week before the election when everyone was obsessed with outing gay representatives. I came to understand that it may be useful to show hypocrisy in people who legislate against themselves, but still seemed trashy. As a "bitter atheist", I love knowing that while I'm in a minority that makes a large part of the country incredibly uncomfortable, I'm not alone. And at least one representative admits to not holding a belief in God. However, this feels trashy. Offering $1,000 to "out" the highest-level nontheist?

It seems like the Secular Coalition's time would be better spent analyzing the voting records of current representatives rather than their deeply held beliefs (or lack thereof). Yes, this feeds my desire to feel less ostracized from politics. Yes, this puts into the forefront how uncomfortable people are electing people who don't believe in God (hell, look at Ellison- we have a hard time electing people who don't believe in the right God). However, it's trashy. It puts the spotlight even more on atheist or agnostic representatives and how "different" they are, and it's going to provide a great mailer for religious right groups.

Rep. Stark has a history of voting for the separation of church and state, and that's really the only thing that matters. I haven't heard much about him before today, but it doesn't seem like he's hidden his religious beliefs at all. Rather than creating dividing lines by religion, just keep dividing lines on whether or not the legislator votes to keep the separation of church and state. That's it. I don't think the cause is helped by setting up more categories to differentiate representatives. I could be wrong though, and I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts. Especially those of my bitter atheist friends.