Pew survey: Zero members of new Congress claim no religious affiliation

posted at 10:30 pm on February 14, 2011 by Allahpundit

I know, I know, Pete Stark is an admitted “nontheist,” but he describes himself as a Unitarian so technically he doesn’t count.

Dude:

Amazing. Not the raw numbers, I mean — those are clearly bogus. No doubt there are plenty of closet agnostics/atheists in Congress. In fact, given how virtually all other religious subgroups have representation that’s roughly proportional to their size of the population, I wonder if secret nonbelievers in Congress might exceed 10 percent. No, what’s amazing is that even with more than 15 percent of the American public claiming no affiliation — the third biggest group overall, behind Protestants and Catholics — and notwithstanding the fact that incumbency and gerrymandering make many members of Congress virtually invulnerable electorally, there’s still not a single member apart from Stark willing to cop to agnosticism. I know it’s a heavy liability politically (see this all-time classic poll from Pew from a few years ago to understand how heavy), but still. Not a single member besides Stark has the courage of his/her convictions? Embarrassing.

Speaking of closet agnostics/atheists, Bill Maher’s taking this straight to the top.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

They’ve tried that… and they lose their jobs.

Ask yourself why. Evolution isn’t a politicized concept.

The only people who have charged with with politics are the religious.

There are Christians who accept Darwin’s theory as a fact. Are they real Christians?

I guess you believe AGW.

I acknowledge a small impact on aggregate climate by human activity – not nearly in the degree or the severity which is promulgated by politicians, some scientist activists or leftwingnut enviro-loons.

Even people who aren’t on the eco-loon train acknowledge that we have a slight impact on the environment and the Earth’s overall temp (Bjorn Lomborg, for example). What is to be or can be done about it (if anything), by whom, for how much is another debate entirely, and the left wing wants to hijack that debate for its own purposes. This much is demonstrably true.

Could you take one position and hold to it for more than 10 minutes?

You can’t defend evolution, you just believe it.

“Faith”

I can defend evolution easily by stating that it’s a FACT. It has already been established – I don’t have to reinvent the wheel, because others who are more informed and closer to the topic have demonstrated it and explained it and defended it more adequately than I ever could. And the scientific community agrees with them, as to many religious folks.

This isn’t a fight you’re going to win. You can scream at me and wave the Discovery Institute’s bloody shirt all you want, but evolution will go on being a fact that you can’t refute.

It’s not about faith. It’s about FACT.

Good Lt on February 15, 2011 at 12:32 PM

That’s what happens when you question someone’s religion… which he can’t back up with evidence to dispute.

mankai on February 15, 2011 at 12:28 PM

ID is not a “theory.”

It’s creationism under a different name.

Good Lt on February 15, 2011 at 12:38 PM

ID is not a “theory.”

It’s creationism under a different name.

Good Lt on February 15, 2011 at 12:38 PM

I’m an ID’er and I believe in Evolution-which happened because that was the method God chose to use.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 15, 2011 at 1:16 PM

I’m an ID’er and I believe in Evolution-which happened because that was the method God chose to use.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 15, 2011 at 1:16 PM

And before evolution was discovered, it was creation that God chose to use.

Was the Book of Genesis wrong or not?

Good Lt on February 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

The Unitarian Creedo:

There is, at most, one god.

Akzed on February 15, 2011 at 2:40 PM

I can defend evolution easily by stating that it’s a FACT. Good Lt on February 15, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I can explain you easily by stating that you argue in circles. Otherwise known as begging the question.

Akzed on February 15, 2011 at 2:43 PM

I can explain you easily by stating that you argue in circles. Otherwise known as begging the question.

Akzed on February 15, 2011 at 2:43 PM

Evolution is a fact.

Are you denying this?

Then disprove it.

You’d be the first.

Good Lt on February 15, 2011 at 3:22 PM

There are plenty of religious people who have made and continue to make contributions in the fields of evolutionary science and cosmology.

Sorry to muddy the debate… I just thought it was worth pointing that out.

lexhamfox on February 15, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Was the Book of Genesis wrong or not?

Good Lt on February 15, 2011 at 1:19 PM

Genesis is God-inspired allegory.
You can believe that God created everything without being a new-earth creationist

annoyinglittletwerp on February 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

You can believe that God created everything without being a new-earth creationist

annoyinglittletwerp on February 15, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Why didn’t these story writers just admit that they didn’t know how god started it all instead of writing an allegorical story?

Because the people they were trying to convert to their way of thinking required it. They required evidence, albeit crappy evidence, but we’re talking about people who thought the world was flat, that disease was gods way of punishing more selectively and that earthquakes, massive storms and floods, etc were his way of damning all the people in a particular area.

The ancients were no closer to proving a gods existence than we are today.

Knowing this, it seems to me that its a waste of time to try and justify it any further. Believe in a god if you wish but don’t foist it on your kids who take it as truth (most of them literally) and when they have grown up and internalized it it makes them do things they wouldn’t normally do, like fly planes into buildings or blow up abortion clinics.

Faith robs us of truth. The grounds for recommending belief are that it is true. You make a fundamental mistake if you fail to accept it. We can’t claim truth without justification, and we can’t claim justification unless our evidence rules out the alternatives. If we can’t judge between alternatives, then it doesn’t make any sense to insist that one of them is true and the others are mistaken. Faith is justification-less belief so faith precludes any claims to truth.

Reason is the set of cognitive capacities that make it possible for us to seek out evidence, sift through it, and draw conclusions. Our reasoning capacities are the only tools we have for separating reality from fantasy, fact from fiction, justified belief from nonsense. Once we abandon reason and evidence, there are no principled, coherent, non-prejudicial grounds on which to prefer one god over another. How many supernatural hypotheses are out there for your consideration? How many gods vying for your faith? Is the only game in town from the church you grew up in?

On what basis will you decide to opt for one and not the others?

If it’s ok to abandon reason and just believe without justification, then why not Baal, Acchupta, Ryangombe, Pu’gu, Pen Annwen, Orcus, Orunmila, Nintinugga, Ningirama, Montu, Mahamanasika, Kamrusepa, or Hatdastsisi?

SauerKraut537 on February 15, 2011 at 6:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2