…and this is a 
Davis apologizes
Category: Kooks
Posted on: April 10, 2008 10:34 PM, by PZ Myers
Well, it's something. After her crazy tirade against atheists, now Monique Davis has apologized.
…after being on the receiving end of a week's worth of public criticism, Davis called Sherman yesterday to apologize.
Sherman says Davis told him she "took out her frustrations and emotions on me and that she shouldn't have done that." Sherman says Davis' explanation was "reasonable" and that he forgives her.
According to Sherman and State Rep. Jack Franks…Davis claims her outburst was triggered by learning shortly beforehand…that there'd been another Chicago Public School student killed.
Ugh. She would have been better off if her friends hadn't made that stupid excuse for her. It's tragic that a student was killed, but it has nothing to do with Rob Sherman, or atheists in general, and it does not excuse her attitude in any way.
Comments
I'm actually impressed that she apologized; it's a rare enough thing that she deserves credit.
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt about frustration making her a bit irrational as well - I know I've snapped at things I really should not have, when under a lot of stress.
Posted by: MRL | April 10, 2008 10:39 PM
I'm not sure why a public insult to a whole class of people should be ended with a simple private apology. It's a step in the right direction, but too much is missing.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 10, 2008 10:41 PM
And her knee-jerk reaction was to blame atheists? What a total tool - I'm sure she's a credit to whatever district she represents...
Posted by: Sir Craig | April 10, 2008 10:43 PM
Well, it's definitely nice that she gave an apology. That's difficult for a lot of people to do. And we all have our moments where we snap because we're having a rough day...but, that doesn't mean she doesn't believe what she said. Nowhere did she state that she didn't mean it, that she didn't think atheism was really bad, that she was just trying to find some easy shot. She's sorry because this brought negative attention to her. She's sorry because she said something she believes that she probably should have kept to herself. If an atheist were to snap and say equivalent things to a Muslim or Christian, no amount of "I was just in a bad mood" would be tolerated. You may have been in a bad mood, but it exposed bigotry that is always there and needs to be dealt with.
Again, I'm glad she said something, and I'm glad Sherman accepted instead of blowing it up like I am. However, it really doesn't address the real issue in the long run.
Posted by: Jennifurret | April 10, 2008 10:53 PM
First:
I'm actually impressed that she apologized; it's a rare enough thing that she deserves credit.
Very true. She personally called Sherman to apologize. That is a good thing, a responsible thing.
But, the knee-jerk reaction to atheists? That's more than a bit troubling. I see the excuse of someone acting out of frustration; we've all probably lashed out in some way that flowed from exhaustion, frustration, whatever. We're humans. Why connect that to atheists, though? That's a connection that makes no sense.
Indeed, as I far as I can tell, there's no statement of attempting to "make right." Why does she think we atheists are such a threat? Has she thought about thinking about that? The outburst indicates, shall we say, "some issues" that she needs to resolve, issues beyond just a frustrated lashing out. There's some deeper shit she--and, seemingly, a majority of Americans--needs to deal with.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 10, 2008 11:00 PM
Sherman did the right thing though - which was to graciously accept the apology and forgive her. He seized the opportunity to take the moral high ground in this one and should be commended for it. Either way, he comes out of this looking good.
Posted by: Richard | April 10, 2008 11:06 PM
I'll be more than happy to accept the apology without condition. After all, the religious aren't the only one's capable of forgiveness.
Posted by: DB | April 10, 2008 11:06 PM
"I'm actually impressed that she apologized; it's a rare enough thing that she deserves credit."
Bullshit. She apologized after a WEEK of people calling her an idiot. It doesn't change the fact that she's an irrational tool who doesn't deserve her post. It doesn't change that she obviously feels that way, any more than with any other foolish bigot.
"I'll give her the benefit of the doubt about frustration making her a bit irrational as well - I know I've snapped at things I really should not have, when under a lot of stress."
So, because she's under stress she gets a free 'i'm sorry that I'm an intolerant bigot who would do away with the constitution if I could' pass? That's also bullshit; any stress she was under had nothing to do with kid shootings and EVERYTHING to do with that she is under suspicion of illegal funds-wrangling.) The fact that she used a kids death to try to excuse her now-confirmed ignorance and hateful attitude is as inexcusable as the outburst, if not more so. AT least Sherman is still alive to defend himself.
