Concerned Women for America attacks Pete Stark for his "godlessness"

[ck4829]

It has been a few days since it was first reported that Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) is a self-described “Unitarian who does not believe in a Supreme Being'' (i.e., an atheist) and the Right has been strangely silent.

But now Concerned Women for America has stepped forward as the first right-wing organization to publicly criticize Stark:

"It is unfortunate in a society that is going down the path of godlessness and making right wrong and wrong right, that we continue down this path by celebrating one member of Congress who denies that God exists altogether," Concerned Women for America Director of Legislative Relations Mike Mears told Cybercast News Service.

"The founding fathers ... founded this country on godly principles," Mears said. "Fifty-one of the 56 signers had a Christian worldview and wants to change that and celebrate - basically - godlessness."

…

"I think a Christian worldview is proper for a politician to have," he said. "I want them to be looking outside of themselves for answers to big issues."

Considering that CWA’s Founder and Chairman Beverly LaHaye, wife of “Left Behind” author Tim LaHaye, reportedly believes that “politicians who do not use the Bible to guide their public and private lives do not belong in office,” it is not surprising that CWA would be seem to be openly advocating a religious test for all those who hold public office.

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/cwas_religion_t.html

[Solly Mack]

1. Fuck CWA

and everyone that thinks like they do

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. Yes. With a pineapple. Sideways. -nt

[paparush]

10. YEOUCH!! nt

[progdonkey]

3. 51 of 56 also thought a black man was three fifths a human...

...and deserved to be in chains.

Also, why did I know that the person from Concerned Women for America was going to be a guy? :eyes:

Reminds me of that "black" Republican group that had Tom Delay (I think) as one of its senior fellows.

[crikkett]

15. whoa now they didn't neccessarily believe it, but they did agree to it.

Just like our Dem congressmen don't *believe* we should fund war in Iraq or allow the President and VP to continue to sit in office, but they agree to it.

I know that actions matter, not belief, but I'm just sayin.

[progdonkey]

22. oh, I know...

It was much more like only 30 of the signers truly believed in slavery, etc., but I was just pointing out that, even if it were true that "51 of 56 of the signers believed" in God (and considering it's coming from a right wing idiot like this guy, I find it highly dubious), the idea of looking to them as the final arbiters of how this country should be now is misguided at best.

Besides, like you said, actions and beliefs are what's really important, and the fact is that these 51 supposedly God-fearing Christians all voted to pass a founding document that doesn't mention God or Jesus a single time.

[ieoeja]

28. Nobody believed that.

The US Constitution says slave owners are entitled to more representatives in the US Congress than non-slave owners because the slave owner's representatives would have to also consider the needs of their human property.

I believe it was wrong to reward people for owning slaves by giving them greater representation in US Congress. You either believe slavers should have had more power over this country, or you weren't paying attention to what that portion of the US Constitution said.

[HardRocker05]

29. how much was a black woman worth? but yeah, 'christian' values included slavery, woman-chattel laws

wiping out the indians and stealing their land, etc... but hey, at least nobody was supporting gay marriage.

[M155Y_A1CH]

4. Crazy loonys

I guess he's not superstitious enough for them.

[terrya]

5. Hatemongering bigots.

The "Concerned Women of America" are nothing more than hatemongers. They are always around to spew their brand of bigotry in regard to GLBT issues. I'm sure they were all getting their panties moist in reaction to Peter Pace's comments the other day, for example.

As it was said on this thread...fuck the CWA. With a chain studded dildo.

[Olney Blue]

6. "Concerned" is code word for "judgemental".

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Or "Uninformed"

The Professor

[Eric J in MN]

7. I'm not sure who their "Fifty-one of the 56 signers had a Christian worldview"

...are, but that same argument would mean that Jews can't serve in government.

Anyway, Thomas Jefferson was so opposed to the supernatural things in the Bible that he published his own bible with all the miracles etc. taken out.

[Richard Steele]

12. Yes, that's exactly what it would mean. And I suspect they'd support that interpretation...

...just not PUBLICLY. Wouldn't be prudent.

[donco6]

30. They don't accept that the FF "worldview" would not . . .

. . . match at ALL with the current day fundamentalist Christian world view.

[PA Democrat]

8. This world would be a hell of a lot better off if we judged people

NOT by their purported spiritual beliefs, but rather by their actual deeds.

These "concerned" women perhaps should spend some time looking at the evil criminals that they have helped come to power in this country. They should look at the suffering and death that these people have wrought, and examine their own useless lives.

[Vinca]

9. If ever there was a case against Bible-thumping politicians, it's our current

fearless leader. He talks to God and apparently God tells him to kill a hundred thousand innocent people in Iraq. Yeah, we need more of those.

