Merry Andrew wrote: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.
I disagree with your first observation. Fully half of voters claim they wouldn't vote for an atheist. That tells me that many peole do care, whether they admit it on A2K or not.
Well, Pete Stark will be up for reelection next year and we will all get to see whether his announcement makes any difference. My bet is that it won't.
He is my Congressman, and I will vote against him. However that will be because, in my view, (1) he favors excess government intervention in our lives and (2) he is a mean-spirited, self-centered ass-hole. The atheism won't influence me one way or the other.
georgeob1 wrote:Well, Pete Stark will be up for reelection next year and we will all get to see whether his announcement makes any difference. My bet is that it won't.
He is my Congressman, and I will vote against him. However that will be because, in my view, (1) he favors excess government intervention in our lives and (2) he is a mean-spirited, self-centered ass-hole. The atheism won't influence me one way or the other.
Fortunately, he's going to cruise to a safe win despite your Republican-based dislike of him.
Cycloptichorn
Then you evidently agree that the atheism red herring is a non-issue.
I don't know Stark's voting record/representation record, but given he's the Democrat in the running, I'd probably vote for him. But.. I don't necessarily assume George's take on him as rude (etc.) is all from Republican bias.
I once worked with a fellow who was not only a very liberal democrat, as I am, we agreed on many details re not only political opinion, but in religious opinion, land planning issues, and social issues - rather amazingly aligned in opinion across the board. I couldn't stand him, he was behaviorally a complete asphole.
Interesting whether if he had run for office, if I would have voted for him. Probably not, but for a third reason not related to politics/religion, or social behavior - I wouldn't have voted for him because he wasn't able to get things done, was a poor administrator.
In my view Stark's interest in greater government interference in our lives, and his evident lack of regard for the interests of real 'little people' are a meaningful and dangerous combination.
