The governor of Illinois has been playing some games with state money, shuffling a million dollars to benefit a Baptist church, and an atheist dared to testify to the legislature against this. The response from one legislator was unsurprising: she shrieked at the atheist to get out.
Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield and told him, “What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!
“This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God,” Davis said. “Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”
Disbelief in religion means you have “no right” to speak to members of government? Wow. And note the “D” after her name — she’s a member of the party most (but definitely not all!) American atheists lean towards.
There’s more on this exchange: it looks like Sherman kept his cool, while Davis spewed her hate.
Chicago atheists, you know what to do: next election, campaign against Monique Davis. Get someone who is not a raving nutbag to run. Right now, her district needs to flood her mailbox with letters of protest. You can find her contact information online; let her know that you do not appreciate her efforts to disenfranchise and discriminate against you.
Not only a D but in a supposedly blue state. Good grief…
And why can’t you damned atheists ever appreciate our Christian love?
Burn in hell for not appreciating my concern and love, atheist dog. And don’t mention that filthy atheist rag, the Constitution, which dictates that there be no religious test for office.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I hadn’t previously seen the D after her name. It’s pretty sad in a liberal area of a blue state we get reps like this. I’d be pissed to hear that from a Republican goon from backwoods Alabama, but from a Democrat in Chicago? I thought urban living led to some level of tolerance for differing ideas. She needs to be primaried, and thrown out on her butt. I’m sure there are more than a few atheists in Chicago that don’t like being told to shut up because their very existence is dangerous to children.
Now, now — I definitely remember being told that “ATHEISM IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE”.
I’m reminded of Don Dwyer, of the the Maryland House of Delegates. Back in in 2004 he had this reply to an AU member who had dared to support a resident of an old people’s home who was unhappy at having been obliged to take part in Christian prayers there:
As a resident of Chicago this is very disturbing. This has always seemed to be a very tolerant town to me. I guess I’ll have to hold my Portable Atheist up a little higher on the train ride home tonight.
Come on, she wasn’t really attacking atheists.
She was just ‘framing’ them.
But wait… clearly what we have to do in the face of this is to calmly and politely ask permission to be allowed to have a different opinion. That will win her over for sure.
In case none of those links takes you to this, here is an mp3 of the “conversation”:
http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/davis.mp3
Wow! Spew that hatred, girlfriend!
craig,
I think you are moving way to fast. That militant atheism will get us nowhere. First, we need to find common ground. Tell her we understand her delusional fear of atheists and her desire to revoke their ability to participate in the democratic process. We must first apologize for even existing, then we should lead ethical lives and never speak of atheism again. Then the atheists win.
(.)(.)
Well, if Atheism ever wasn’t a Civil Rights issue in the US, it sure is now!
Utterly outrageous behaviour from an elected official – also, isn’t it illegal behaviour under the Constitution?
clearly, she didn’t frame the issue very well :)
I couldn’t get the link to work to her contact info.
Does anyone have an e-mail address for Rep. Davis? I didn’t see it on the contact info page (which isn’t even coming up for me now), and I do so hate to have to print and find an envelope and stamp.
So the obvious question is how much of this grant money Rep. Monique Davis is getting?
I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him.
Oh, I don’t know, how about throwing children into hell? I presume that’s what is so “dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists.” Why doesn’t she complain to God about that?
“I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him.”
As if no matter what God does, people are supposed to not have much against it, and wonder why in the world anybody else would have a problem with throwing children into hell for eternity for being aware of someone else’s beliefs.
“I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him.”
Oh okay Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago), glad to know you don’t have much against throwing children into hell for eternity. Okay thanks!
Unbelievable. This is my backyard! She’s getting an earful (or an email-ful) from me!
“…isn’t it illegal behaviour under the Constitution?”
That quaint old piece of paper? It’s nothing more than a historical artifact at this point. Ask a few Guantanimo detainees.
Had to resort to the telephone, dang it! Strange to actually be speaking to a real live person (an aide) rather than a voice-mailbox or an e-mail in-box when making comparisons to the Taliban . . .
Horrible. Sometimes living in Chicago you forget about the rest of Illinois. Usually on purpose. When something like this comes up and reminds me that I’m stuck in the midwest it’s depressing.
Time to let this bitch know what’s up.
What a raving nutbag. Has someone explained the “no religious tests” and “separation of church and state” clauses to this woman.
Physicalist asked,
Here you go:
http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=6317
Maybe I shouldn’t be surprised that much of this info, being a matter of public record, wasn’t on her official bio.
Perhaps if Mr. Sherman hadn’t worn his brimstone cologne and had worn his “I’m Not an Atheist” hat to cover his horns, then maybe he would have received some respect by the honorable Ms. Davis. He’s lucky Davis was in a good mood that day, otherwise he would have been forced to eat the Emergency Atheist Poisoned Apple or thrown into her oven and baked into a cookie.
Her official Illinois General Assembly webpage is here. She’s described as an educational administrator. Disappointing.
I thought her deity of choice was supposed to be the forgiving sort? They keep saying so . . . and yet she’s yammering about it being dangerous for children to know atheism exists . . . why? If her God is threatening to throw innocent children into hell for the consequences of encountering atheists . . . well, come on, credit where credit is due, lady. Not the atheists’ fault your god is an asshole.
I note that her strong religious views have not prevented her from being divorced.
Ray M said,
I note that her strong religious views have not prevented her from being divorced.
…nor was it a dangerous thing for her 2 children to know about.
Didn’t Lincoln’s best friend Herndon write in his Biography of Lincoln that Lincoln had no belief in God? Didn’t Lincoln while he was alive make no effort to contradict people when they “accused” him of not being Christian?
The ‘lady’ in question is nucking futz, and it is very depressing that I read this on several blogs, not in the national news. If such comments were directed at an adherent of *any* religion, David would be kicked about on the nightly news across the nation, but apparently atheists are fair game.
While I know there are a bunch of Obama supporters here and am sure you are all tired of hearing about Rev. Wright, there are several mentions across the web that Rep. Davis is a frequent attendee of Rev. Wright’s sermons. Whatever you all wish to make of that.
With the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, who throughout his political career was known as “The Infidel.”
Lincoln, the Freethinker
Robert Ingersoll, “The Great Agnostic,” spent part of his life in Illinois, and even served as Attorney General of the state.
Seriously though folks, all this bluster aside. Has there ever been a more destructive thought in the history of mankind than ‘damnation’?
The vast majority of people are told the bible is God’s word from the age of 1+ and just go from there. They don’t believe because of rationality but because adults in their life told them it was so and they became emotionally attached to the belief.
After that the fear attached to much of it makes their perception of the world unable to accept anything but a ‘us’ and ‘them’ outlook. It’s really a tragedy on alot of levels.
I listened to the mp3 recording of the event and it is appalling to hear the responses from other people in the room when she made her comments. After she began raising her voice and telling him he didn’t belong you can clearly hear a “That’s right” from someone else. Then, when Sherman tries to respond to this hatred he’s shut down and told to only focus on the issue; so Davis gets her say but the evil atheist doesn’t.
Perhaps we atheists need a “get in the chair” campaign.
This is a bullshit attack on her on many levels. Many, many religious people divorce. It doesn’t make their beliefs less strong any more than someone who lies, thinks an impure thought, etc.
She is fair game because of her absurd statements but saying divorce is some huge failing of her religious beliefs is silly. No two religions/denominations agree on it from a religious perspective in any event.
Thanks for the e-mail address Ryan. Guess it doesn’t hurt to send the message as text as well. Give those people something to think about.
Blimey, I’d like to see someone try and get away with that in the UK.
It’s outrageous that there is so much ground given to religious sentitivity in the US, with the result that a person can be shouted at in this way by a politician for not believing in a god.
Unbelievable.
If #29 is right, someone should do something and try to get this on the news over there.
Rep. Monique Davis: “This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God”.
Abraham Lincoln: “The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
Wrong JimC, especially if her religion prohibits man from tearing asunder what God has joined.
It’s one thing to pick and choose your vegetables, but I was always under the impression that you took the WHOLE religion to your heart, not just the parts you find convenient. She’s doing the latter in a BIG way.
Thank you for posting this, PZ! This was not what I was expecting when I moved to Chicago. I just can’t believe only one guy from the Tribune has reported on it. Let’s send her some letters, but let’s make sure the media hear from us too. I was truly appalled listening to that audio.
#32 Todd: That’s the most sickening thing about the recording, IMO.
She’s a member of Obama’s church, Trinity United Church of Christ.
37 et al: She belongs to the United Church of Christ, which is not fundamentalist and does not have a problem with divorce. Post 29 is right, she is a member of the same church as Senator Obama. Right now I’m finding her remarks about a thousand times as offensive as anything Rev. Wright said.
I’m sure he was engaging in some God-forsaken atheist activity like trying to engage in a rational debate and, therefore, deserved the reprimand.
My email to her:
To: davismd@ilga.gov; mdavis2147@aol.com
Subject: Kudos
Thank so much for standing up to those god-hating atheists.
On a side note, don’t you think you’re being hypocritical when you criticize atheist for not standing up against guns in school and at the same time you send $1 million to a church? Wouldn’t that money be better spent making our schools safe? Children not being murdered in school is more important to you than a church building right?
I’m sure your hypocrisy simply slipped your mind. I fully expect you to send that money to our schools instead.
Thank You
Theodore xxxxxx
A Voter
Oh, the Illinois governor has been doing a whole lot more than that with state money. (Nevermind that there isn’t any.) I have a sneaking suspicion there’s more to this story than just god or the lack thereof.
G in Indiana-
It also would say the same thing about any number of concepts. Again divorce isn’t something special. And it doesn’t say man can’t tear it asunder but shouldn’t.
She didn’t pick and choose. No Christian is perfect. They have flaws as all atheists do. It doesn’t mean she is less religious.
Gosh I can’t believe I am defending the goofy woman.
I called up her Springfield office, and let them know what I thought of Davis’ ridiculous attitude. I also told them that I’m both an Illinois resident AND an atheist, and that I didn’t appreciate her remarks. They said they would “let her know.”
I wonder how god feels about her divorce:
Vote Smart
Just got off the phone with her OTHER office. Let them know more or less the same thing– got the same response. Hopefully, the rest of you will invest a dime and offer your two cents as well.
This being a science blog and all, I feel I must point out a flaw in methodology. That is, that cities are all made up of “high-rise man”. It seems more likely that cities reflect a more diverse socioeconomic variety than is assumed when discussing the concentrations of humanity. Living in a city no more generates tolerance than living in a rural heartland gives one Middle-Merican values. To wit, some of the cheapest, vilesst, irrational persons of my experience have been farmers. Some of the nicest, kindest most gentle have been chicas in the barrio.
Short version–Archie Bunker was less a stereotype than we’d like to admit.
…I thought I saw an atheist, upon the witness stand
It couldn’t be! Not where I live! This is a Christian Land!
The Constitution guarantees my right to scream and shout;
As the Good Lord is my witness, I demanded “You! Get out!”
I thought I saw an atheist demand an equal voice;
I told him he could leave right now, and that could be his choice.
I said his view was dangerous–our children must not hear!
It goes against the Bible, which our government holds dear!
I thought I saw an atheist nod quietly, and sigh.
The odds were stacked against him, which no person can deny;
What happens when a person is denied his civil right?
I may have seen an atheist who’s now convinced to fight.
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/04/i-thought-i-saw-atheist-revisited.html
JimC is right about divorce not being a problem for the religious. I definitely remember that the marriage ceremony has in it the line: “’til death do you part, or you get bored, or you begin to dislike each other, or, y’know, whatever”.
Why else would it contain such a line if divorce wasn’t an option that you could later take?
Umm, not to beat a dead horse, but if you go read the NT, cheeses talks a LOT about divorce, and equates it with adultery. He’s pretty explicit about it, and it seemed to matter a lot to him. Far more than when he reviled homose…oh wait, he never mentioned them, did he?
I have to agree with Monique Davis. It’s ridiculous that Rob Sherman would choose this fight as opposed to the legislation requiring all school children to carry firearms.
< < Matthew 19 >>
New American Standard Bible ©
Concerning Divorce
1 When Jesus had finished these words, He departed from Galilee and came into the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; 2 and large crowds followed Him, and He healed them there.
3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” 4 And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5 and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7 They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
@ Theodore (#43): I’d think one might want be wary of using irony in these situation for a few reasons:
(1) She’s going to get a pile of e-mails, and at best she (or an aide) is likely to just quickly skim the content. It’s scary, but I’m sure she is going to get several “Right on! Keep the Faith!” e-mails. Yours might end up in that pile.
(2) In my opinion, irony often detracts from the gravity of the message. This government official needs to be told in no uncertain terms that she is violating the rights of Americans, spreading intolerance, and undermining the foundation of our democratic principles.
guess we know who going to be the next replacement host on the View
guess we know who going to be the next replacement host on the View
I know this isn’t a political blog, but maybe we should investigate her other dealings with this and other churches. All joking about her religious dumbditude aside, there is something that doesn’t smell right about the church / legislator / money connection, and I bet this isn’t new relationship for her.
I was just trying to imagine a politician making an outbirst like that here in the UK. It would be a funny ending to a political career, and rightly so.
Why else would it contain such a line if divorce wasn’t an option that you could later take?
“Well, they’re really more like guidelines than actual rules“.
— Capt. Barbosa
It appears she was an elementary school teacher and guidance counselor for most of her career. Fucking scary.
I had a militantly Christian teacher in 3rd grade. She made us memorize the 23rd Psalm, during class, in a public school, in Georgia; and this happened less than 20 years ago. She retired recently, but I wonder how long she continued indoctrinating other children.
In reference to Mr. Sherman, he isn’t helping our side much on his website, especially with this excerpt:
Made me feel like Rosa Parks, who also was told, “Get out of that seat,” and arrested when she didn’t give up her seat on the bus to Whitey. Now that Negroes like Representative Monique Davis have political power, it seems that they have no problem at all with discrimination, just as long as it isn’t them who are being discriminated against.
Tongue-in-cheek or not, that’s going to get a negative reaction from most who read it. You can’t balance out use of the word “Negroes” with the word “Whitey”.
Someday Atheists will have the same influence in government as the poor persecuted Christian minority. Until then we will have to demonstrate our tyranny and repression of the Christians by appearing to be mocked and eschewed from legislative affairs.
Remember, meeting at 8pm tonight under the Washington Monument where will will plan to demonstrate our control of the education system by eradicating the word “evolution” from school textbooks in Georgia.
