Now on ScienceBlogs: Spirited Debate with Ray and Kirk
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« More Elaine Donnelly Nuttiness | Main | More Lies about Odessa Lawsuit »
Posted on: April 11, 2008 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton
The other day I compared Illinois State Rep. Monique Davis to Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern for her absurd and bigoted outburst against atheist activist Rob Sherman. Turns out there's one difference between them: Davis is willing to apologize for her behavior, as opposed to Kern, who would rather falsely claim that criticism of her bigotry is persecution.
And note also that the big bad evil atheist graciously accepted her apology.
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
Tim Lambert 11.22.2009
PZ Myers 11.22.2009
PZ Myers 11.19.2009
Ed Brayton 11.22.2009
Ed Brayton 11.22.2009
Comments
I respect Kern more. She sticks by what she said and meant. Davis is only apologizing to save face, not because she changed her mind or didn't really believe what she said. I hate when politicians apologize for what they truly believe. I'd rather have a frank asshole than a pandering weasel.
Posted by: writerdd | April 11, 2008 10:56 AM
Great that she's making some effort. But that's an apology? That hardly seems satisfactory to me. Maybe she said a lot more on the call. But I don't know, which is part of my issue with her. She publicly defamed an entire group of people on the government floor, and then makes a private apology by phone a week later.
Plus the rationale in the apology, as reported, is pretty insulting as well. She seems to be equating atheism with schools shootings. What if her rant had been "black people have no right to petition their government," and the apology had been, "sorry, I had just found out my father was mugged by a crack addict." Or if her tirade had said "it's dangerous for our kids to even know homosexuals exist... Opps, sorry. I had just found out about a child molestation arrest."
Until I see something that demonstrates she understands why what she said was wrong, I will continue to regard her as a threat to liberty and call for her resignation.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 11, 2008 11:17 AM
Posted by: Taz | April 11, 2008 11:19 AM
Posted by: Taz | April 11, 2008 11:26 AM
So basically, you have more respect for people who stubbornly stick by their idiotic and hateful beliefs than people who have the decency to 'fess up and apologize.
As someone who's occasionaly apologized for out-of-line comments on this blog, I'm not sure I want to live in your world.
Posted by: James Hanley | April 11, 2008 12:27 PM
And we'll have to continue to guess until she publicly addresses it. I can understand being frustrated and angry. I can understand saying things one might not really mean in the heat of the moment. If that's all that happen, okay. But at the moment all I have is a second-hand report that seems to say she acknowledges she shouldn't have voiced her opinion in that way, not that she didn't mean it.
Maybe she really does support the idea that atheists are entitled to equal treatment. But until she says so I must take her at her word with regard to her previous statements.
Posted by: Abby Normal | April 11, 2008 1:06 PM
@writerdd,
I agree. It never ceases to amaze me that many people seem to value insincere "apologies" more highly than honesty, no matter how idiotic.
@Abby Normal:
Absolutely! If anything, the "apology" is more insulting than her original statement. Why anyone would accept her twisted logic as an apology at all escapes me.
@James Hanley:
There was nothing decent whatsoever about Davis' "apology". If you think that it is "decent" to deny atheists their basic constitutional rights and then excuse your remarks by linking atheism to school shootings, I know I don't want to live in your world.
Posted by: Gregory Earl | April 11, 2008 1:36 PM
Posted by: Taz | April 11, 2008 1:50 PM
I think Davis' apology is a good thing, whether it was sincere or simply pandering. Good if sincere, and good if the stigma against atheists has lifted to the point that acknowledging the legitimacy and citizenship of atheists is now considered "pandering" to the desires of the voters.
That said, I, too, was a bit disturbed by Davis' excuse. While it could be interpreted as "I was so upset I was just snapping at everything and everyone" or even "why can't we just focus on school violence," I've seen so many arguments from Christians to the effect that atheism causes the diminished respect for others which lies behind school violence that I suspect she could very well have been making a direct connection with her chosen target. If only those gang bangers had loved Jesus!
