Create new account | My Profile | My Journal | My Account | My Inbox | Help | Log in

Home Latest Threads Greatest Threads Forums & Groups My Subscriptions My Posts

DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona D...

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:34 AM

cbayer (120,466 posts)

Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona Democrat, To Replace Pete Stark As Sole Atheist In Congress

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/08/kyrsten-sinema-arizona-democrat-atheist-in-congress_n_2091164.html

Religion News Service | By Kimberly Winston
Posted: 11/08/2012 7:35 am EST Updated: 11/08/2012 7:35 am EST

?9
Democratic candidate Kyrsten Sinema addresses the crowd election night for the U.S. House race in District 9 at the Renaissance Phoenix Downtown Hotel in Phoenix, Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/The Arizona Republic, Rob Schumacher)

(RNS) Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., the only openly atheist member of Congress, lost his race for another term on Tuesday (Nov. 6).

But nonbelievers will not remain unrepresented in the Capitol. Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, a former Arizona state senator, Mormon-turned-nontheist and a bisexual, has narrowly won her pitch for a House seat by 2,000 votes.

"We are sad to see Pete Stark go," said Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, which gave Stark its Humanist of the Year award in 2008.

"He was a pioneer for us, and by being open about his lack of a belief in God we hope that he has opened the door for people like Kyrsten Sinema and others that will come after her."

more at link

17 replies, 845 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

17 replies	Author	Time	Post
Kyrsten Sinema, Arizona Democrat, To Replace Pete Stark As Sole Atheist In Congress (Original post)	cbayer	Nov 2012	OP
Cool - I didn't know we had ANY. Too bad Stark lost, though.	codjh9	Nov 2012	#1
Yeah, his opponent (a fellow Democrat!) attacked Stark's nonbelief.	trotsky	Nov 2012	#2
Looks like he was the casualty of redistricting and a pretty nasty race.	cbayer	Nov 2012	#3
Redistricting my ass - victim of Christianist Dem bigotry	dmallind	Nov 2012	#4
Don't you know that the Democrats	edhopper	Nov 2012	#5
Don't you know that there are "good Democrats" who are christians?	cbayer	Nov 2012	#7
There are many	edhopper	Nov 2012	#10
What do you consider religious baiting?	cbayer	Nov 2012	#11
Using an opponents	edhopper	Nov 2012	#12
Is using someones faith against them also religious baiting?	cbayer	Nov 2012	#13
Don't get hung up on the semantics.	edhopper	Nov 2012	#14
Offensive to me as well.	cbayer	Nov 2012	#15
I think it's a bit more complicated than that.	cbayer	Nov 2012	#6
Well you see it's simple	dmallind	Nov 2012	#8
That is correct. He didn't have a dem challenger who ran a negative campaign	cbayer	Nov 2012	#9
The guy who ran the negative campaign was a Dem	Goblinmonger	Nov 2012	#16
She can't - that would admit that Dem Christians can be evil fuckers too	dmallind	Nov 2012	#17

Response to cbayer (Original post)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:43 AM

codjh9 (2,781 posts)

1. Cool - I didn't know we had ANY. Too bad Stark lost, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to codjh9 (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 11:58 AM

trotsky (33,136 posts)

2. Yeah, his opponent (a fellow Democrat!) attacked Stark's nonbelief.

Intolerant and pathetic behavior in our own party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to codjh9 (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:03 PM

cbayer (120,466 posts)

3. Looks like he was the casualty of redistricting and a pretty nasty race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cbayer (Reply #3)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:25 PM

dmallind (10,437 posts)

4. Redistricting my ass - victim of Christianist Dem bigotry

Last edited Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:35 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

His opponent - a local councillor - LOST the primary than ran against him in the general, with no Rep candidate, attacking him mercilessly for not being a believer. How is that to do with redistricting? This is not a Kaptur/Kucinich situation of equals being forced to compete, but one of an opportunist conservadem attacking a true liberal using the easy tool of Christian domination, and of the majoritarians coming to heel because of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dmallind (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:50 PM

edhopper (6,853 posts)