Good grief #51, #52, #54.
I am not putting forth the opinion that divorce is often considered bad by some religous groups just that by getting a divorce she is no more hypocritical than someone who lies or commits a variety of other ‘sins’ and singling her out as such is an unfair critisism when there is so much to fairly be critical of in her transcript.
#54. You should be aware that those verse are taken 1000 different ways with each branch coming to their own conclusion. The scholars seem to have reached consensus however that Jesus was not attempting to prohibit divorce but place a value on it.
I too think that focusing on her divorce is off the mark. It looks like she belongs to United Church of Christ, which (if I recall correctly) is also Obama’s church? My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that these folks are about as liberal as Christians typically get: supporting (e.g.) marriage equality for gays. As such, I take it that she’s not a fundamentalist literalist about the bible — so there’s no issue of her divorce being in conflict with her religious beliefs.
That said, clearly her religious beliefs are a very real problem. But the problem is one of intolerance, failure to recognize the evils of state-sponsored religion, etc.
“…it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!”
Uh-oh. She needs a little help with her framing.
Maybe Matt can help her out.
It’s more than a little ironic that Monique Davis, as a member of Senator Obama’s church was called upon to defend Reverend Wright’s supposedly hateful comments about America:
Another Illinois Democratic state senator is James Meeks, who is also a pastor at Chicago’s Salem Baptist Church.
Meeks was cosponsor of an act to require a moment of silence in Illinois schools. The wording of the act suggested that the period could be used for silent prayer. The act, which was made into law half a year ago, is currently under legal challenge led by Sherman.
Cathleen Falsani, Chicago Sun-Times, 10/31/06, on a ‘Hell House’ run by Meeks:
“In one scene, a girl was lying on a gurney where a masked man in surgical scrubs pretended to perform an abortion. A toilet was sitting nearby apparently to collect the aborted fetus.
A fenced-in cell housed a few denizens of “hell,” including a pedophile trolling the Internet for a young victim, a meditating Buddhist, and two mincing young men wearing body glitter who were supposed to be homosexuals.”
Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Report, Spring 2007:
“The Rev. James Meeks is a key member of Chicago’s “Gatekeepers” network, an interracial group of evangelical ministers who strive to erase the division between church and state. A stalwart anti-gay activist, Meeks has used his House of Hope mega-church to launch petition drives for the Illinois Family Institute (IFI), a major state-level “family values” pressure group that lauded him last year for leading African Americans in “clearly understanding the threat of gay marriage.”
“Last year, [Meeks] ran for governor as a virtual single-issue candidate, drawing national support from Christian fundamentalists by boldly vowing to fight marriage equality at every turn. … Meeks and the IFI are partnered with Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defense Fund, major anti-gay organizations of the Christian Right.”
Cathleen Falsani, Chicago Sun-Times, 4/5/04:
“Another person Obama says he seeks out for spiritual counsel is state Sen. James Meeks, who is also the pastor of Chicago’s Salem Baptist Church. The day after Obama won the primary in March, he stopped by Salem for Wednesday-night Bible study.”
I’m not going to hold this guy’s attitude against Obama. But it is interesting that some New York City Republicans are more culturally tolerant than some Illinois Democratic state senators.
Davis’s email address is:
mdavis@hdsmail.state.il.us
#58 “I was just trying to imagine a politician making an outburst like that here in the UK. It would be a funny ending to a political career, and rightly so.”
Yes, I suspect that if an MP said that in the House of Commons, after a collective gasp of astonishment, they would be laughed out of the building.
Hmm, do you think right-wing commentators will be demanding that Obama repudiate Rep. Davis? What a dilemma – another chance to bash Obama, but doing so would mean supporting the constitutional rights of atheists!
Words cannot express how much reading this kind of stuff makes me glad to be Canadian. Not because we don’t have politicians who are religiously intolerant: we do. Not because we don’t have politicians who are assholes: we do. Not because we don’t have politicians who are stupid: we most certainly–can I get a Hallelujah?!–do.
What we don’t have is a mythologised ‘Birth of a Nation’ creation story full of gods and heroes that any jingoist politician can invoke to draw attention away from the vacuity of their position.
Not too surprising for someone who sponsored the resolution
As an Illinois resident (all my life), I have to say this is sad but not too surprising. IL is a blue state, yes, but almost exclusively because of Chicago. Most of the rest of the state is decidedly red (being mostly corn and soy bean farmers). And wherever I go in this state, I’m amazed just how many churches I see.
(#55) Physicalist – Thanks for the advice. I do know how this stuff works. I used irony to precisely get into the “thumbs up” pile. Anyways, I wrote it more to amuse us than to inform her.
On a side note, in reference to guns in school, someone should calculate how many metal detectors $1 million buys.
These comments are NOT mine, but I think they’re
great. These come from another board I post on,
and they’re by a believer, not an atheist.
I do believe he has sent this on to Ms. Davis. Enjoy!
————————————
Ma’am, I am hearing that you have strong opinions concerning Mr. Sherman’s lack of faith in the God that you love and worship. His ideas are an affront you, and you have every right to hate everything he believes and refuses to believe, but…
You do not have the right to banish him, any more than White Neighborhood councils had the right to banish blacks from their precious, and dearly loved territories back in the 1960s.
You do not have the right to tell him what he has to believe any more than white robed bigots who marched in the streets of Washington Dc and who burned crosses in the yards of upright and decent people had the right to tell people they were less than human because they were Catholic or Jewish.
You do not have the right to silence his opinions any more than those who sought to tell Dr. King and his supporters in the civil rights movement that they needed to sit back down, in the back of the bus, and keep their “dangerous” opinions to themselves.
You do not have the right to sit him down and shut him up any more than a bus driver in Montgomery Alabama had the right make Rosa Parks stand and shut her mouth about the oppression she experienced in her life.
Freedom of Religion means at heart that while we may disagree vociferously with those of differing opinons and faiths, we also respect their right to hold those opinions, and to practice their faith or their lack of faith. Freedom of religion does not mean anything if it means we all the freedom to believe the same thing; it is only a true right when we have the freedom to differ.
Ma’am there was a time when my ancestors believed that your ancestors were less than human, and they believed they actually could own another human being. There was a time when my ancestors believed your ancestors were less than human, and that they could eat at the same lunch counters, use the same restrooms, or drink from the same water fountains. My ancestors looked at your ancestors and saw they were different, and that scared them, so they tried to silence you, and when your ancestors rose with a mighty roar of the demand for freedom and justice, my ancestors did everything in their power to silence that roar, but that roar will be heard! It will heard by all who see difference and demand conformity. It will be heard by all try to turn equal rights for all into superior rights for a privileged class, even if that privileged class in the majority. It will be heard by all who think that something they think or something they believe or something they are makes them a better American than their neighbor.
Ma’am, I respect your right to your opinion, but not your alleged right, and your current attempts to silence the opinions of others. You represent, not just the people of your district, but the consitution of the United States of America, and if you cannot do that today, as others have done it in the past to guarantee equal rights for all, you should forfeit your elected office.
#68 “Yes, I suspect that if an MP said that in the House of Commons, after a collective gasp of astonishment, they would be laughed out of the building.”
Hhhhmmm, or they wait, like Bliar, until they finish with politics before declaring their allegiance to the lord god.
I guess we know who needs to worry about being expelled!
@#74, a round of applause!
@ Theodore #73: Yeah, $1M would do a lot of good for guns in schools presumably. I never got the full story though; I wonder whether the money that’s being fed to the church is somehow supposed to be aimed at school kids or something. One gets the impression that something like that is what she has in mind.
78: No, in fact, that’s the opposite of what she has in mind. The money that was supposed to go to a church was instead “mistakenly” (?) sent to a (private) school (that rented space in the church), and she is pissed about it. Meanwhile, Sherman doesn’t think it should have gone to the church at all. The guns in schools thing is a complete red herring and only has to do with the fact that there are a lot of Chicago schoolchildren that are victims of gun violence. Of course, handguns are already completely banned in Chicago and have been since 1983.
Joshua Arnold: “IL is a blue state, yes, but almost exclusively because of Chicago. Most of the rest of the state is decidedly red (being mostly corn and soy bean farmers).”
But this is not about rural peckerwood churches. The elephant in the room is the African-American religious community’s cultural conservatism, and Chicago is a stronghold of the African American church. The African-American church (using “church” to refer to traditional religious communities) tends to be economically progressive and support the Democratic party, but it even more strongly tends to be very culturally conservative. Republican strategies to attract more African Americans to the GOP tend to refer to the conservatism of the African American church. Jeremiah Wright is an outlier within the African-American clergy, not because of his conspiracy theories (Pearl Harbor, AIDS etc), but because of his pro-gay stance.
So an anti-atheist rant by a Democratic politician is hardly puzzling in this context.
African American journal Debra Dickerson, Mother Jones Blog, 10/12/07:
“it seems clear that it black religiosity and cultural conservatism have everything to do with the AIDS problem. We can’t fight one without fighting the other, and on multiple battle grounds.
At 2006’s high profile right wing Values Voter Summit, Rev. Dwight McKissic attacked as “insulting, offensive, demeaning, and racist” any consonance between gay rights and civil rights. He derided homosexuals as “comparing their sin to my skin” … Black ministers like McKissic aver that the fight against homosexuality is the most pressing issue facing blacks, seconded even by liberal black ministers like civil rights activist Rev. Willie Wilson of Union Temple Baptist Church in southeast D.C. who sermonized in 2005…
Whether the black church is conservative and gay-panicked because its community is, or vice versa, the result is the same: an AIDS epidemic.”
dunno if anyone else has posted this. the email given at Project Vote Smart is mdavis2147@aol.com
@#79, so she arranged for public funds to be donated to a church? Isn’t that unconstitutional?
If you live in Illinois outside of Ms. Davis’s district (as I do), it might be helpful to e-mail you representative in the Illinois House (Davis’s colleagues).
Maybe they can talk some sense into her.
You can search for your Rep by zip code here: http://votesmart.org/
I see that Mr. Lincoln’s religious beliefs (and lack thereof) have been mentioned. He may not have been an atheist per se, but he never belonged to a church and was no more a Christian than Jefferson was.
The irony, it burns.
#32 Todd — Absolutely right, that was a sickening display. It makes me wonder who else was in the room, and who the moderator was that they’d allow that kind of an attack on Sherman without giving him any ability to respond (which, while defensible from a legal perspective, is pretty abhorrent from a moral one).
The moderator I can forgive, seeing as he probably just wanted to get things back on track rather than devolving into a side issue (though I’d wonder why he didn’t stop Davis, in that case). I’d feel considerably less warm feelings towards the others in the room who agreed with Davis.
For a black woman state representative, Unique Depravis certainly is trying to keep atheists in their place. The civil rights issue is not over…
What a disgraceful thing for my home state. I would have stood up and thrown an index finger in her face and shot back at her. She’s either getting paid off or actually believes that garbage.
Time to primary her ass out.
Utterly outrageous behaviour from an elected official – also, isn’t it illegal behaviour under the Constitution?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | April 7, 2008 11:23 AM
So is wiretapping and waterboarding and sneak and peek and defrauding the US Government and a lot of other stuff. What’s your point?
That’s hate? I’d say it’s fear. Naked, trembling, insane fear. Unspeakable dread. Lovecraftian horror.
No, not Lovecraftian horror actually. That would come from knowledge — Davis’s comes from ignorance.
It’s always the same. Ignorance produces fear, and fear produces conservativism.
I suggest a shock therapy, like for people who are afraid of standing on tall buildings, but under carefully controlled circumstances to prevent her head from exploding.
Rāmen.
That’s hate? I’d say it’s fear. Naked, trembling, insane fear. Unspeakable dread. Lovecraftian horror.
No, not Lovecraftian horror actually. That would come from knowledge — Davis’s comes from ignorance.
It’s always the same. Ignorance produces fear, and fear produces conservativism.
I suggest a shock therapy, like for people who are afraid of standing on tall buildings, but under carefully controlled circumstances to prevent her head from exploding.
Rāmen.
With the possible exception of Abraham Lincoln, who throughout his political career was known as “The Infidel.”
Robert Ingersoll, “The Great Agnostic,” spent part of his life in Illinois, and even served as Attorney General of the state.
Clarence Darrow practiced in Chicago. Emma Goldman also lived for a while in Chicago, and it’s where she is now buried. I guess the Land of Lincoln has undergone an unfortunate and retrograde change, if people like Monique Davis now represent that state.
82: Actually, it was the governor who pledged to give the church money, because it has alleged historic value and was gutted by fire. Wikipedia article here.
I am not super knowledgeable on the subject, but my understanding is that it’s the outside of the building that’s architecturally significant, and the exterior remains intact and structurally sound. I also have no idea why this place didn’t have insurance, or why its insurance didn’t pay out or whatever. I don’t know enough details to say, but Sherman and others think the grant would have been unconstitutional. In any event, since Illinois is so corrupt when it comes to handing out money, it looks like somehow the million dollars ended up somewhere else and no one knows why.
She also makes reference in her tirade to keeping God or prayer out of schools. This is because last year IL passed a “moment of silence” law to sneak prayer into schools, and Sherman has been campaigning against it. He managed to catch state legislators admitting that they wanted time for prayer in schools, not just generic silence.
Does god throw PYGMIES + DWARFS into hell too?
I wish I lived in this woman’s district so I could vote against her. She is a disgrace.
Of course you all realize that Davis’ outburst was all Richard Dawkins fault. If he hadn’t been so stridently negative and militant in that awful book he wrote, Monique Davis would be Rob Sherman’s new bestest buddy ever.
You get a similar mythologizing in Quebec. But yes, for the most part we Canadians don’t do “civic religion”, which to outsiders may make us seem unpatriotic, but which we recognize as rational society.
I thought this was rather telling from the “Vote Smart” page:
Representative Monique D. Davis repeatedly refused to provide any responses to citizens on the issues through the 2008 Political Courage Test when asked to do so by national leaders of the political parties, prominent members of the media, Project Vote Smart President Richard Kimball, and Project Vote Smart staff.
This candidate will be asked again to provide responses during the general election.
Seems like she’s part of the corrupt “Chicago Machine”.
“That’s hate? I’d say it’s fear.”
Most hate comes from fear.
We do have “Sir John A. was a drunk”, which speaks to all Canadians’ right to get hammered on the May 2-4 weekend.
As a Chicagoan and Democrat, I’m ashamed, appalled, and frankly, a little bit scared for our legislative branch. Rep. Sally Kern is a Republican from OK, so it’s understandable, but a Democrat in Illinois??? I’ve taken the liberty to email Monique Davis, here: mdavis2147@aol.com
When are we going to read” “and then she shot him, exclaiming ‘God is great!’ “?