On that issue, here's an interesting article from about a year ago in which an inner city high school teacher suggests that "Jesus Saved Me by Grace" could be part of the problem, rather than the solution:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=613596
Some quotes in case the link doesn't work:
...there have been an unusual number of shootings in recent weeks, including that of 4-year-old Jasmine Owens. And I have a little-discussed theory as to why. What is the theory? The current interpretation of Christianity in the central city.
... Any conversation I've heard about God coming from these children's mouths has me absolutely convinced they truly do believe that Christ is their savior. But there's a problem. And it is that they believe they will be saved for simply believing in God, even if their behavior doesn't warrant it. When I talk about behavior, I'm not talking about the more harmless immoral acts you might be thinking of: promiscuous sex, a sailor's mouth or even manipulation of others for financial gain. I'm talking about rape, abuse and murder. If you ask a kid in my classroom if a murderer who believes in God will go to heaven, you'll get a definitive "yes."
I can only think of one explanation for this. Much of the religious teaching taking place in the central city centers around salvation granted because of true belief, and very little if any is about the topic of punishment.
Now, I'm no religious expert. Perhaps this is how the Bible is supposed to be interpreted. Perhaps the Christian God is so forgiving that you could kill someone and still stamp your ticket to heaven. I'm not about to argue about the issue one way or the other. But I will argue this. Perhaps if our city's preachers took on a more punitive persona, perhaps if city sermons reminded Christians that violent acts will result in a violent afterlife - even if they don't think that is the case - then perhaps fear of eternal punishment might actually get kids to think twice before they pull the trigger of a gun leaving a 4-year old-girl dead.
Interesting.
Posted by: Sastra | April 11, 2008 1:55 PM
While Davis may be insincere, what's important is her acknowledgment that what she had to say is unacceptable. It may not be enough, but it's a valuable step in the right direction.
I really wish that someone could convince Kern that what she said is also unacceptable. In the long run what we need is acceptance for people who are different. Tolerance is an unhappy half measure, but it's a step in the right direction. Step 1: stop saying it. Step 2: stop believing it.
Posted by: IanR | April 11, 2008 2:58 PM
Kern will never apologize for what she said as long as there are people in OK like this: (The Tulsa World, Letters, Thursday, April 10) "It is disturbing if not ominous to read comments about state Rep. Sally Kern that show hate and intolerance for her point of view. What it does let us know is that out nation's world view is shifting from a biblical, Judeo-Christian world view to a humanistic - if not paganistic - world view, partially thanks to a century-old effort in the government education system."
He then goes on for another two hundred words to quote the bible.
Posted by: Karl | April 11, 2008 3:36 PM
Karl has a point. Whether or not a politician apologizes has a lot to do with which option they think their constituents would prefer. Kern will not apologize because she knows that most of the voting public in Oklahoma City agrees with her, whereas Davis probably can't expect a majority of Chicagoans to go along with the idea of certain classes of people having fewer constitutional rights than others. In fact, as I've said before, I think Kern might even try to leverage her "victimhood" into a run either for governor of Oklahoma or for the US Congress. She's definitely trying to get all the political capital she can out of it.
Oklahomans actually admire hard-headed stupidity that refuses to listen to reason or consider issues in anything other than stark black and white terms. That's why Bush is so popular here.
Posted by: Wes | April 11, 2008 3:49 PM
We don't really have the full context of the apology here. All we have is Davis apologizing to Sherman, in a private phone call, for taking out her anger and frustration on him. She's apologizing not for what she said, but for how she said it and to whom.
I agree that the apology is entirely appropriate for Sherman, and he was very gracious in accepting it. However, Davis also needs to make a public apology for the words she used, and the implication that atheists are dangerous and don't have a right to speak up. She needs to retract those statements and apologize for blurting them out in anger, otherwise all she's done is apologize to one person for yelling at him.
