kelticwizard wrote:georgeob1 wrote:The seating was informal at three or so circular tables.
If the seating was informal, which means that you can sit in any chair, and the woman wasn't sitting in the chair in question, what exactly made it "her" chair?
Read what I wrote. You are merely being obstinate without reason.
George:
I read what you wrote. And the more you explain it, the more it looks like Stark just wasn't as bad as you portray him.
It looks to me there is a distinct possiblity that Stark came univited to a lunch because there was a Congressman he wanted to see, saw people standing around, chairs were around a table but nobody was sitting, so he grabbed a chair and started talking to that Congressman on official business.
And yes, the proximity of the woman to the chair might or might not indicate she was thinking of sitting at that spot, (although she could sit in any spot in an informal arrangement). And yes, a super polite person might ask if he can take the chair because he needs to talk to somebody. And maybe Stark did brush against her in taking the chair in the room. But if that is what happened, then we have a case of someone being a little bit pushy in a situation where he had some important business.
Have you ever been pushier then normal because you had to do something important? I have. Normally I go out of my way to be polite. Pedestrians and bicyclists have waved their appreciation at me for pulling my car back from the crosswalk when I catch a red light, allowing them to pass unimpeded. Yet if I have somewhere important to be quickly and I happen to be in a store or supermarket, I have been known to scoot quickly into a line just a moment before another customer leisurely gets there. If I am not in a hurry, I would get behind them-but not this time.
We could go on and on about this, George, and maybe if I were there, I would think differently. But as it stands now, I just can't get excited by this. And I have BBB's word Stark is not like that, which also weighs in the decision. So I'll just let the others viewing this thread decide for themselves.
Just curious. Has Stark's announcement drawn any political fire or backlash yet?
Any evangelicals coming forth to denounce Congress for having Stark among their members? How about talk radio, or other conservative outlets?
I would think the evangelicals might be a little hesitant in going after him after what happened with Robertson and his public call to assassinate Venezuela's Chavez.
kelticwizard.
Your reading comprehension appears to be a bit selective. Here again is the relevant piece;
georgeob1 wrote:The lunch in question was just that - a lunch, no formal discussion. It was held in the offices of the District Committee in the Rayburn office Building, through the courtesy of then Rep. Ron Dellums - a figure with whom I disagree politically (rather strongly), but whom as a person I rather admire. The seating was informal at three or so circular tables. Stark showed up at the last moment (he was not a scheduled attendee), looked around the table and appeared to pick the least consequential appearing person and took the chair behind which she was standing, literally shoving her aside.
I believe Stark had something he wanted to say to one of the state representatives in the group and that motivated his presence. I gave my seat to the young woman in question, but it was evident that the incident had already taken away the magic of the experience for her.
"Importance" is an often subjective thing. What was important to the young woman was different from what was important to the esteemed Mr. Stark. As humans they have equal importance and value. I can assure you that the matters we were discussing on the lobbying trip were not of great transcendent importance. Moreover we were all scheduled to meet again later in the day. As I indicated the woman was preparing to sit when he literally shoved her aside.
What explains your unwillingness to accept the obvious content of plain language?
George
George, why do you insist in subverting the topic of this thread with your table seating saga? We keep trying to return to the topic and you keep posting about whose ass is in which chair.
Are you more interested in asses that an atheist congressman?
BBB
Maybe redirect your impaired ire towards kelticwizard who keeps bringing it up?
Re: George
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:George, why do you insist in subverting the topic of this thread with your table seating saga? We keep trying to return to the topic and you keep posting about whose ass is in which chair.
Are you more interested in asses that an atheist congressman?
BBB
Who cares if he is an atheist. No more suprising then someone coming forth and saying they are a Christian.
The only time I would see it as an issue is if he has compained for the last 30 some odd years as a Christian. I haven't heard that he has done this so it is none issue.
Re: George
Baldimo wrote:No more suprising then someone coming forth and saying they are a Christian.
C'mon....admit that it's just a
little more surprising....
Re: George
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:George, why do you insist in subverting the topic of this thread with your table seating saga? We keep trying to return to the topic and you keep posting about whose ass is in which chair.
Are you more interested in asses that an atheist congressman?
BBB
What then is the topic of this thread?? I believe your opening post was clear in its references to his outstanding character. Is that not the topic?