Didn’t one frequent visitor to this site say he was going to take his pit bulls with him to the Expelled showing in OKC?
Sooner or later, one of these people is going to cross that line.
Is Moniquie Davis black? How else can you explain a Democrat who is so religious?
This is my email to Davis:
Ms. Davis,
I suggest you get help in controlling your unprofessional and hateful anger. Makes me wonder what you are hiding, that you did not even let Sherman speak.
As an atheist living happily in a very civilized secular community, I can assure you that my fellow neighborhood atheists are all law abiding, kind, hardworking, warm people, many with families.
I encourage you to work hard to overcome your prejudice and ignorance about atheism. Since you believe in a God, I suggest you pray to Him for guidance in learning how to accept people who think and believe differently from you without labeling them as monsters and treating them like dirt.
Is Moniquie Davis black? How else can you explain a Democrat who is so religious?
Jimmy Carter isn’t too black, but is very religious.
So, what’s next? A poll tax?
Not only is a poll tax unconstitutional, so is a pole tax:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJ4AegAKobAE-MXhOqkO6HLtPhgQD8VT2MQ80
This incident only reinforces my belief that atheists will never be accepted into the mainstream as normal citizens until our arguments are heard, and our reasons for not believing that there is a God understood. As long as the existence of God is assumed to be a “fact” which everyone knows and believes, then we will always be consigned to the margin as perverse kooks who just don’t get it, and who want to destroy what everyone else has.
Gay people who show that they are nice, ordinary people are not going to be accepted as part of the mainstream if homosexual behavior is seen as the moral equivalent to theft or raping corpses. And atheists being nice and quiet and polite are not going to be mainstreamed if atheism is also seen as a moral perversion in itself. You have to strike at the heart of the problem.
Atheists and gays are not allowed in the Boy Scouts. The fear isn’t that they won’t be good scouts, so all we have to do is show them we can be nice. No, the fear is that they WILL be good scouts, and “our children should not know that that philosophy even exists.” Or have friends who are atheist or gay.
Sorry, but God is not a self-evident, undeniable truth. You don’t get to separate it from religion and claim that talking about God isn’t “religious” because religion is how people worship God, but God itself is a FACT which no reasonable person disputes.
Sure they do. Whether God exists or not is debatable. You don’t get to shut down the debate by claiming there is none. And here it is. Listen to us. This is why we think your religion is wrong, right here. Here’s a book, here’s an article, here’s a movie, here’s an interview, here’s a response to your ignorant remark. And if you don’t choose to listen, then you can’t pretend to yourself that it’s because we had nothing to say. And we’ll even be nice when we say it, if you want.
At some level, I think they suspect that the only reason they believe so firmly in God is that they think everyone else believes in God, so it must be true.
Is Moniquie Davis black? How else can you explain a Democrat who is so religious?
Posted by: Alex | April 7, 2008 2:58 PM
Way to be racist there, Alex. I’m sure THAT will help the situation.
Might not be a bad idea to hit up House Speaker Michael Madigan. I’m sure he’ll be delighted to know that one of his people is stooping to using Republican tactics.
So which major media outlets are carrying this? The Chicago Tribune material seems to be just one columnist, Eric Zorn. Goggling ‘Monique Davis’ turned up nothing but bloggers and the ChicTrib.
AP, CNN, NBC, where are you?
Atomicmutant, thanks for the quoted post. Could you please post the author’s name so credit can be given where it is due?
Deputy Gov. Louanner Peters on Wednesday spent more than an hour dodging questions from an Illinois House committee investigating a $1 million grant that wound up going to a troubled private school instead of a church because of what Gov. Rod Blagojevich has called a “bureaucratic mistake.
The private sector should have raised the money to help rebuild the building damage by the fire. Also the government always seems to mismanage taxpayer funds regardless of party so it’s not surprise here the funds went to the wrong building. Oh, there is an atheist complaining about a government grant for disaster relief was given to a church which has historical value to the city.
Good to see the red-scare era of brainwashing to be still alive and kicking ! Actually, it’s kinda sad that W hasn’t continued with the sentiment of his daddy and hasn’t revoked US citizenchip from all american atheists! Now we still have to deal with these pesky commies! ;)
Apparently, there are more than one “Alex” posting here. I did not post number 101. :-)
My e-mail:
Emma Goldman also lived for a while in Chicago, and it’s where she is now buried.
Posted by: Nullifidian
I guess I am being very nit picky here but Emma Goldman is not buried in Chicago. She is buried in Forest Park which is located on Chicago’s western boarder. The reason why she is buried there is because it is close to the Haymarket Martyrs Monument. It was the extralegal murder of Chicago anarchists in the aftermath of the Haymarket Riot that convinced her to become an anarchist.
There are a few other interesting people buried at Forest Home Cemetery. There are Albert Parsons, August Spies, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, Louis Lingg, Samuel Fielden, and Michael Schwab; the Haymarket Martyrs. Voltairine de Cleyre, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, Lucy Parsons and Ben Reitman.
What a nut bag. She is so misinformed and ignorant.
It is hard to decide what a suitable response would have been.
1. Karate chop to the neck or
2. Explain articulately what an atheist is and what it is not.
My emotions are strongly voting for option 1.
Is Moniquie Davis black? How else can you explain a Democrat who is so religious?
Posted by: Alex
Because the Democratic Party is such a great haven for atheists. Why, wait a second. There has not been an outspoken atheist in the Democratic Party as powerful as Robert Ingersoll in the Republican Party in the late 19th Century.
Fortunately, since Davis is an urban Democrat, then maybe this whole incident will be shaming for her. Unlike Sally Kern, who could just surround herself in supporters and claim that she’s being attacked for being Christian.
Hell, maybe Davis will do that anyway.
#109…regarding my post, it was made by a user at the site “LibraryThing” (which is a GREAT place to catalog and cross-reference your books, by the way..not spam, I’m just a happy user). I frequently post Pharyngula headlines into the user group “Happy Heathens”. :)
He calls himself “Arctic-Stranger”. That’s not attribution, per se, but if you seek him out on librarything, tell him I sent ya. :)
It really is a great letter. I hope she reads it.
My two e-mailed cents:
Representative Davis,
I’ve just had the sad fortune to read about your behavior towards Rob Sherman in the Tribune. Such rants are perfectly unacceptable for any representative of mine. No less in a major, pluralistic, metropolitan city such as Chicago. I would also question where you came to the belief that this state or nation was founded on anything even resembling the christian religion, as we are guided by a constitution that has no mention of any concept of god, and a bill of rights that first and foremost rejects a national religion. As for beliefs about the devoutness of Lincoln, a man who stated: “The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma” is certainly not on your side of this debate.
Yet, it is your vitriolic smearing of atheists that is the most damning in my eyes. As an atheist, I hold the view that all of my actions have consequences in the here and now, and no other being will fix things for me or save me from my own mistakes. It is a position of maturity, dignity, and responsibility. As a resident of Chicago, I’m here to remind you that your actions also have consequences. For in your next election my vote will be going to the challenger.
Speaking of Sally Kern, isn’t this just too precious?
Dear Rep. Davis,
As a Democrat, a Chicago resident and an atheist, I am deeply disturbed to hear that you feel I am a danger to children and that ideas devoid of religion have no right to be heard in government. I hope that you’ve expressed these ideas in error, and they were not sincere; for if they were, I must question your ability to govern.
Sincerely,
Unfortuantely, we know she’s not the only one. in 1987, former President Bush, who at the time was incumbent VP and campaigning for the top job, said:
How poorly these people understand the foundational principles of the country they purport to lead.
Someone needs to come up with an innovative method for keeping track of all current anti-science / anti-thought / pro-religion politicians so that we know whom to vote out.
Just for the record, the veracity of that quote has never really been determined conclusively. It’s all down to Sherman’s word, basically, without much of a way to establish that he didn’t mishear or misrepresent.
Better to not worry about that quote in particular, since the attitude it conveys is so well established as being held by the general public by other sources.
124: What quote are you referring to?
Nicole, he’s referring to the quote, attributed to G.H.W. Bush, that I cited in #122.
It should be called “No Politician Left Behind.”
Monique Davis would most likely be a hindu if she had been born in India :D
Just sent this to CNN’s “Contact Us”:
Your opinionated afternoon guy on Headline News (whose name escapes me) was very quick to play the “poor, persecuted Christian majority” card on April 2 with his stories about the art student who got a zero for having religious content in his project and the History teacher in CA who mentioned the dangers of religion in his class. I was wondering if anybody at CNN was aware that Representative Monique Davis of Chicago interrupted an atheist who was speaking before the House State Government Administration Committee last Wednesday and shrieked at him to “get out” and that he “had no right to be [there]”. Info is here: http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/04/rep-monique-dav.html
I guess it isn’t news when America’s most reviled minority gets treated like garbage, right?
Cannot be. Has got a few zeroes too many.
Cannot be. Has got a few zeroes too many.
LOL!
LOL!
I believe the best way to treat this woman, and many other people who are scared of atheist, is to try to ease them into understanding our position. I think the “militant atheist” response is largely ineffective as it merely makes atheist an easy target. (They’ll just say, look at what these vicious and crazy atheist say!)
For example, here is my $0.02, an e-mail that I just sent her:
***
Representative Monique Davis:
I e-mail you to inform you that I strongly disapprove of your outburst last Wednesday on April 2, 2008. What you said was truly chilling, and I, alongside countless other citizens, demand an apology to both Mr. Rob Sherman and atheists across the state of Illinois who may have been hurt by your words of intolerance.
As a representative, you obviously know that you hold a very sacred responsibility. You represent all of your constituencies, not just the Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu, but also the Non-Believer/Skeptic/Agnostic/Atheist. Our founding fathers found it very important for there to be a clear distinction between matters of state and religion. Last Wednesday you crossed that line.
If you could, please show some understanding of what you said. If Mr. Sherman went on a tirade about Christianity or theism it would be national news. I see no difference between what you said last Wednesday (“Get out of that seat!”) and what countless white politicians said to many brave African-Americans who fought for their fundamental rights. It saddens me greatly, that forty years after the death of Martin Luther King, Jr people are still telling others that “You have no right to be here.”
Atheist, Agnostics, and non-believers have been among America’s most productive, kind-hearted, and loyal citizens since the beginning. In fact, even Lincoln, who you constantly cited as a reason to denounce atheism, was a skeptical deist, and he even wrote against orthodox Christianity. Does that make him a holder of a “dangerous philosophy?” Should we not let our children hear about this “dangerous man”? And, more importantly, if President Lincoln was an atheist would it lessen any of his phenomenal accomplishments? Would it diminish all the good he did?
Representative Davis, I write this letter not to spew hate, but merely to show the light. I was myself hurt by what you said, and I hope you could find it in your heart to realize why what you said was hateful, and offer a heart-felt apology. If you do so, I know I, and many others, will be happy to forgive you.
Sincerely,
A concerned citizen
***
Hopefully, she’ll respond positively to responses like this, and she can come to a greater understanding of the atheist position. (Or she’ll just ignore me, and I’ll look like a silly hippie. ;))
Sometimes I get tempted to be nice to the religious on the old notion that one can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar and so forth. But I just don’t think it works, accept probably with people who are already one’s longterm friends and family members. For example: I like watching Jack Van Impe presents on Sunday nights because it’s a comical way to end my Sunday, and I think he and his ghastly-but-possibly-once-hot wife are clowns. But they were decidedly unfunny last night, telling two “jokes” about atheists, one in which we were called “fools” (April Fool’s Day is our national holiday, you see), and one where an atheist got his nose bloodied. What a fucking hoot! So now I don’t think of them as clowns, except in the classical John Wayne Gacey sense.
Have been away, but returned in time to catch moron
Davis’s insane outburst.
my e-mail to the deranged moron:
It’s a good thing all Americans are not afflicted with the
insane religious outburst you exhibited in the Illinois
State House and which is now known throughout the country
both on audio and in print. Our country is great because
sound minded people have prevented your demented type from inflicting insane and dangerous religions on the rational populational. Why don’t you get your imaginary god to smite all those rational people who consider your kind the most deranged minds that are reducing our great country to an insane religious cesspool. Let’s see your freaking god, you religious moron.
Poster: I note that her strong religious views have not prevented her from being divorced.
*****************************************
The irony of her being divorced (and as an ex-counselor she should know better) is that divorce has a much more dangerous and known effect on children than her saying atheism does, which hasn’t been established in any concrete studies. You can start here among many studies and books that discuss divorce and its effect on children.
She also claims that Sherman should be caring about the children in regards to guns and school. Again, and this she should know as well, the rate of single black mothers and absent fathers is a problem. But yet it is ATHEISM that is so dangerous, which doesn’t yet have the concrete evidence that absent fathers have on children and the community. She’s throwing out whatever she can and I do suspect there’s more hidden behind the money business.
She’s not fit to be a representative of government besides. As far as I’ve read she has not yet responded to this. Wonder if Obama will criticize a fellow Chicago Dem and churchmember for her stupid outburst.
Yes, Davis is a wackjob, but the back story is more complex than some might think. The Pilgrim Baptist Church, orignally Kehilath Anshe Ma’ariv Synagogue, was a masterpiece of modern architecture, designed by Dankmar Adler and Louis Sullivan. Gutted by a fire a few years ago, it deserves to be rebuilt, and I have no problem at all with public funds being spent for that purpose. Far too many of Sullivan’s buildings have already been destroyed. This is an impressive human (not divine) achievement, and I’m disappointed that Sherman doesn’t get this.
It’s also worth stating that Pilgrim Baptist Church is one of the places where Gospel music had its beginnings. Again, you can appreciate the achievement without sharing the faith.
I’m willing to bet that Dumbski, Behe, and all the other
insane morons are by now aware of the demented outburst by
jeebus freak and are lauding her and canvassing for her
freaking sainthood for lashing out at her betters! Heck,
a doctorate from the Deranged Institute is just about to
be conferred on the demented ghost de-buster!
Every time they think, they weaken the nation.
Or, with apologies to Christopher Hitchens, “No Politician’s Behind Left”, the objective being to screw ’em, no?
She’s a black woman in public office, and yet she thinks that atheism much worse than:
Belief that black people have the curse of Ham (Gen 9:18-28) on them, and therefore must be the slaves and servants of white people.