Posted by: Friendly Contrarian | April 11, 2008 4:46 PM
I agree that the apology is entirely appropriate for Sherman, and he was very gracious in accepting it. However, Davis also needs to make a public apology for the words she used, and the implication that atheists are dangerous and don't have a right to speak up. She needs to retract those statements and apologize for blurting them out in anger, otherwise all she's done is apologize to one person for yelling at him.
This sounds pretty reasonable. Because of the public nature of Davis' remarks the victim of her comments would be not just Mr. Sherman, but any and all atheists or nonreligious persons in her community. Don't they deserve an apology?
Posted by: Coin | April 11, 2008 4:59 PM
I happen to agree with Alonzo Fyfe's take on her attempt at an apology:
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Jason S. | April 11, 2008 5:58 PM
What Davis did is the equivalent of saying that Jews habor a destructive philosophy, saying that it is dangerous for children to even know Judiasm exists, and telling a Jew that someone like him has no right to testify before the government. Then, when criticized for it, what she did is the equivalent of saying, "I'm sorry I yelled. I just got so worked up over recent news about how international bankers have hurt our economy."
Posted by: Jason S. | April 11, 2008 6:12 PM
I basically agree with Friendly Contrarian above.
One thing I have a problem with, though, is the misleading nature of her focus on a CPS student's shooting death. Everywhere I have read about her apology, blog commenters have assumed that this was a school shooting and cut her a bit more slack--it was not, it was a regular south side of Chicago murder, and in fact, the 18 year old in question had withdrawn from high school in February. Yes, I think it's terrible that he was killed, but I think Davis and her friends in the legislature are twisting the facts just a tiny bit to make things seem more sympathetic. Chicago is on something like 24 students killed this school year, most of them shot, and that is a tragedy. But to act like it is a problem of "guns in schools" when (a) most of the shootings took place outside school and (b) handguns are already completely banned in the city of Chicago is disingenuous. She shouted at Sherman as though he could have done something about this if only he hadn't wasted his time on the atheist issues--I just don't think he has those kind of magical powers.
Also, Wes said:
Davis doesn't have to worry about anything like a majority of Chicagoans--her district is geographically much small than that, and I would guess that she is extremely demographically representative of her constituency. Since she just won a Democratic primary anyway there would be zero chance of her losing her seat--the south side is just not going to vote Republican.
Posted by: nicole | April 11, 2008 6:54 PM
Until I see something that demonstrates she understands why what she said was wrong, I will continue to regard her as a threat to liberty and call for her resignation.
Up here, at least when our bigots apologize, they go the whole way.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | April 11, 2008 7:41 PM
May we now expect Representative Davis to remain contrite and temper her future remarks with a new respect for the various positions of her fellow citizens? I understand she does so for some positions.
If so, should we then expect Representative Kern to find a new way to claim special consideration? I gather that her dog might give her wisdom at any moment.
Stay tuned! Even if it ain't funny it'll still be educational. That's funny since I have long suspected that it would also be valid to say that even it ain't educational it would still be funny.
57 orbits of the sun completed today.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | April 11, 2008 9:59 PM
Davis should also apologize for this "This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God"
Except for probably Lincoln. He was certainly not much of a xian and very possibly an atheist. Davis should apologize for her historical distortion, but maybe Chicago schools don't teach much history.
Posted by: bernarda | April 12, 2008 4:20 AM
Why is it an unhappy half-measure?
All you can expect by right in a pluaralist society is tolerance, respect is earned on an individual level not by belonging to a group that oft times claims that it isn't a group.
As for Ms Davis, she'll believe what she believes.
How she acts as an elected official is all that the general populace of her state has a right to moan about.
------------------------------
As for if she is re-elected that is up to her electorate, if you aren't in her district then tough shit, your views don't count.
Posted by: Chris' Wills | April 12, 2008 9:35 AM
Davis may have privately apologized to Sherman, but the rest of us are still waiting for a public apology. This story is far from over.
Posted by: vjack | April 12, 2008 9:52 AM