The Invisible Pink Unicorn

California Congressman Pete Stark (D-California) this past week came out of the closet, so-to-speak. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, he has crossed one of the last frontiers in politics. What did he reveal about himself that was so startling, you ask? Did he confess that in the past he committed murder, had cheated on his income taxes, or that he liked to wear women’s shoes? What horrible thing did he say that was considered so politically risky? Well, this is what he revealed: he, horror of horrors, does not believe in the existence of a supreme being, a/k/a God. And such an admission, according to a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, does carry with it political risk. According to this poll, less than one half of Americans would vote for an atheist candidate for president even if he or she were "well qualified."

Now, imagine if Stark had come out and said that he does not believe in the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, a/ka the IPU. Would this revelation have caused a similar stir? Probably, but not because he was merely denying existence of this fairytale creature. It would be controversial only because nobody, other than those residing at your local looney bin, actually believes that the IPU exists. And the reason for this universal disbelief in the IPU is that there is simply no proof of its existence. No one has ever seen it, other the aforementioned nuthouse residents. So if Stark had said that he does not believe in the IPU, a statement that itself presupposes that other people actually do hold such beliefs, his sanity, and therefore competence to hold public office would have indeed been brought into question.

But think about this. Stark said that he does not believe in something for which, similar to the IPU, there is simply no proof, i.e., God. But the belief in a supreme being is almost universally held, at least in this country. So his mere denial of the existence of God disqualifies him from holding public office, according to the Gallup poll, in the eyes of more than half of Americans. But what is the difference between a claim that their is no IPU and a claim that their is no God? Based on any disparity of proof as to the existence of either there simply is none. So shouldn’t a belief in the existence of a supreme being raise similar questions regarding the competency to hold public as the belief in the Invisible Pink Unicorn?

- Jeff Bloomfield