Belief that women ought to shut up about religion and ask their husbands about it (1 Cor 14:33-35), and that women should never have authority over men (1 Tim 2:10-11).
Leaders should either be absolute monarchs or theocrats (Moses, Peter, etc.), without there being anything like Congress or elections.
@136
Public funding for repair would be fine as long as it was no longer a church. An architectural exhibit, gospel music landmark, historical place open to the public would be fine though.
If you write to her, keep this in mind: the less your message sounds like a rant, the better. This is easy to screw up if you’re feeling overly emotional, so if you feel angry that someone like her would kick rational people out of the public sphere, your e-mail could end up reading like a rant, and you could end up rambling far too much. I noticed some people posted their e-mails to her in which they call her “demented” and the like. This is probably not helpful.
Try to edit your message carefully and liberally. The main point of a good constructive message shouldn’t be that religion is wrong and that people who think like her are terrible and repugnant, but rather that tolerance and open-mindedness are virtues, distinctly American virtues that she lacks. Such a message in print, via fax or by phone would probably be taken more seriously than an e-mail. Also, prepare to be ignored it you aren’t a voter in her district.
Of course if you are a voter in her district, please do take the time to call or write on behalf of the rest of us, and let her know it’s either an apology or a vote (plus a donation?) for her next opponent.
Aaron, you say you’re disappointed Sherman doesn’t “get this”. (#136)
Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but he’s doing his job – and it’s a valuable job. I’m sure your right about this restoration but this is a million dollars of public money and he is making them justify their spending in detail and in public. Somebody has to stand up and argue for the other side.
Devil’s advocate, you know. Valuable concept.
I’ll give you a classic example. You know who I blame for the Iraq Invasion. The British Opposition party, the Conservatives. It goes like this:
Without the moral/military backing of his key ally GWB would – at least – have let the UN negotiators keep trying.
In Britain, the Lib Dems opposed invasion, the Conservatives supported it, and Blair’s lot were split with a noticeable minority rebelling.
If the Conservatives had opposed it the war vote would have failed.
No Blair support. No Bush Invasion.
The point? The Conservatives were the Opposition. IT WAS THEIR JOB TO OPPOSE IT. Over in Britain no-one was standing up for the other side.
That is how democracy works. You have to fight your position, in detail and in public.
Of course, bigots like Monique just make it that much more fun.
Hey Sastra (#106)
Teach the Controversy!!!!
Quoting the immortal words of PZ Myers: “Monique Davis, Fuck you very much.”
Dog, she’s from my state. (hides head in shame) I would suggest sending letters to her associated state senator, Emil Jones, Jr., and CC to her. And if they’re short and printable, to the editor of the Chicago Tribune. If you are registered on their site, you can leave comments here
Unfortunately in her mind the hate mail she receives will “prove that she was right” and you can bet she is receiving all kinds of props in her church right now. It won’t be clear to her that what she said was as clear an example of hate speech as could be.
She probably thinks Lincoln was a Democrat too, LOL.
BTW, that quote of Lincoln’s: “The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” really shows that our modern soundbite system of mass media coverage keeps anyone of substance from ever being elected to office. If any politician would say something that definitive today, they would be destroyed.
about comment #107 :
Like there’s anything unreasonable about thinking that Monique Davis was black ? I *immediately* thought so . There are 3 elements * put together * which made her extremely likely to be black ( and she is, look her up) :
– She’s a Democrat.
You may not know this but black people vote *overwhelmingly democratic* . That includes the anti-abortion, anti-gay , pro church black people . The republican party just isn’t seem as an option for the vast majority of black people, even those who are arch conservatives.
– Her name is Monique .
Whether you agree or not, in the USA this is a “black name”. It isn’t a black name in Quebec, in France or in Uzbekistan, but in the USA it certainly is.
– She’s obviously extremely religious.
Black people are the most most religious of the major ethnic/racial group in america .
It’s not morally corrupt to infer in a fair manner. She had every chance of being a black woman, and she is . Had she been a republican representative, the probability of her being black would have been considerably lowered .
I’m a black atheist. I’ve had conversations with black people who simply *couldn’t believe* it. They were genuinely shocked and even said things like “I’d understand if you were a white atheist but a black man who doesn’t believe in God !!” .
With all that said, i will always find it amazing how incredibly out of sync with the rest of the western world Americans can be when it comes to this public display of religious status. I have a hard time imagining even a fervently catholic German telling a non believer fellow assembly person to get the hell out. I can’t imagine that happening in Canada, nor in France , UK . I bet that wouldn’t even happen in Mexico.
New American Standard Bible ©
Has that been peer reviewed?
Bostonian @ # 141 Cannot agree with your suggestion to
be nice in our e-mails to the moron. Have you not read and heard her pathetic, insane and vitriolic outburst to her
better? Oh no; blast back and even harder, and let the
moron know we will not take her insane crap without
punching back. After all, we have sound reason on our side;
she has, er,what?
Please, please, please. Let’s not compare this to racism. It makes us just as bad as Jonah Goldberg. Comparing the inconvenience of being an atheist to the way African-Americans have been oppressed throughout our country’s history is just embarrassing.
What Davis did was wrong, and she’s clearly an idiot for holding the beliefs she does. What she did was intolerant, ignorant, and anti-democratic. Certainly she should not be allowed to sustain her political career. But this is not equal to the way Blacks have been treated not very long ago. Sherman was allowed to come to the meeting in the first place. He was not lynched for standing up to Christians. No one burned an effigy of Nietzsche (or his favorite atheist thinker) in his front yard. And even if violent acts were committed against him for his actions, he could realistically expect recourse to the law.
Attack her actions for what they are. Don’t compare a paper cut to a severed arm.
The Republican Party of the late 19th Century doesn’t exist anymore. Hell, the Republican Party of the mid 20th Century doesn’t even exist anymore. The party of the same name that exists today is very substantially different.
I know politics makes strange bedfellows, but do the Democrats really have to stay in bed with *this*? It’s as bad as what Virgil Goode said about Muslims, if not worse, and Goode’s a Republican.
Well, if any of you have good contacts with mass media, I hope you are forwarding this story.
I also Emailed M. Davis stating my displeasure at her outburst. I didn’t mention atheism or atheists though. Just expressed extreme displeasure at her displayed prejudice and bias.
I also asked her to resign, said she’s unfit to serve :-)
As to the debate issue itself, my understanding is the Governor originally gave the money to a private school that was using the church. The Gov apparently thought he found a neat way to skirt the separation issue. The school would then spend the money to help the church. The school though had other plans and moved somewhere else, taking the money with them. Since the money was earmarked for the school nothing could be done about that, so the Gov said “What the hell” and gave another million directly to the church. Now we got a big Oh-Oh. I guess “landmark status” is being floated a lot to justify it. Seems to be a bit of after the fact justification though.
How about a creation story which states that the Father of Everything and Everybody hates his offspring for behaving as he set them up to do, and in his omnipotent wrath has cursed every subsequent generation, without exception?
Seriously: has anyone here encountered a more pathological origin myth?
Maybe it is inappropriate to align the atheist’s plight with an African-american’s. But still the religious side is deadly and oppressive, just not exclusively to the atheist. Suppression of stem cell research is entirely religion based. People praying instead of giving medicine… obvious. I would argue that climate change denial, rooted in believing that you can pick and choose “facts” regardless of their source just as long as they serve your needs, is a behavior trained or at least reinforced by religion. Religion is structured ignorance and ignorance is deadly.
Many an atheist chooses to fight religion because they see it as a fight against ignorance. When they are retaliated against by a religious social infrastructure it is seen as oppression by a massive and deadly power. That IMO is our only connection to the struggle against racism.
That would be the pot calling the kettle black. I hate to break it to you folks, but an Illinois Democrat = a Texas Republican, at least in terms of self-serving political machinations.
For the other Illinois residents writing to their state representative about Rep. Davis, the method to initiate disciplinary proceedings are covered by Illinois House Rule 91. Wouldn’t hurt to point that out to your representative.
What’s so freaky about this is that she’s a Congregationalist. Congregationalists aren’t normally that wacky.
Moses at #113: Bravo!
Re. the danger to children.
Please remember that in the mind of the fundamentalist Christian, the real harm to children from say, divorce or gun violence is less pressing than the potential spiritual harm that an atheist could cause.
In their philosophy a traumatized, injured or dead child is better off than a child who has lost faith and whose immortal soul is thus consigned to damnation.
These people are delusional.
As a black woman and an atheist, I am appalled by Ms. Davis’s comments. I was hoping that there was an email address so that I could email her; unfortunately, I will have to write a letter (and I will) and pay the postage to let her know precisely what I think about her comments: profoundly ignorant and ill-informed.
I just sent her an email. We’ll see if I get a response.
Here is my letter to the fine lady in question. I hope that I have framed my concerns well:
Dear Ms Davis,
I was appalled, but not surprised to see your bigoted and ignorant rantings against an atheist citizen of these United States. vis:
“This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God,” Davis said. “Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”
Ahem. Perhaps you might have mis-read Article VI of the Constitution which says something about “no religious test” to hold office? Perhaps you do not understand the writings of one Thomas Jefferson, an old, dead, white dude, who scribbled a few things about a “wall of separation” between church and state?
I don’t happen to have any gods, and I find your baseless accusation that because I do not that I believe in destroying the Constitution. It is you, Ms Davis, with your ignorant, ill conceived delusional thought processes that are destroying what the US was built on, which is the freedom to believe in cosmic space muffins or not. You enjoy the ability to worship in the way that you please at your United Church of Christ precisely because of that wall of separation, not in spite of it.
So, kindly stuff your pig-ignorant, bigoted opinions in a sack. Feel free to worship a hairy thunderer, a gentle lamb, a wombat on steroids – whatever floats your boat, but keep your delusional, magical thinking out of public policy decisions. Contrary to your pathetic ideas of what atheists may or may not believe, I believe very strongly in something – Our Constitution – apparently you do not. Other wise you wouldn’t have said that a non-believer doesn’t have any rights. I think that this was an instance when you should have taken the advice of a very fine atheist – a Mr Samuel Clemens, who said, “It is better to keep one’s mouth shut and be thought an idiot, than to open it and remove all doubt.” I have no doubt, Ms Davis, that you are, in fact, an idiot.
Have a nice day,
#135
That study has been countered by more than a few researchers. No control, selected cases. Alot of problems. Other studies have shown far less impact.
The same study also cites that many couples should still divorce as the problems are simply to deep.
That being said the lady is still silly for thinking atheism is a problem.
“As if no matter what God does, people are supposed to not have much against it, and wonder why in the world anybody else would have a problem with throwing children into hell for eternity for being aware of someone else’s beliefs.”
Man, what are you talking about? We Catholics don’t throw unbaptized children into Hell with all those fiery demons. Instead, we send them to a much better place – Limbo. Limbo is a much higher tax-bracket than Hell. The roads are neatly paved, the crime rate is much reduced, and I hear that the schools in Limbo are just wonderful. So stop your whining!
The irony of her being divorced (and as an ex-counselor she should know better) is that divorce has a much more dangerous and known effect on children than her saying atheism does, which hasn’t been established in any concrete studies. You can start here among many studies and books that discuss divorce and its effect on children.
The effects of divorce on children are varied. In general, however, we primarily know that the more divorcing spouses “act like grown-ups.” When they can arrive at accommodations about child custody and when they don’t trash each other and use kids as weapons, divorce tends to be less disruptive and have fewer negative consequences.
And, it’s also preferable for a lot of families to break up. The kids will end up better off in two happy homes than if the parents end up staying in one miserable one.
These people don’t view you as another human being. They view you as a pawn of Satan or as a demon speaking for Satan.
That’s why you heard the amens from the crowd.
If you grew horns right before their eyes, they would not be surprised at all because that is the way they view you at this moment…something to be shown contempt, something to cast out/get out of that chair/you don’t deserve respect.
Until religious people find a way to view those without belief as a fellow human being then these types of confrontations will continue.
MAJeff: Bingo. In the simplest possible terms, if mom and dad are ok – even if they’re splitting up – the kids will be ok. Bitterness and acrimony infect everything, regardless of the status of the union.
Are we hijacking the thread yet? I’d better not mention anything controversial, like say, circumcision.
Oops.
@ # 163
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3060955
Where have you been man? Limbo is soooo JP II.
In light of recent inclusions of the letters people wrote, I figured I’d go ahead and include mine. My letter focused not on how profoundly un-American her behavior was, but how profoundly un-Christian. This is a very poor reflection on the moderate Christians of this nation, and someone needed to grab Monique Davis and punch her in the Bible for it.
Until religious people find a way to view those without belief as a fellow human being then these types of confrontations will continue.
this is a point that needs to be stressed.
Nisbet (and those like him) believes it OUR responsibility to change their minds (and feels HE has the “plan” to do it).
Most emphatically, it is NOT our responsibility; nor is it even really possible.
It is the job of the religious themselves to abandon their infantile thinking and become adults, like the rest of us, just like it is the job of racists to abandon their infantile ideologies and join the rest of the rational world.
The only thing we are responsible for is living our lives as best we can.
period.
pointing out the hypocrisy and lies the religious like Mrs. Davis is (aside from amusing) only to convince those standing on the sidelines who has the right of it, it isn’t at all for the educational benefit of those like Davis (who are far too gone to learn, for the most part).
This is the quintessential difference we have with those like Nisbet, who feel we can change the minds of people like Davis. It’s beyond naive to think so, and borders on ignorance and hubris.
You will always find a handful of people convinced by such things as Nisbet wants to spin up, but statistically, they will be insignificant compared to the vast bulk of the extreme religious who simply will not be moved by ANY argument, lest they capitulate to the fear they would “go to hell”.
I’d better not mention anything controversial, like say, circumcision.
wasn’t that Cale’s bugaboo?
What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.
Well, perhaps she divorced him? It doesn’t appear the All-Knowing Lord of Everything addressed that scenario.
I sent her my 2 cents worth:
—————————
Ms Davis,
This missive is in regards to your rant of religious intollerance towards athiests.
How can a government official, such as yourself, be so ignorant of the First Amendment to the US Constitution that not only guarantees your freedom of religion but also guarantees my freedom from religion? I thought that you were elected to represent all of the people in your district, not just those that share your ideology.
Silence those that don’t agree with your religious beliefs!
Now where have I heard that before? Oh yes, the Islamic jihads against infidels. Americans are dying in Iraq fighting to establish democracy while back home bigots are trying to stifle free thought.
You have certainly embarrassed all of the citizens of Illinois and cast Christianity in a bad light. While this behavior may be acceptable in your church, it cannot be tolerated in the public forum. Hopefully the voters of Illinois will remember your intollerance come election day.