[Eric J in MN]

11. The ending of the article is pleasant.

The nontheist got "83,909 of the 113,102 votes cast" (74%) last time, and so hopefully he'll still win if he runs again.

[Lobster Martini]

13. So who were the unholy five?

If 51 of 56 signers had a Christian view of the world, who were the other five, and why does Concerned Women for America have a guy named Mike speaking for them?

[Eric J in MN]

16. Good point. If Pete Stark has something in common with five of....

...the signers of the Declaration of Independence, good for him.

[Skinner]

17. I was wondering that myself.

Who were the five non-Christians who signed the Declaration of Independence? Did they have a different religion, or none?

I'm kind of surprised that the CWA would say "51 of the 56" instead of just saying they were all Christian. Nobody would have bothered to check. It seems to me that the current makeup of the House of Representatives (434 believers v. 1 non-believer) would compare favorably in their view to the 51-5 that signed the Declaration.

:shrug:

[Skinner]

18. I found the answer -- and it doesn't speak too well of the CWA

Religious Affiliation         # of signers   % of signers   
Episcopalian/Anglican              32          57.1%
Congregationalist                  13          23.2%
Presbyterian                       12          21.4%
Quaker                              2           3.6%
Unitarian or Universalist           2           3.6%
Catholic                            1           1.8%
TOTAL                              56           100%

Source: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html#Declaration

The guy said "Fifty-one of the 56 signers (of the Declaration of Independence) had a Christian worldview". So, who are the five that the CWA does not consider to hold a Christian worldview? This is my best guess:

Two Unitarians/Universalists -- OK, I'll give them this one. UU does spring from the Christian tradition, but members are not required to be Christian. They're not even required to believe in God.

Two Quakers -- Um, Quakers are Christian. But they tend to be liberals, which might explain their exclusion here.

ONE CATHOLIC?!?!?!?!?! -- Apparently the CWA doesn't consider Catholics to be Christian.

Here is the complete list of names and religious affiliations: http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html#Declaration

It is also possible that the CWA was including the Quakers and excluding the two individuals listed as "Episcopalian (Deist)" -- Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. But that would still exclude the single Catholic, who is necessary to get a total of five.

[rockymountaindem]

25. Skinner: The evangelical fundamentalists don't consider Catholics to be Christians

I've heard them repeatedly refer to Catholicism as a "cult", so I'd lay odds that these oddballs at CWA aren't fond of the Catholics themselves.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. The born-agains' dirty little secret: it's not just Jack Chick.

I had one come into my house and tell that in my face. I'm an atheist, but I felt like she was insulting my deceased mother. And she was.

Kind of like with the Mormons and that "Mark of Cain" thing. I had two Mormon "elders" (a pair of young men they sent through the world to preach) tell me that black skin was God's curse to Cain. In public, they say they "don't teach that anymore." Yeah, right.

[no_hypocrisy]

14. Memo to CWA: William Howard Taft (President/Chief Justice) was a Unitarian.

We've had a godfree White House before and we'll do it again.

[tanyev]

19. And yet Beverly and Tim LaHaye have no problem with maintaining

a very long relationship with Rev. Moon and speaking at conferences hosted by him.

[Clark2008]

20. I'm a concerned woman in america...

I'm concerned that this group is besmirching my gender.

[Tsiyu]

21. CWA doesn't have a 'Christian" Worldview

The terms "godly" and "Christian" are not interchangeable.

When people say "godly" they mean "just like me."

But this Christ they claim to follow said "Do not JUDGE others."

So, they may call themselves "godly" (meaning, my husband diddles little boys in secret but doesn't his preacher haircut look sqeaky clean????) but when they judge other people as unfit, immoral, etc., they are most definitely NOT following the tenets laid out in the Bobble by Christ himself.


Oh, wait. You can call yourself a "Christian" these days while practicing NONE of what Christ taught.....Sorry. I forgot.


Reason # 48,547 why I could never call myself a "christian."

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Wonder What She Thinks About Lieberman

I'm quite sure he does not have a "christian world view".

[Zenlitened]

26. Once again, Concerned "Women" for Amerika couldn't find a woman...

... to communicate their position on an issue.

:eyes:

[ComerPerro]

31. shouldn't they be in the kitchen, shutting up?

that's the "traditional value" they want to preserve, right?

I mean, they want to fight progress and social reforms, and turn back the clock?

Why don't they just jump into the "traditional" role of women, serve their conservative asshole men, and leave everyone else the fuck alone?


Oh, wait, that's right. They enjoy taking advantage of rights that other women, women they profess to hate, earned for them.

[OHdem10]

32. These Republicans who say they do not to impose

Religion on others. As a Catholic I find this passing
"Christian Judgement " on others offensive.

Sometimes it is better to ignore than call attention.
It only hurts you in the long run.