withallyourmind.net

Adam Schreck, of The L. A. Times, recently wrote this article proclaiming the news that Democrat Pete Stark of California is the highest-ranking elected official in the U.S. to make a public acknowledgement of his atheistic belief. Here is a portion of the article:

The American Humanist Assn. plans to take out an ad in the Washington Post today congratulating the congressman for his public stance and highlighting the contributions of other prominent secular humanists, such as writers Barbara Ehrenreich and Kurt Vonnegut and actress Julia Sweeney.

Fred Edwords, a spokesman for the group, said non-theistic Americans often faced discrimination for their views.

I found it interesting that Mr. Edwords lauded this act by Stark because of the discrimation often faced by non-theists. Al Mohler discusses this article here. Near the end of his post, He states:

The more important question is the one raised by Fred Edwords. He claims that resistance to atheistic candidates is a form of wrongful discrimination. Is it? Not hardly. Most voters instinctively understand that the most basic truths they cherish — including morality, freedom, and human rights — are ultimately secured by God, or they are not secured at all.

First of all, to be discriminatory is not necessarily a fault. The Miriam-Webster online dictionary has the following definitions for discriminate:

1 a : to make a distinction b : to use good judgment

2 : to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit

Discrimination in the sense of definition #2 of that which we often here of in politics and public affairs. It is certainly wrong to hire or fire someone, for example on the basis of what one’s religious convictions are. However, it seems we would value voters who discriminate on the basis of definition #1 when it comes to casting their votes for those running for public office. A discriminating (or discerning) voter would take into account the views held by the candidates and decide which views he thinks are best for the country.

It certainly appears possible that one’s denial of a supreme being would affect one’s views on morality, freedom, rights, etc. This is the point of Mohler in the above quote in which he maintains that many understand the only grounding for many of the values which America most cherishes is to be found in God. One might rightly refuse to vote for a person who is an atheist, just as one might rightly refuse to cast a vote for a theist if she feels that their worldview fails to ground the values which are important to society. This is not discrimination in the second sense, but in the first, that is, showing good judgment.

Stark’s worldview is evident in his following statement from the article:

I look forward to working with the Secular Coalition to stop the promotion of narrow religious beliefs in science, marriage contracts, the military and the provision of social services.

Mr. Starks is unable to see that a belief that there is no God is still a religious belief and has consequences for ones views and values. It shows a lack of understanding to maintain that cultural views based on belief in God are religiously loaded views, yet a view based on the belief that there is no God is somehow religiously neutral. How is his view anymore broad than the other religious views which he calls narrow.