She just survived a primary challenge:
Rep. Monique Davis keeps her seat in the South Side’s 27th District, after a challenge by Illinois Department of Transportation Deputy Director Stanley Moore.
http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/steans.elder.state.2.646968.html
Too bad the blogosphere didn’t know her opinions on democratic inclusion about two months ago.
Cross-posted from the Richard Dawkins forum (I hope it doesn’t come across as a text dump):
To all:
My letter to Ms. Davis, with cc’s. I don’t expect this will change her mind, and that wasn’t my point in sending it. I do hope enough blunt critiques and expressions of justified outrage will induce other public figures to think twice about their actions. I hope you’ll join me in publicly denouncing Ms. Davis’ bigotry, using your real name. We can’t afford to merely complain to each other here – the “real world” needs to hear from us. Stand up and be counted!
Also, here’s the list of email addresses I tediously culled for the members of Ms. Davis’ committee, if they’re useful to you:
jack@jackfranks.org, lisadugan@sbcglobal.net, 70thdist@pritchardstaterep.com, repjohnbradley@mychoice.net, annazettec@aol.com,statereppaul@sbcglobal.net,staterepgordon@sbcglobal.net,repkrause@aol.com, repmyers@macomb.com, poer@housegopmail.state.il.us, statereprramey55@aol.com, jimwatson@localnetco.com,
If you want to write to any of the organizations I cc’ed below, I’m afraid you’ll have to use their infernal “contact us through this web form” functions because they don’t list email addresses.
******************************************************************
Dear Representative Davis:
I must express my shock at the tirade you unleashed against activist and atheist Rob Sherman at the April 2, 2008 meeting of your committee. I could barely believe my ears when I heard you say – nay scream – that Mr. Sherman was spreading a “dangerous” “philosophy” that children shouldn’t even know exist. There were so many malicious strawmen stereotypes about nonbelievers in your disquisition it would take pages to correct them all.
Most appalling of all was to hear you tell Mr. Sherman,
“I am fed up! Get out of that seat!”
and,
“You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in
destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.”
I can hardly credit that an elected representative to a United States legislature – sworn to uphold the Constitution – would have the gall to order a citizen out of the legislature, and to state his lack of religious belief stripped him of his rights guaranteed under that Constitution. Have you read the Constitution, Ms. Davis? That document guarantees all citizens – those who adhere to a religious belief and those who don’t – the same rights. Our
secular – yes, secular – Constitution is unique among the founding documents of the nations of the world in separating religion from government so that everyone, believer and non-believer, may freely exercise the right to participate fully in society.
By far the most disturbing facet of this sad affair: As a black woman who doubtless knows the history of the African-American struggle for full enfranchisement, I’m stunned it would even occur to you to tell another American citizen he had “no right” to participate in government, and to “Get out of that seat.” Those who
have experienced discrimination and persecution (and I am among them) have a special moral responsibility to stand in solidarity with others whose voices are oppressed because they aren’t the “right” skin color, religion, sexual orientation, or any other attribute. To instead turn on a representative of an unpopular minority is ethically perverse.
Sincerely yours,
Joshua Slocum (a citizen, a taxpayer, a member of a family, a community
activist, and an atheist)
P.S. – Since I’m disseminating this letter to as many people as possible in the hope of waking them up to the danger of lawmakers who wrap themselves up in a godly cloak in order to insult and disenfranchise non-believers, I’m including a link to the audio of your remarks for background:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/files/DAVIS.mp3
P.P.S. -I do want to thank you for reminding me to get around to the charitable donations I’ve been planning to make to secular organizations that work for the separation of religion and government. I’ll be making my gifts in your honor.
cc: Illinois House State Government Administration Committee Members
Senator Barack Obama
Governor Howard Dean, Chairman, Democratic National Committee
Margaret Downey, President, Atheist Alliance International
Ellen Johnson, President, American Atheists
Dan Barker and Annie-Laurie Gaylor, Co-Presidents, Freedom From Religion
Foundation
Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Lori Lipman Brown, Secular Coalition
#43, thanks for posting the email addresses. Here’s my letter to her:
Representative Davis,
I am not a resident of Chicago, nor of the state of Illinois. However as an American and an Atheist, I am compelled to inform you of my opinion regarding your appalling behavior.
I would like to express my chagrin and outrage with you for telling a citizen of this country that they do not deserve to participate in the democratic process because of their religious affiliation (or lack thereof). You have no right, no room, no logic nor any basis in the Constitution (or indeed, in reality) upon which to base such an assertion. It may be your opinion, but it is an opinion that runs contrary to the philosophy of the first amendment and of the religious freedom that this country was founded upon. Atheism does not seek to destroy! (nor to allow guns in schools. Also, President Lincoln was an atheist in case you did not know). It is only your sadly uninformed and hateful prejudices that cause you to believe these things to be so. I am an Atheist. I do not try to push for guns in school, as you would have others believe. I believe a moment of silence in school is a fair concession so that people of all religions may begin their day in accord with their own faith. Despite the fact that I do not believe in god, I believe in freedom of religion.
How sad, that you, while painting yourself as a pious American have displayed such galling hypocrisy and brutally incompetent judgment in lambasting a person whose opinion and faith do not comport to your own. How dare you call yourself an American? You are nothing more than a dogmatic, tinplated theocrat, who should take her own admonishment to heart and “GET OUT OF THAT SEAT” – you should resign your office after this disgusting and frankly, moronic display, for it abundantly displays your gross incompetence, misjudgment, intolerance and hate. If you do not resign, I sincerely hope the voters throw you out of office at the next election. “Dangerous” indeed. Your intolerance is the dangerous philosophy here, madam. In the meantime, I hope it pleases you no end that you have made a national spectacle of yourself in this display of hate. Martin Luther King would not be proud of you.
Thank you for your time,
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross.
Tom Marking: Man, what are you talking about? We Catholics don’t throw unbaptized children into Hell with all those fiery demons. Instead, we send them to a much better place – Limbo. Limbo is a much higher tax-bracket than Hell. The roads are neatly paved, the crime rate is much reduced, and I hear that the schools in Limbo are just wonderful. So stop your whining!
Okay but I still don’t see why you guys don’t pray for the abolishment of hell. You pray for everything else in the universe except for that!! I don’t get it. (Definitely sign me up for the Limbo thingy though.)
“I am fed up! Get out of that seat!”
How come she isn’t fed up with her god throwing people into hell? That’s infinitely a lot worse than anything Rob Sherman could ever do! Why isn’t she fed up with it? Thanks a lot Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago). Yeah thanks a lot.
Hats off to Mr. Sherman for his restraint…it makes that jackass rep. look that much more hateful and intolerant.
That militant atheism is what it is called and you thought religious people are bad. Look at this blog for more proof.
Why does militant atheism even exist?
It doesn’t exactly make you look good when you have to go to such extremes. If you are going to judge someone then at least be better than they are. I am not impressed thus far.
If you are an Athiest, then act like one instead of doing the same thing that those so called “religious people” are doing. It doesn’t matter if you have a backing of science or not, science moves on and thus it changes.
Posted by: Popgun | April 7, 2008 11:47 PM
Is there actually a point you’re attempting to make?
Quite the ‘athier than thou’ attitude you’ve got there, Popgun. Perhaps you would care to enlighten us on how atheists should act. Oh, wait, let me guess: silent and invisible.
Oh, I forgot to append to my post 174, that Matt Nisbet can frame this.
Yes, I do feel better.
This is my email to her:
Last I heard, Lincoln wanted all men free. Free to live where they wanted,
free to do as they wanted, free to work where they wanted, and free to
BELIEVE what they wanted.
Do you not believe in true freedom, or do you believe in an authoritarian
state where freedom of thought should be suppressed?
This is my email to her:
Last I heard, Lincoln wanted all men free. Free to live where they wanted, free to do as they wanted, free to work where they wanted, and free to BELIEVE what they wanted.
Do you not believe in true freedom, or do you believe in an authoritarian state where freedom of thought should be suppressed?
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”
— Justice Hugo Black for the Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
Monique Davis fears that children will discover the existence of atheism. Interesting. I presume, therefore, that she is staunchly against exposing youngsters to the Bible, which clearly alludes to nonbelief. While it does so in a disparaging manner (“The fool has said in his heart there is no God.”), it nevertheless has the potential of planting seeds of doubts in the minds of young readers (“Hmm. Why is that supposed to be foolish?”). An obvious headline for an article would be
Monique Davis condemns Bible reading for children.
I wonder how she would rationalize it away.
Why does militant atheism even exist?
*looks around*
what the hell are you talking about?
remind me to come to your house, and nail a red letter “A” to your forehead, so you might have some clue as to what the word “militant” means.
That wasn’t what what found in Wallerstein’s study, nor others (Google divorce effects on children), unless there’s physical abuse. The long-term effect on the children’s future relationships is also noted. I love how people defend divorce – oh, if it’s amicable all is OK. I have yet to meet someone who deals with divorce as an occupation who feels that way, especially if one parent becomes more absent, which is often the case. A lot of feelings are buried only to resurface later in life. It’s not a pleasant experience, shuffling kids around, moving, the instability, the favoritism. It’s not a good thing, though some kids may adjust better than others depending on their age. Often the divorce is merely unhappy but kids would prefer their parents to stay together regardless. Remarriages add a whole other ballgame that can be as worse as their parent’s relationship. The downplay of divorce’s effects are often to relieve many divorced people of guilt.
And I’d definitely say it’s much worse than exposing atheism to kids, which was the main point of stating that. Davis could have pointed out worse things as I mentioned that have quantifiable results than kids exposed to atheism as a “dangerous” thing. What her exact thinking is, I don’t know, but the last time someone brought up that point to me was that kids would not turn into moral adults and be prone to drugs, etc. He couldn’t cite any studies on this.
I’d never accuse Ichthyic of being one of those George de Mestral atheists.
I’d never accuse Ichthyic of being one of those George de Mestral atheists.
heh.
seriously though, aren’t you so weary of the “militant atheist” firebrand?
damn, I wish these idiots would start singing a different tune. It’s beyond annoying.
I have yet to meet someone who deals with divorce as an occupation who feels that way
and that would be a sample size of?
and inclusive of…
church pastors, perchance?
It’s not a good thing, though some kids may adjust better than others depending on their age.
nobody ever said it was. If you read for comprehension, the comparison was to divorce being better than a situation where there is potential domestic violence issues, or at least continual verbal abuse present.
are you really trying to say that divorce is NOT the better solution under those circumstances?
what a joke.
The downplay of divorce’s effects are often to relieve many divorced people of guilt.
false guilt SHOULD be gotten rid of. it’s demonstrably destructive to healthy relationships.
funny, that if you were such an expert on the subject, you wouldn’t already know this.
Yes. It’s an adjective that implies attitudes and actions that simply aren’t there. Not yet, anyway.
Is that the same Springfield Homer lives in?
Why isn’t this “Representative’s” insulting, unconstitutional and fervent “beliefs” regarding Sherman’s (lack of) rights to address the legislature BECAUSE HE LACKS FAITH making national headline news??? The fact that journalists aren’t running to expose this outrageous, UNAMERICAN behavior on the part of one of our elected officials is much more shocking to me than the ignorance and bigotry that is Rep. Davis.
Do you not believe in true freedom, or do you believe in an authoritarian state where freedom of thought should be suppressed?
I find this ironic on a website that doesn’t want ID presented in the public schools… guess you can’t have your cake and eat it too!
I was reading this blog and almost started feeling sorry for everyone who is so passionate about this story. People should not be treated this way…
Then I remembered the hundreds of Christians who on a daily basis (globally and here in the states) are being beaten, harassed, tortured, imprisoned, and KILLED for their belief in Jesus Christ.
See you really do have something in common with believers- ALMOST!
Christians are getting killed for their beliefs? In the states?
Where?
And what were they doing when it happened?
You guys have such a persecution complex, particularly for a religion which almost controls the country.
I find this ironic on a website that doesn’t want ID presented in the public schools… guess you can’t have your cake and eat it too!
you’d be right if it were actually an issue of free speech.
but it isn’t.
thanks for playing.
*mutter*
*mutter*
Ironic? No, not really. You misunderstand the situation. Presenting pseudo-science as science isn’t a good educational move. Do you support teaching Astrology as a science under the aegis of “freedom of thought”?
*mutter*
So you concluded that Davis’s rant was ok?
Yes, Christians in some parts of the world are in dangerous situations, but that has nothing to do with this. The only person who’s equating one with the other is YOU.
*mutter*
Christians are getting killed for their beliefs? In the states?
how ’bout ANYWHERE.
xians haven’t been persecuted as a group (by non xians) for quite a while, not since the Romans were around, in fact.
xians have persecuted each other frequently enough, though.
like the word “militant” most xians don’t appear to really understand what the word “persecuted” means either.
Nice strawman. Nobody’s defending divorce except as an alternative to something worse. Nobody’s saying that if the post-divorce relationship is amicable then “all is OK.” Well, ok, I said that, LOL, (“in the simplest possible terms”, I believe I said) but what I meant was:
A bitter and acrimonious divorce (or marriage, though in that case it depends very much on the depth of the acrimony – does it really hinge solely on the presence of physical abuse? I find that hard to believe) is tougher on the kids than a cooperative co-parenting arrangement, in which the childrens’ welfare is the top priority, practiced in a conscientious and mature manner by the divorced parents. (Big gap, there, eh?) In the latter case, the kids will be as ok as they’re able to be under the circumstances. That’s all I was getting at.
Anyway, you raise many interesting points, and there’s quite a bit of literature on the subject. I don’t know if Wallerstein is the last word on this, and it’s clear that divorce doesn’t necessarily spell doom in every case, but I doubt anyone would argue that divorce doesn’t present problems that don’t exist in a stable (if mediocre) marriage.
All that aside, of course I completely agree with your assessment of the relative “danger” of atheism as opposed to divorce. It’s a ludicrous equivalence, but one we’ve come to expect from a rabid theist like whats-her-name.
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. – Sinclair Lewis
true but I maintain hope with
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. – Denis Diderot
Alright, I have to admit something. I am not a militant atheist. I am a backwoods, fire and brimstone atheist.
Give me that Old Time Atheism!
Give me that Old Time Atheism!
Give me that Old Time Atheism!
It was good enough for Voltaire!
It is good enough for me!
Give me that Old Time Atheism!
Give me that Old Time Atheism!
Give me that Old Time Atheism!