5. Don't you know that the Democrats

are the "good Christians" who don't do this sort of thing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to edhopper (Reply #5)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:53 PM

cbayer (120,466 posts)

7. Don't you know that there are "good Democrats" who are christians?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cbayer (Reply #7)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:48 PM

edhopper (6,853 posts)

10. There are many

but religious baiting is not something that any Democrat should ever do. Leave that top the Repubs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to edhopper (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:49 PM

cbayer (120,466 posts)

11. What do you consider religious baiting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cbayer (Reply #11)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:06 PM

edhopper (6,853 posts)

12. Using an opponents

lack of faith against him, as in this race, is.
Using religion as a tactic in a race at all is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to edhopper (Reply #12)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:12 PM

cbayer (120,466 posts)

13. Is using someones faith against them also religious baiting?

I agree that using someones faith or lack of faith to damage them politically is a bad thing, unless they are using their faith to impinge on the civil rights of others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cbayer (Reply #13)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:27 PM

edhopper (6,853 posts)

14. Don't get hung up on the semantics.

I am just saying that the Dem who won this, in part by using religion in negative way against Stark is offensive to me as a Democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to edhopper (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 02:36 PM

cbayer (120,466 posts)

15. Offensive to me as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dmallind (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 12:52 PM

cbayer (120,466 posts)

6. I think it's a bit more complicated than that.

If his loss were due solely to "Christianist Dem bigotry", how did he ever win reelection after coming out as an atheist?

There was redistricting and a radical change in the CA primary process. His opponent did use his atheism in negative campaigning and Stark, in turn, affiliated his opponent with the tea party.

It was ugly.

Swalwell never would have had a shot without the top-two system, and the new district was added more moderate inland suburbs of Livermore, Pleasanton and San Ramon.

http://blog.sfgate.com/nov05election/2012/11/07/pete-stark-issues-concession/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cbayer (Reply #6)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:08 PM

dmallind (10,437 posts)

8. Well you see it's simple

Last edited Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:48 PM USA/ET - Edit history (2)

You ask "how did he ever win reelection after coming out as an atheist?"

(which, I should remind you, he only did in 2007, when forced, after 17 elections in a solid blue district, because he's not a fucking moron and knew this would happen)

I answer "Because he didn't have a Democratic challenger making a big deal of his nonbelief, obviously!"

Redistictring had NOTHING to do with it. No GOP candidate for Chrissake so doesn't matter how "moderate" the area is. He lost only because of the attacks on his "out of touch" ness, which were always either implicitly (sledgehammer hints) or explicitly about his atheism. You CAN see the attack ad above, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to dmallind (Reply #8)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 01:11 PM

cbayer (120,466 posts)

9. That is correct. He didn't have a dem challenger who ran a negative campaign

against him.

BTW, while his atheism was used, it was hardly the only issue.

I think it was wrong to use it, but I also think that using anyone's religion or lack thereof is wrong unless they are trying to restrict other's rights with their beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to cbayer (Reply #9)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 05:04 PM

Goblinmonger (16,412 posts)

16. The guy who ran the negative campaign was a Dem

as evidenced by the fact that it is the same guy that lost the Dem primary.

Why can't you just admit that a liberal used faith baiting to beat an atheist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #16)

Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:47 PM

dmallind (10,437 posts)

17. She can't - that would admit that Dem Christians can be evil fuckers too

Last edited Thu Nov 8, 2012, 09:49 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)

Just like fundies. They can hate, despise, and seek to marginalize nonbelievers at every turn too, QED.

I posted the actual ad. Not even a glimmer of a hint of possible acceptance that it was Christianist bigotry from a Dem. Too dangerous to admit that's possible here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Religion (Group)