I think the responses already have shown that most people don't give a particular damn about his personal beliefs about God or no God.
I have not yet observed any "keep trying to return to the topic..." behavior on the part of either you or kelticwizard. Quite the contrary...
At least I keep
trying to return to the topic.
Which is more than can be said for others here.
So far, the reaction from the religious community in Starks' district has been
fairly positive.
Quote:Kevin Hom, associate pastor at the evangelical Fremont Community Church, didn't think Stark's beliefs were a big deal.
"I commend him for being public about his real feelings," he said.
Now, is it possible for all of you to keep the thread on topic from here on? The rest of us can only pray that you can.
kelticwizard wrote:Now, is it possible for all of you to keep the thread on topic from here on? The rest of us can only pray that you can.
A truly remarkable statement coming as it does from you.
The fact is that the atheism issue has proved to be a dud. No one cares.
Perhaps because it really wasn't given a chance to get started?
Pete Stark declares himself the first non-theist Congressman in history, and he does so right in the middle of a public debate about the political power, or lack of same, of the Christian fundamentalist right.
With all the discussion of the power of the fundamentalists for the past three decades, certainly this deserves a chance for discussion?
Well, then we shall both wait and see what ensues. So far there doesn't seem to be much interest -- even from you.
I don't think Stark actually "declared hiomself to be the first atheistic Congressman in history" as you stated. He marely acknowledged his own beliefs. I doubt that anyone was either surprised or offended. Overall a very underwhelming event, and hardly the stuff of heroics as, perhaps, has been implied.
He didn't declare himself to be the first non-theist in Congress, he declared himself a non-theist on a survey. However, nobody seems to be able to recall any other declared non-theists in Congress or the Senate.
Though I don't have any specifics, I'm confident that there are and have been many in the Congress and Government who doubt or don't believe in the existence of a creator. I also suspect that most people assume that too, and that few really care. We shall see.
georgeob1 wrote:Though I don't have any specifics, I'm confident that there are and have been many in the Congress and Government who doubt or don't believe in the existence of a creator. I also suspect that most people assume that too, and that few really care. We shall see.
Interestingly, when asked what qualities would get them/keep them from voting for a president, Atheist ranked the lowest.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Though I don't have any specifics, I'm confident that there are and have been many in the Congress and Government who doubt or don't believe in the existence of a creator. I also suspect that most people assume that too, and that few really care. We shall see.
Interestingly, when asked what qualities would get them/keep them from voting for a president, Atheist ranked the lowest.
Cycloptichorn
Ranked the lowest as in people could care less?
georgeob1 wrote:Though I don't have any specifics, I'm confident that there are and have been many in the Congress and Government who doubt or don't believe in the existence of a creator. I also suspect that most people assume that too, and that few really care. We shall see.
Cyclptichorn wrote:Interestingly, when asked what qualities would get them/keep them from voting for a president, Atheist ranked the lowest.
and yet this
2003 Pew Report indicates that fewer Americans would vote for an atheist than other religious groups.
Quote:At the same time, significant numbers of Americans say they would be reluctant to vote for a presidential candidate even if generally well-qualified if the candidate was a member of a specific faith. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) say they would not vote for a well-qualified Muslim for president, and 15% express concern about voting for a well-qualified evangelical Christian. Far fewer say they would not vote for a Jewish (10%) or Catholic (8%) candidate. But fully half say they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist.
Conflicting results?
So far I've gathered this much from this thread:
1) Most people -- including most A2K posters -- don't give a rat's ass about the religious convictions (or lack thereof) of Congressmen in general and Pete Stark in particular;
2) Many people -- including most A2K posters -- will, however, take any excuse to participate in an online donnybrook.
Good going, guys. Speak loudly and carry a powder-puff. It's why I love A2K.
Baldimo wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:georgeob1 wrote:Though I don't have any specifics, I'm confident that there are and have been many in the Congress and Government who doubt or don't believe in the existence of a creator. I also suspect that most people assume that too, and that few really care. We shall see.
Interestingly, when asked what qualities would get them/keep them from voting for a president, Atheist ranked the lowest.
Cycloptichorn
Ranked the lowest as in people could care less?
As in, they would be least likely to vote for someone with said characteristics.
The list actually went, in descending order:
Black
Woman
Divorced
Old
Mormon
Atheist
So, there you have it.
Cycloptichorn