It was good enough for Robert Ingersoll!
It is good enough for me!
Give me that Old Time Atheism!
Give me that Old Time Atheism!
Give me that Old Time Atheism!
It was good enough for Emma Goldman!
It is good enough for me!
Nothing like my rowdy group of unbelievers bringing down the wrath of nothing on the uncouth believers.
That wasn’t what what found in Wallerstein’s study, nor others (Google divorce effects on children), unless there’s physical abuse.
Wallerstein? Who didn’t use any control group?
Nice try. You don’t compare divorced families to hypothetical perfect families. You compare post-divorce to pre-divorce.
Divorce can be done well, even though it’s tricky.
This may have been mentioned before, but the idea that Illinois is blue is largely due to a single outlier- the Chicago area.
Move even the littlest bit south of that region, and, except for the few college towns scattered around, and there’s not much difference between Illinois and Kentucky. Even the accents are similar. I live in one of the southern college towns, and, frankly, it’s less than a ten minute drive before people start mispronouncing the word ‘creek’ and mangling the phrase “kitty-corner.”
Add to that the fact that I can drive a further 10 minutes and find my self in a town that not only has one of the highest per-capita ratios of churches in the country but also proudly marketed itself as being one of the last, completely white communities in the region. (Unfortunately for its citizens, that unparalleled purity has diminished in recent years- it’s now only 98% white. Having worked there, I can testify to the fact that this situation is the cause of much head shaking and cognitive dissonance.)
Granted, we’re not as bad as Kansas, because there’s at least some cultural back-and-forth- but that’s a blade that cuts both ways. For every slightly liberal idea that weasels its way into the gestalt of the farmlands, there’s a terrified reactionary meame trying to worm its way into the common discourse of the big city- usually somewhat successfully.
Which is a long winded way of saying: I’m not surprised at all.
#142 “No Blair support. No Bush Invasion.
The point? The Conservatives were the Opposition. IT WAS THEIR JOB TO OPPOSE IT. Over in Britain no-one was standing up for the other side.”
Well, there were the majority of the population opposed to it, the 1.5 million of us who joined by far the largest ever demonstration in the UK, and many who took more direct action. But we were certainly treated like we were no-one.
#172 “Americans are dying in Iraq fighting to establish democracy” – MrTwiddle
I don’t know whether you believe this or not. If you don’t, I think it was wrong to put in in your letter merely for tactical reasons. If you do, your beliefs are at least as harmful and irrational as those of Rep. Davis.
Cuttlefish, OM (#50), should be BOM – Bard of the Order of the Molly.
Re #185 “Lincoln wanted all men free. Free to live where they wanted”.
I’d be careful about citing Lincoln. It sounds like Davis is pretty ignorant, but if she happens to have aides who know their history, they can tell her that Lincoln’s concern was to maintain the Union, as is on record in a letter to Horace Greely:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”
Moreover, his consistent aim both before and after emancipation was to remove as many blacks as possible from the USA – to Liberia, Haiti, Panama… To summarise, he did not mind whether or not black people were free, he wanted them out of his country.
The same warning, of course, applies to those of the “Founding Fathers”, including the sainted Jefferson, who were slave-owners. By modern standards Jefferson was also a rapist, since he had a slave “mistress” who was not in a position to give or withhold consent to sex.
It seems many of the doctrines of the Americanist religion (that the USA is specially blessed by God) survive among many US citizens who consider themselves atheists.
@#201
Google is your friend.
1, 2, 3.
Ignorance begone.
Wow, I never knew that from all groups of people, only Christians encounter religious intolerance. Hundreds of times a day worldwide no less.
“Let’s talk about this breaking news with one of the countless homeless widows in Bagdad who has never encountered religious intolerance in her life. After that, we’ll switch to Iran where a spokesperson of a minority Muslim sect will react on this breaking news story. When we return, we have an interview with a high-school biology teacher in the US who has never had to deal with intolerance from religious groups ever before.”
I suppose thats what CNN would be like of the C in CNN ment Christian.
Re #201 “xians haven’t been persecuted as a group (by non xians) for quite a while, not since the Romans were around, in fact.”
Not true. Even today, in some Islamic states (Pakistan, I think Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia), it is illegal to convert from Islam to Christianity, and in Pakistan at least, this is punishable by death; in some other places (Iraq, Nigeria), unofficial persecution by Muslims is common; some states of India have laws against religious proselytisation of Hindus; in China non-registered denominations are persecuted by the state; not sure about North Korea – might be difficult to tell given how just about everyone is treated. There are many other post-Roman examples (e.g. early USSR, Tokugawa Japan); though ironically, given popular belief, there was far more persecution by Christians of non-Christians under the Roman Empire, than persecution of Christians by non-Christians, which occurred to a significant extent only under Diocletian and (possibly) Nero.
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest. – Denis Diderot
At last, a good reason to maintain the British monarchy!
^^Persecution of apostates rather than Christians. Being born into a Christian family would be better tolerated, converting from Islam to Buddhism would not be. Also, persecution of poor HTML formatting.
As I recall, those of us on this side of the pond, you guys, and all the others around the world, a total of around 10M people, are merely a “focus group”. /facepalm
@Tom Morris
None of the links you provide shows christians being the specific target of persecution. The first two stories highlight christians even though all religions are equally unwelcome in those countries. The last link explicitly mentions that it’s about people who don’t follow the majority religion living on profitable land.
Plenty of intolerance for religions and for having the wrong religion, but no persecution for being a believer of a specific religion.
Nick Gotts said:
Agreed and I don’t think any atheist here would dream of supporting the persecution of Christians or any other religious group. However none of the examples you cite have happened in the US (or the West in general) – in fact to describe Christians in the US as a persecuted group is manifestly absurd, which I think was the point originally being made.
The point is, in the US one of the Founding Principles of the Country is that people cannot be discriminated against because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). This incident is a horrific betrayal of that principle by an elected official and to have people show up and say that this is somehow trivial because Christians are persecuted in some authoritarian states which are not run along the same principles is ridiculous.
Re #219 Lilly, yes I agree with all that – I was just responding to a mistaken claim that Christians are not persecuted for their religion anywhere.
Re #220 Nick Gotts:
I assumed you did, I was just getting a bit worried that the valid point originally being made was getting lost in the to-ing and fro-ing about persecution of Christians in other countries so I thought it might be a good idea to point it out.
I’m sorry if my post came across as criticising yours, this wasn’t my intention at all.
Re #221 Lilly de Lure – No problem. I’m still waiting for the original “persecuted Christian” to post his US examples. Do you think he meant the Texas raid on the FLDS?
I think he was probably talking about abortions
Nick Gotts said:
I’m bracing myself for an “Expelled” screed personally.
How dare she speak to a MAN that way…as a “good” christian lady she should obey the bible
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
1 Corinthians 14:34-36
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Tom Morris,
yes, people who believe in a faith different from that sanctioned by a government are persecuted today throughout the world – the links you sent were those of christians being persecuted
which makes it ironic and pathetic when a representative of the US government who is a christian also tries to silence the voices of non-christians
I am thinking of sending this email to Davis…any feedback? Is she likely too stupid to get the point.
As a “good” Christian lady you should be ashamed of the way you ranted and spewed your hatred towards a “man.” Your bible is quite clear on your role. Obey men and have babies. Get with your own program…biblically have no right to be seated or heard in any democratic forum.
1 Timothy 2:11-15
Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.
John @ #209:
I’ll second that. How about it, folks — a permanent, unique title for Cuttlefish?
Ransom,
Consider it thirded – anyone else?
I also would happily support a permanent title for Cuttlefish — how about Official Pharyngula Poet Laureate?
Incredible that this could happen in this country. And the response has been no less astonishing. For what it’s worth, my take is here.
I carry the motion for naming Cuttlefish the Official Pharyngula Poet Laureate.
Well when will Cuttlefish’s coronation take place? Cuttlefish continues to impress. Quick, beautiful, and apropos, every time.
Has the Democratic Party made any comments about this?
Has anyone besides the Chicago Tribune covered it?
Why is America so tolerant of this intolerance?
I’m a sad panda.
Yelper(!) @ # 197 If as you claimed, christians are being
attacked, beaten, harrassed, tortured, imprisoned and killed, why doesn’t tour imaginary god come down and
prevent these designed outrages? Are you insane? How can you make such deranged comments and not make note of the absence of your freaking creeping god to prove your insane and deranged beliefs. Come on, get the crap out of your imbecilic brain and wake up to the fact that there is no
gods to come to your pathetic aid.
I hope you like, or rather dislike the name of “Yelper”.
My contribution.
i emailed her and told her that what she has to spew and spread is extremely dangerous to the progression of this nation and that she is an embarassment.
The land of Lincoln? As if he were a God-fearing Christian.
“The Bible is not my Book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma.”
@196, some creationist nut whined:
But ID CAN be presented in schools! Try a philosophy or religion class. Or a logic class, as an example of a bad argument. But if you want to teach it as science, you need to provide some actual evidence to support it.
That can’t be too hard, can it? So, do you have any evidence?
Any evidence at all?
Even just a shred of evidence for ID? Anything?
Do you have the slightest tiny microscopic speck of evidence to support Intelligent Design Creationism?
No?
Didn’t think so.
This is why ID can’t be taught in science class. Because it isn’t science. It’s not supported by any evidence, and cdesign proponentsists flee in terror at the thought of actually testing their beliefs.
Your religion is not science. To call it so is to lie. It really is that simple. Face the facts.
BAN all Religions and wise up!
http://www.spicyviews.com/religion/ban-all-religions-and-wise-up-why/
Bad idea there. The force it takes to actually ban religions will make us the monsters that some of the religious believe us to already be.
ignorant design should not be taught in any manner, not even in mythology classes where it perhaps has a sure footing to be accepted. I’m only glad that the unstable
mythologist Joseph Campbell is dead; otherwise we would have to contend with him also as he most assuredly will attach his ideas to another deranged cuase. To think that we are enduring this insane crap at the same time that
Cassini is providing us with wonders from Saturn and its moons. Good grief, what a contrast between scientific endeavor and abject insanity!
Has anyone seen the current video posted on the internet
of a bunch of savage females severely beating another female? The parents, from Lakeland, Florida are being interviewed by CBS News with a police officer next to them.
To get to one of the reasons why this has occurred, the
father gives as one of the causes, because “they have taken god out of the schools!” Incredible! Oh yeah, I am sure that the girls, as they are beating this young girl are yelling that we are doing this to you because our god is not allowed in our schools anymore and we have to let our true nature take hold. Incredible! The posted video is disturbing enough, but to have the father blame the removal of his god from the schools as one of the results of his daughter being severely injured is beyond reason to fathom.
–I’m only glad that the unstable
mythologist Joseph Campbell is dead; otherwise we would have to contend with him also as he most assuredly will attach his ideas to another deranged cuase.–
I doubt that. Having read most of his works and his biography, I think I can safely say Campbell was vocally contemptuous of creationism/literalism in any form and had nothing but complete respect for, and acceptance of, the scientific method.
Here’s my contribution, via YouTube
Having read most of his works and his biography, I think I can safely say Joseph Campbell had nothing but contempt for creationism/literalism in any form and had nothing but complete respect for, and acceptance of, the scientific method.
“http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3060955
Where have you been man? Limbo is soooo JP II.”
Good stuff there. I missed that one when it came out. See, you science types say that religion can’t change. Well, the Pope begs to differ. So now unbaptized babies go straight to Heaven and not Limbo. So there! Nah, nah, nah, nah, nah!
In a related news item it was reported that a group of unbaptized infants refused to leave Limbo and report to Heaven after the new ruling by the Vatican was announced. The group of 30 who call themselves Tiny Tots Against Relocation to Heaven have staged a sit-in at the main Limbo post office and are currently in week three of a hunger strike (although there has never been any food in Limbo). A special Heavenly SWAT team has surrounded the post office and negotiations are in progress…
Tom Marking: Come on, let’s try to keep this post oa a
somewhat rational level and not let silliness intrude to
an extent that will only tempt others to follow. There are
serious issues that must be addressed and they should not be compromised by posts such as yours.
A Tiny Tots rebellion in Limbo isn’t serious?! =8-O
O.K. On a serious note, if I was Sherman this is what I would have said to Davis after she yelled at him to get out of his seat:
“Lady, you’d better pray to your god I remain in my seat because if I have to leave it I am likely to smack you into next week.”
That’s what I would have said. But Sherman, you’re a better man than I, Gunga Din. I wonder what P.Z. would have said?
#189
Not really true, he found in his limited study that some families should in fact divorce. Your arguing 2 ways here. One is an ideal that rarely exists and the other is the reality that some marriages are simply toxic.
This is just abjectly silly. The new marriages can also be alot better. I work with children all day and see many scenarios. Some are not so good with both parents together, some are good. Some step families are really great, some average, some poor. It all depends on the people involved the new marriage works when good and dedicated people are involved.
In short marriage or divorce is only as good as the people involved and divorce in and of itself need not be terrible.
And frankly divorced people shouldn’t feel guilty. Marriages end and not all are meant to go the distance. As often as not many people will spend their lives in a loveless existence after the kids are gone. It appears to me your not making an argument to prevent divorce but to prevent it for only a time. When the kids are gone the objections you raise are eliminated.
Good, Tom. Your retort in Sherman’s mouth would precede
mine if I was there as an observer. “Hey, you brain dead
religious cretin, let’s see your imaginary god right now
and come to your defense without you uttering another
insane rant. Come on, bring this non-existent moronic
demon, a figment of your imbecilic small mind, down here
right now to give non credence to your insanities. Do it
right now you freaking moron”, I would yell as loud as the
insane dimwit lapsed into a ranting and helpless pile of
crap. Damn, I wish I was there!
So that’s how it went down. And it was all there, too; she has the routine down pat. The slow buildup to a self-righteous crescendo of pious platitudes that culminates in searing condemnation of the moral depravity of the unbeliever! Very theatrical, very Christian.
Christians evangelicals aren’t going to be happy until all of our legislators become ordained ministers with government mandated organ music and a choir in the background.
My comment refers to Slightly’s YouTube.
Actually I’m a touch disappointed that she didn’t fall to the floor, foaming at the mouth, speaking in tongues.
Can we pleeeeeeeeze retire the word “spew”? At least a moratorium, say, five years?
Cripes! Talk about belaboring a subject when it was originally to state that divorce has a much more profound effect on children than atheism, which is dubious to begin with. Church pastors? How about a huge number of psychologists and counselors? Read away. Who gives a shit what pastors have to say, certainly not me. There are many cases where there was no abuse and the parents could have tried harder or did not seek help. Infidelity is one example.
I already acknowledged that abuse would cause divorce to be preferable. Verbal abuse is hazy – don’t know what you consider verbal abuse exactly. But regardless, divorce has immediate and long-term effects on children – there’s little doubt about that. Whether the parents do as good as a job as possible, it doesn’t change the effects. The problem is that a lot of parents don’t do as good as a job as possible, but even so kids’ lives are disrupted whether by what preceded the divorce and the divorce.
I don’t understand the snide tone, I never claimed to be an expert, I do claim to have read much over the decades about the matter besides a lot of anecdotal evidence. In an article in Salon here where Wallerstein’s lack of a control group is criticized, the author refers to her “chip on my shoulder.” But Wallerstein is but one voice. Her book displays feelings of divorced children over years that can be heard by many divorced children, even older ones, and online too. The issue of guilt is all over the place.
I’m not sure why you or anyone is trying to argue against the effects of divorce in relation to Monique Davis’s claim that atheism is so dangerous. It’s obvious that divorce is better than an abusive relationship, which I said. Davis, like many other religious people, see atheism as a lack of morality, which you know. The black community has a high rate of single mothers and absent fathers as well as non-payment of child support. In light of this and her community, her “dangerous” claim is even more preposterous. Religion doesn’t seem to be a marked factor in solving these problems.
Davis has still not apologized. I’m with the feeling that although we atheists are a minority, we are still millions of votes. Next election I’d like a third-party candidate who is an atheist; if their policies are sound, my vote will go to him/her. Most atheists are politically involved, no?
WHEREAS, the citizens of the world have grown tired of the use of the word “spew” when referencing another person’s opinion being shared; and
WHEREAS, the commenters at Pharyngula feel the need to place a moratorium on the use of the word; and
WHEREAS, it assumed that all lurkers (a.k.a. the silent majority) are in agreement with this position;
BE IT ENACTED in the comments of Pharyngula that use of the word “spew” will result in your being mocked.
Addendum: This post may also result in the mocking being aimed toward me.
Well, two out of three ain’t bad.
As a lifelong resident of Illinois I have to say: you get used to the elected officials making asses of themselves. I think that’s all they DO in Springfield. Well, that and fail to pass budgets while quickly passing a bill to make sex with animals illegal.
Yeah, not funding the state pension plans takes a back seat to making sure it’s ON THE BOOKS not to make love to your pets. *eyes roll*
Miss Davis:
i would like tell you that what your statements to Rob Sherman were dispicable, offensive, and hateful bigotry. surely, being both african american and female, you will have dealt with discrimination and bigotry before, and therefore know how harmful and hurtful it is. if this same incident had happened in reverse to YOU, or any other religious person, i am quite sure there would be outrage expressed all over the media.
i would think that this sort of behavior is a heck of a lot more “dangerous” than having beliefs in peace, logic, community and questioning dogmatic oppression. our country was built upon the principles of freedom, freedom from religious persecution and discrimination being especially important. you maam, are destroying what this great country was built on by speading your hateful philosphies. that sort of behavior has no place in public office. i noticed that you made several references to President Lincoln in your tirade. and while im sure you are already aware of this fact, being in public office and all, Mr. Lincoln had no beliefs in god (or any gods), in fact he made no effort to correct those who accused him of not being a christian, and was known as “the Infidel” throughout his political career.
in closing, i would like to say that i hope you will reconsider your actions and make an apology at the very least. but i know you wont.
good luck getting reelected.
#254
So your saying someone with an unfaithful spouse should remain in a marriage and that would be superior to starting over?
Actually thats not what other studies have shown.
Exactly the point. It’s bad parenting that is the problem. The divorce can cause problems for certain but more important is how it is handled.
Secondly it is better for children to see productive relationships and happy parents than an unhappy together marriage. I was just on a discussion board the other day and was stunned by the number of adults who where happy their parents divorced as children. Ancedotal I know but it was eye opening and I hear it quite abit in my line of work also.
Kids are aware when mom and dad don’t love each other but it takes maturity absent in younger children to emphathize with them. People who get a divorce feel guilt because they have not lived up to some fantasy ideal. But thats all it is a fantasy. Even long lasting marriages may have been dead for decades and many if not most people who suffer a divorce end up in better scenarios being somewhat wiser. The guilt is a false guilt simply because life and marriage is never ideal.
@Nicole in 82:
“I also have no idea why this place didn’t have insurance,”
Why have insurance when a nifty government handout is yours for the taking? As tightly wrapped as the religious establishment apparently is with government in conservative, bible belt Amerika I expect nothing less. Democrat or republican. It doesn’t matter.
@Alex in #101:
Is Moniquie Davis black? How else can you explain a Democrat who is so religious?
This group is largely white.
http://www.bluedogdemocrats.us/
Scroll down to #7.
Your slip is showing.
Land of Lincoln, eh?
‘My earlier views on the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation have become clearer and stronger with advancing years.’
– Abraham Lincoln
Did she not know that Lincoln rejected all religion, and died an awoved anti-theist?
@Tom Morris
None of the links you provide shows christians being the specific target of persecution.
thankyou for noticing what the ever-bearing-a-persecution-complex “xians” seem to be oblivious to.
There are many cases where there was no abuse and the parents could have tried harder or did not seek help.
irrelevant to the point you initially made.
which, in itself, was irrelevant to the point which i and others have reiterated for you:
we were entirely speaking of divorce being better in cases where NOT divorcing would result in MORE domestic abuse.
If I am belaboring the point, it is only because your obtuse responses force me to.
Well I have to admit this is the first time I have responded to a ‘call for action’
I have emailed the democratic party asking how they plan to censure Ms Davis. Lets see if I even get a response.
My parents are one of those pairs that stayed together “for the kids”. (They did finally divorce when we were grown up.) I feel very strongly that I did not benefit from this, and I wish they’d divorced about twenty years sooner. So I have no sympathy whatsoever for anti-divorcers.
He’s talking about a violation of one of the basic tenants of the American Constitution; the separation of Church and State. By what right does she have to try to censure him for trying to defend the Constitution from abuse. She needs to be put out on her ass. If she wants to be a Christian, then she should keep her faith in her own heart and home, not in government chambers.
My parents are one of those pairs that stayed together “for the kids”. (They did finally divorce when we were grown up.) I feel very strongly that I did not benefit from this, and I wish they’d divorced about twenty years sooner. So I have no sympathy whatsoever for anti-divorcers.
Posted by: Nemo
This is only anecdotal evidence but my opinion is similar. I am greatly relieved that my parents got divorced when I was still a child. The last few years of my parents being together was stressful. I felt under a great weight when I was in the same room with both of them. It was a great relief for my brothers and sisters as well as for me when my parents split.
While I agree it is best for parents and children to have two parents,(Please note, I am not saying one man and one woman.) one has to go buy what is best for each family. And I think it is better to have one functioning parent than to have two parents when one cannot handle the responsibility.
Omigawd – I was born and raised in Illinois. I always thought that the US Constitution was in effect there. How did I miss the “except if you disagree with Monique” part?
“This is the Land of Lincoln, where people believe in God.” I guess, then, that I am not a person?
Perhaps we need to set up Atheist ‘Churches’ where we can socialize and mentally assign those who disagree with us to the lower levels of the Chicago sewers? Or, more seriously, we should become active, teaching awareness, kindness, goodness, and the value of our fellow men. Ethics comes from within, not from without. We do not need an invisible man watching us to do the right thing.
Would an atheist gathering be considered a church for the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code? If so, we need to start doing this… and make it very public so that everyone can see that “God” is not a given! Even in Illinois.
Media Coverage!!!!!
Keith Olberman is covering this on Countdown tonight in worst person!!
*persons* with an ‘s’ rather
WORST…PERSON…in the WORLD..!!!!!
that was so gratifying
Sigh, I didn’t really want to go there…
My parents divorced when I was 17. I had no clue, I found out when my sis was driving home from the airport (nice timing, sis). I was apparently oblivious. Since (almost 30 years) my Dad made his peace, but my Mom, not so much. It had a negative effect on me, and took many years to come to grips with. So summarizing, no abuse, an apparently amicable divorce, and years and years of damage.
Now here’s an amusing part it reminded me of. My Mom decided to go back to the church (cat lick). At one point she pondered becoming a nun (OY!), so she got her marriage annulled! So I had to ask if she was making me a bastard. Of course, churches are all about numbers, so I suppose the primate thinks I’m OK (my $ are green, eh?).
“I hold the view that all of my actions have consequences in the here and now, and no other being will fix things for me or save me from my own mistakes.”
This is the same thing with Christians and the Bible. It’s pretty sad that you can’t understand that.
The ignorance in here just blows my mind. People making statements left and right and not understanding what the Bible is all about and has no idea what Christians believe, they just blow anything out these days and believe it.
The woman is wrong though and you need to have your right to practice your religion even if it is Athiesm. Yes, yes, I know you say it’s not a religion, but it is. Your Philosophy is just based off of Science being your god.
I do think you should have that right to practice it though. I don’t think Atheism is dangerous by itself, but this militant Athiesm on this forum scares me a lot. I admit that. Not because it is true, but because it is so radical. Yes, I know that Richard Dawkin’s would chastise me for saying it is radical. However, let’s call it like it really is.
tacobell #277 wrote:
I think the point behind our secular explanations for our morals is not that Christian morals are so different, but that we are usually both so similar. Many religious people believe that what God establishes about right and wrong, and good and evil, makes sense. And if it makes sense, then Christians and non-Christians are on the same page. We can both look to see what makes sense. Atheists can have the same basic morals as people who believe in God, because morals really have to do with how people treat other people — and we all believe there are other people. We are accountable to each other, God or no God.
That said, keep in mind that Christians do not always agree on morals, or on what makes sense. There is no such thing as Christianity as such — there are lots of lots of ChristianitIES. And they have different takes on “what the Bible is all about.” If we are confused on what believers believe, we may simply be reflecting the confusion among the believers themselves.
I don’t know what you mean by “radical” atheism. Angry atheism? Angry atheists, certainly. We’re responding to being told we are not citizens — and the person who said this has a lot of popular support.
You know, having lived in central Illinois for 30 years, I’m not surprised at all. Most downstaters would LOVE to totally disavow Chicago is a part of Illinois, and force them to break off and support their own quasi-welfare state, funded with their deep suburban coffers.
Although, as an apparently abominant non-Christian in a rural area, I’m kind of surprised that the big city folks are as crazy as the Baptist preachers who assaulted me at every opportunity.
Additionally, I LOVE how good ol’ Rod Bologna-bitch moved half of the state government to Chicago as a “cost-cutting measure”. Yeah, re-read that. Apparently he knows something I don’t; he somehow knows of municipal buildings with rent LOWER in Chicago than in downstate. Rumor has it that he also discovered flying pigs that nest on the Sears Tower, as well as the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus.
I’m not terribly sad that I moved to Tennessee… in fact, this seems to suggest that we (my wife and I) made the right choice.
Yes, yes, I know you say it’s not a religion, but it is.
why, because you say so? Please show your work as to how “science” can be a deity. Moreover, what about atheists that have nothing to do with science. Are they NOT atheists?
finally, did you intend to come off as an ignorant, condescending moron, or is what you regurgitate consistently unconscious in nature?
#172 MrTwiddle: “Americans are dying in Iraq fighting to establish democracy”
#208 Nick Gotts: “I don’t know whether you believe this or not…. I think it was wrong to put in in your letter….”
Nick, Regardless of what reason(s) you may ascribe to our invasion of Iraq, in fact, the official mission statement issued by the state department declares that “the United States will work side-by-side with the Iraqi people to build a free, democratic, and stable Iraq….”.
While I, personally, don’t buy it, I believe that the irony of Americans dying to “promote freedom of speech, conscience, and religion” juxtaposed against Representative Davis’ assault on free speech painted a strong picture and strengthened my attack on Ms Davis.
but this militant Athiesm on this forum scares me a lot.
it’s hardly militant (look up the word in a dictionary sometime), but you’re right to be scared.
We represent the death of irrationality you cling to so fervently.
obviously, you wouldn’t BE scared if that actually represented anything close to the “faith” you religionuts claim to have.
so, yes, be scared. Show the world how your irrational fears drive all your decisions.
It just makes it that much easier for us to show how fear drives your religion.
True Bob sorry for your pain. If I may ask why did it cause yearsand years of damage given your age at the time? Why did it take you Dad and Mom so long to move past it?
Tacohell.
Yeah, we’re SO militant… talking amongst ourselves primarily, and getting pissed of when an elected politician feels it ok to tell an atheist to shut up and that they have no right to an opinion.
We’re outspoken and not shy about our non-belief, that our lack of respect for religion offends you, is not our problem, it’s yours. We’ve heard your type of bullshit concern over and over.
Oh, and we don’t care.
Shorter tacobell:
I’ve been posting about this and contacting bloggers who’s blogs I frequent. I’d actually planned to send it to Olbermann but I can’t believe it would have gotten on the show so quickly.
I also emailed that woman and gave her a piece of my mind. With luck all the bad publicity will cause her to appologize, if not recant. She has a right to her oppinions but she has no right at all to tell someone else to shut up or that they have no right to a seat ‘at the table’.
I really don’t care what her opinions of Atheists or Atheism are. As an American I am fracking outrage that some over inflated egomaniac crossing guard with a persecution complex would say that to any person at any time let alone during a legislative session. The Democratic party has no need of people like this and I told her so. Perhaps she’d feel more at home with the Republicans. They seem to get the lion’s share of intolerant bigots.
I’ve seen a few posts suggesting that Ms. Davis’s actions were not surprising considering the fact that most of Illinois, unlike Chicago, is rural.
There’s no connection there. She’s not from rural Illinois, and that’s not her constituency.
Davis was born and, as far as I can tell, raised in Chicago. She went to Roosevelt University in the city. She represents the 27th legislative district of Illinois, which is on the south and southwest side of Chicago.
http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=909
She’s not a rube, she’s just an intolerant fool.
I was SO pleased to see Olberman talk about the Davis dust-up.
Here’s a link to the clip from tonight’s show.
Yes, 286, you have to be impressed by someone who can bump O’Reilly down to number 2 on the WPITW segment. I thought Olberman’s explanation for placing her number 1 was pretty articulate (as usual).
Today’s segment is here:
I was SO pleased to see Olberman talk about the Davis dust-up.
Olberman voted her:
Worst person in the World.
LOL
He also did a good job pointing out how Lincoln himself during his campaign in Illinois was accused of being an atheist by his opponent.
Too bad there aren’t more commentators with Olberman’s wit.
*sigh*
I hate to be an appeaser atheist (OK, I don’t hate it all that much), but however heinous Davis’ religious bigotry, I think Sherman is being a knee-jerk here. As others have said, Pilgrim Baptist Church does appear to be a building worthy of historical preservation. I don’t know what the precise amount of money invested should be, but in principle I have no problem with it. I don’t think that the Constitution will go be incinerated if a state government gives money to preserve a building that is still used as a church.
But others are right in that there might be more going on than it appears, Illinois politics are steeped in bipartisan corrupt. Old fashioned machine politics.
Holbach, are you reading this?
Please fuck off.
The ignorance in here just blows my mind. People making statements left and right and not understanding what the Bible is all about and has no idea what Christians believe, they just blow anything out these days and believe it.
Posted by: tacobell
You are sadly mistaken here. Most of us have been brought up as christians. Most of us at some point in our lives thought of ourselves as christians. Most of us here have a pretty good grasp of what the various types of believers believe.
In fact, it is because of what we know christianity, or any other religion, to be and how it contradicts how we know existence to be that we left our old beliefs behind.
Speaking for myself, life can be so much more grand than clinging to an all powerful creator, existing to offer needless praises. How dare you lecture us on how we do not know or understand what you believe.
But let us try this little though experiment. Suppose anyone one of us was in a position of power. And we started berating you, yelling at you that your mere existence is dangerous. How would you react? You would be questioning our motives, sanity and intelligence. That is all we are doing, questioning the motives of this person. And calling her out for her bigotry and stupidity.
One last note, how appropriate you call yourself you name yourself after a fast food chain; bland and bad for you. Sorry about the insult but you gave yourself an insult for a name.
Wow, Monique Davis is a worse person than Ann Coulter (today, anyway). What a truly auspicious achievment.
Sorry about the insult
I’d be sorry if you left it out, frankly.
:p
Ichthyic, damn it, you know my ways too well. Sometimes, I like to be a bit more subtle about it. Especially when the person presents such a huge target.
Sometimes, I like to be a bit more subtle about it.
heh, i love comparing the approach of your post to the one just above it.
directed at different posters… they essentially say the same thing.
One of the reasons I keep coming back here.
wit and banality so often juxtaposed, and so often in agreement!
…and nothing is censored.
so refreshing.
I find enjoyment in using both censored and uncensored blogs. I think most people are happier when both are out there.
http://copache.wordpress.com/2008/04/09/2008/
Blogged on it, figure the issue is still hot and I haven’t had much to cover in the past few days.
Hope I’m not intruding here =P
The ignorance in here just blows my mind. People making statements left and right and not understanding what the Bible is all about and has no idea what Christians believe, they just blow anything out these days and believe it.
The Bible is all about whatever you want, and you guys believe whatever you want too. I’m sure the people making statements left and right understand that.
The woman is wrong though and you need to have your right to practice your religion even if it is Athiesm.
People get thrown into hell for not worshiping her god don’t they? She’s doing her best to keep folks out of there. Or maybe she doesn’t believe that. Or maybe she does but you don’t. Hard to tell. Let us know what Christians believe!! Thanks!
Yes, yes, I know you say it’s not a religion, but it is. Your Philosophy is just based off of Science being your god.
Okay thanks. Sounds more like an analogy than literality, but thanks. I know literality and analogy can be a little confusing for the Real Christians (C) 2008 Registered Trademark (R) Somethin Somethin!! Especially with figuring out what that Bible is all about. Lots of confusion in there. Sometimes literal, sometimes not. I don’t blame you one bit. Thanks!!
JimC 283,
First, the only reason I was hesitant to get into it is that it is so far off topic.
Problems for me – I was the first born, and wrongly assumed a responsibility role for my parents’ marriage. AFAIU, that’s pretty common, and it drives a sense of guilt and/or failure. Plus, 17 isn’t that old nor that mature. Also, traumatic events affect people of all ages.
My Dad seemed to actually deal with his problems (he remarried a few years later, and I have a fine relationship w/my Dad & stepmom) but my Mom avoided hers (denial, eh?). So why did it take time? Because of the kind of individuals they are. I would guess my Mom believes that she bears no responsibility. As for me, I didn’t realize how much I internalized, and that took a while to discover and address. (tacohell, no, cheeses won’t help – they only clog your guts up)
As part of that healing, I asked both my parents to provide me a written summary of events (see, I was trying to get to closure) but only my Dad did. My Mom said “just ask me what you want to know”. Passive aggressive. [Aside, is it just the wimmen I know, or do they all hint at what they want, and try to manuever you into guessing? Or just catlicks? Or is that just my mysoginy showing?]
So, that’s the tale of woe.
And christers, I was long over that super sky-fairy thing years and years before – I totally freaked out one of my elementary school teachers (maybe 3rd grade) by telling her the truth – that there is/are no god(s). That was when FL had some edumacation available – Space Coast was pushing technology, science was a must. Since then they’ve gone back to sticking their heads in the sand.
regards,
True Bastard Bob
As posted elsewhere: The difference between a moral atheist and a moral theist is that the moral atheist chooses to be moral and the moral theist is moral out of fear.
Re #281 MrTwiddle Your call of course, but it looks very like framing to me – a big no-no for many round here! I wouldn’t be comfortable putting something I didn’t believe in such a letter, in a way that invited the assumption that I did believe it – but of course I can imagine circumstances in which I would do so.
Grammar @ #292
Your comment leaves me wondering what the hell you are
referring to in one of my posts, or just my comments in
general? Come on, show some sense and guts and be specific.
Does RWA stand for “Retard Without Answers”?
RWA – Right Wing A**hole? Really Wild Animal? Regularly Wrong Assumptions?
It’s interesting to compare with a parrallel story, that of Sally Kern’s hate speech on homosexuals.
Because let’s face it, what this Davis is saying is also hate speech, now against atheists.
And I think the response of the gay community has been much more virulent and well organised in denouncing this and demanding the resignation of the politician who goes in that direction.
It seems to me, that the community of non believers, in the USA, is not as well organised and efficient, as the Gay community. Maybe there is something to learn from that.
Maybe we should reclaim the word heathen…
wazza, I don’t see myself as a heathen. More like an infidel to all (of course “infidel” has negative connotations as well – I am “faithful” to my wife).
Etymology:
heathen
O.E. hæðen “not Christian or Jewish,” merged with O.N. heiðinn. Historically assumed to be from Goth. haiþno “gentile, heathen woman,” used by Ulfilas in the first translation of the Bible into a Gmc. language (cf. Mark 7:26, for “Greek”); if so it could be a derivative of Goth. haiþi “dwelling on the heath,” but this sense is not recorded. It may have been chosen on model of L. paganus (see pagan), or for resemblance to Gk. ethne (see gentile), or may in fact be a borrowing of that word, perhaps via Armenian hethanos. Like other words for exclusively Christian ideas (e.g. church)
infidel
1460 (adj., n.), from M.Fr. infidèle, from L. infidelis “unfaithful,” later “unbelieving,” from in- “not” + fidelis “faithful” (see fidelity). In 15c. “a non-Christian” (especially a Saracen); later “one who does not believe in religion” (1526). Also used to translate Ar. kafir, from a root meaning “to disbelieve, to deny,” strictly referring to all non-Muslims but virtually synonymous with “Christian;” hence, from a Muslim or Jewish point of view, “a Christian” (1534).
True Bob @ #305 Good descriptions of RWA, but I bet the
true meanings will forever rest with “Remaining With Ambiguity”
True Bob,
You certainly are not a bastard. Thanks for sharing. It seems to me they had some pretty big issues well before the divorce.
I really do appreciate you off topic reply.
I wish you the best in all you do.
Ooh. I know what that’s like. It’s common, yes. (I’m the responsible Big Sis and that role went into hyperdrive when my mother fell ill. I’m still working that out…)
That’s a good question. Do you think your view of women might have been shaped, and is sustained, by your ongoing relationship with your mother? *innocent look*
Do we all do that? No, of course not. I’ll give you a comprehensive answer if you’re nice to me.
Seriously, though – are you misogynistic? I haven’t noticed. From waaaay over here, you appear to have “I’m one of the good guys” written all over you, True Bob.
Kseniya, thanks. I try to be egalitarian with everyone. Really, I was just playing off my experience with the 2 most important women in my life – my Mom (who I rarely see or communicate with – mutual and amicable) and my wife 8-| (also catlick). How Freudian for me.
Dear Rep. Davis:
Thanks to a friend who kept me and my sense of humor in mind, I was made aware of your skit last Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee in Springfield ! Very well done, I’d say! You played the role of a deranged preacher better than any street-corner lunatic I have ever heard! You have obvious talents as an actor. Since you played it so well, I think you should be forgiven for using the House as your stage.
A word of caution, though! Even today, and even in a relatively enlightened country like the US, there are still people so uneducated and so superstitious that they don’t get a joke like yours. They take it as gospel, word for word, without understanding that you are pretending to talk on behalf of a non-existent ghost, on background of a hoax that brighter people exposed centuries ago. I’m all for a good joke, and I can laugh heartily when I here one delivered well, like yours. But again, it feeds the imagination of gullible, feeble-minded people, who gobble it all up, convinced that you are one of them! That’s a shame, and it is dangerous, considering all the damage still done by people infected with the disease called “religion”. They don’t need encouragement from politicians with acting ambition.
Sincerely,
Natural Atheist
San Mateo, California
So, if this person is from Obama’s church….what are Obama’s views on atheism?
They have been shaped by the same people as this woman’s – from a spiritual side, anyway. Yet, this ‘devout’ Christian claims not to listen to what his preacher said about 9/11….so how about the right of Atheists?
Bush Sr. thinks atheists should not be allowed to hold American citizenship…so how about Obama?
#303 “it looks very like framing to me – a big no-no for many round here! ”
Framing you say? I think I need to learn more about this. Thanks Nick
Perfect example of uneducated, uninformed, broken logic, angry persona, which usually dwells in believers and religion.
Congrats welcome back to the 15th century, are we going to hunt witches next? I hope she gets kicked off that chair.
Monique Davis is an embarrassment to the Democratic Party and should resign. She should also apologize publicly to Rob Sherman and all atheists. Of course, this presupposes she will suddenly acquire manners and sense, qualities her vitriolic spew shows she lacks. In anticipation of her refusal to apologize and resign, her constituents should start a recall campaign, and all Democrats should denounce her and call for her resignation. She is not someone Barack Obama should want on his side. As a Democrat and an atheist, I certainly don’t want her representing my party.
@218
Plenty of intolerance for religions and for having the wrong religion, but no persecution for being a believer of a specific religion.
The first article mentions Christians who are not part of the ‘state approved’ forms of Christianity in China are being persecuted.
The second article states, “Dobbs gleaned one estimate that the [North Korean] regime kills 300 people a year for their faith.”
The third article mentions Christians and people of other faiths being killed simply for not being Muslim. While Christians are not specifically targeted, they certainly are targeted.
And this all counteracts what post #201 claimed.
Fact: Christians are being persecuted and even killed because of their chosen religion.
@265
There is no persecution ‘complex’ when persecution really does exist. Christians in America are not persecuted, but there are definitely those outside the Western hemisphere who are.
That is correct. Are we really debating this easily discerned fact? Why? Because this kind of religiously-motivated violence against Christians is under-reported in the USA?
I agree. She would’ve been better off. I think that was not only insulting to Mr. Sherman, but to the student and his/her family. I also think the “excuse” by her “friends” trivializes the student’s death.
Illinois seems to be jam packed with politicians and religious leaders who are black and also racist bigots. Jeremiah Wright, Otis Moss, James Meeks (both preacher and politician), and now Davis. Obama’s in the thick of this and he seems not to be able to control his bigotry either, with his assumptions about Pennsylvanians. To see the members of their churches openly cheer at racist rants gives one pause.
People like Davis are what results when people preach bigotry from the pulpit. Obama has been immersed in this for years. I wonder what he actually thinks.
Re #321 I heard (online) what was apparently the worst of Wright’s “rants”, and while I can’t say I was favourably impressed, it did not appear obviously racist – there were certainly no calls for violence against or legal disabilities for whites. The claim that Obama’s recent statements were bigotry is absurd. It is simply fact that people thrown out of work are generally bitter about it, and bitterness can often lead to seeking scapegoats. Of course Obama wasn’t wise politically to say it, but that’s another matter.
It’s sad that the woman violates basic tenets of her religion in the passion of spewing her vitriol, including the nice little cussing she added in for measure.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
…the lord looketh on the heart.
I was raised in a deeply Christian family, and have read the Bible many times from cover-to-cover. This woman shames Christians. She does not respect Christ and why he sacrified his life. According to her own religion she will rot in hell unless and until she removes that hatred from her heart. And that, in my book, is the perfect ending for a “Christian” of her caliber.
Christians, by definition, should find her behavior even more appalling than atheists.
When you write your elected representative, encouraging them to be more tolerant, be sure to also write Richard Dawkins who claims raising a child with a religious belief is child abuse. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48252
As a believer I have a lot in common atheists, we both are concerned about God, and looking for the truth (God). It is the agnostic which has a harder time finding God. Often enough the atheist believes in God, he is just not happy about it.
also write Richard Dawkins who claims raising a child with a religious belief is child abuse.
way to take things out of context, moron.
He mentioned the idea right after talking about religious cults, which force indoctrination on their children, and THEN asked if we should not extend the idea to religious families that force their religious beliefs onto their kids.
He has seen things that would make your fucking hair stand on end, and it’s commonplace here in the good ‘ol US.
suggest you watch the documentary “Jesus Camp” sometime. That might provide you with at least some idea of the proper context of his commentary.
sorry, but there is a very good argument to be made that it is indeed a form of mental abuse.
Often enough the atheist believes in God, he is just not happy about it.
*yawn*
more BS.
one too many cocktails for lunch, perhaps?
Yeah… that makes sense…
he links to worldnutdaily! too funny.
Idiot.
Christians, by definition, should find her behavior even more appalling than atheists.
Yes, they should indeed.
Please link any xian websites or blogs you find that have actually condemned this woman’s statements.
If you can find any.
that would be helpful.
heh. I expect “rocket science” probably tells his friends it’s the “atheists fault” that this woman spewed such an idiotic and unconstitutional litany.
If we can get blamed for the Westboroites, why not?
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/were_getting_blamed_for_everyt.php#c836115