Were I that kid's father, I'd march right into her office and tell her to fuck off, and commit the rest of my days to destroying her career, and the ridiculous institutions that made her the shitty person she obviously is.
Posted by: Don | April 10, 2008 11:07 PM
Oh, sure it does, haven't you heard? Atheists are scum of the Earth and do not deserve any rights. Oh wait, shit, this may become an actuality soon.
Posted by: Steve Ulven | April 10, 2008 11:09 PM
One last thing. If anyone thinks that her apology is in any way a sincere feeling of guilt and not a too-late attempt at political damage control then you're as deluded as theists.
Seriously, does anyone think that a week later, a person who a week before showed the most stunning display of irrationality and idiocy suddenly got introspective and thought "you know, I was a bit hasty. Maybe those folks are right. You know, they WERE right. Atheists are really just one more step removed from my view on other religions, and deserve the rights of the first amendment too. I think I'll call and offer my sincere apology and repudiate my statements (nah, I won't go THAT far)."
Nope. After the Sherman call, I am sure she spat invective again at how the bad atheists won again and are taking over the world and OMG THINK OF THE CHILDRENS, but hopefully my career is safe now!!
I actually thought that I couldn't dislike ANYONE as much as Ann Coulter, but at least she's a clown with a waning star. This idiot is actually in a place to make policy decisions, and with that responsibility and privilige she squanders it. She disgusts me on so many levels its nearly unbearable.
Posted by: Don | April 10, 2008 11:19 PM
The best thing I can see that's come out of this is that politicians may be starting to learn that insulting atheists has consequences. I'd wager there are a few officeholders tonight who are thinking we have more political clout than they had realized.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | April 10, 2008 11:21 PM
An apology to Sherman is all well and good, but it took being named the Worst Person in the World to make it happen. What is more telling, in my opinion, is nobody else on the committee cut her off in mid tirade to object, and some people seemed to agree with her sentiments.
If she made the same statement to anybody of the Christian faith, she would have been asked to resign an hour after the meeting adjourned.
Posted by: UprightAlice | April 10, 2008 11:24 PM
Gee... It's another scum-sucking, intolerant, pseudo-Christian bigot with a surprisingly convenient excuse?
I'm not going to believe for one second that this woman is sincere in her apology, and I have no doubts that should this situation present itself again, she will act in the same deplorable manner.
I've heard it too many times. These zealots puke out some sort of hate-speech, and a week later, they puke out a hollow apology.
Posted by: Dan | April 10, 2008 11:30 PM
I wonder if the people in the recording who shouted "Amen!" When Mrs. Davis went on her tirade, will also call Sherman and apologize.
And I wonder what their excuse will be for cheering her on like that.
They couldn't have all been in the same emotionally unstable state as she was that day.
Posted by: ChrisGose | April 10, 2008 11:31 PM
Sorry, but I don't buy her apology. All of that vitriol was not invented on the spot. Just like Mel Gibson's anti-semitic rants did not come out of nowhere. If he had started raving about how the Swiss rule everything and keep him from getting work, I would say he was bat-shit loony. Her apology is like the apology that crazed bounty hunter offered a few months ago on Larry King. He was recorded making all sorts of racist statements, but he just apologized for using the N-word. Like what he said would have been perfectly acceptable if he used the terms African-American or Black. Saying "I would never allow an African-American in my house" is so much better than saying "I would never allow a N***** in my house."
Next we will have Sally Kern apologizing for what she said because it was her time of the month and she didn't know what she was saying.
Posted by: wrpd | April 10, 2008 11:35 PM
As MAJeff (and others) has said, it only really makes the connection with atheism more puzzling. I simply can't imagine what would lead me to take out my frustration over something that wasn't related to religion, on religion and all religious believers (unless there are details that we don't know of, of course).
I don't really have anything to forgive, to be honest. Although she insulted all atheists, I felt almost exclusively for Rob Sherman. He deserved the apology, and I am glad that it has been forthcoming. I do realize that a more general apology is also necessary, if only for the sake of appropriateness.
All that I will say is that someone needs to send her the relevant statistics concerning those who "believe in something", as opposed to those who supposedly don't. She certainly needs to understand that her mode of belief makes absolutely no difference when it comes to preventing heinous crimes, and that if it does, it isn't the sort of difference that she had in mind.
Posted by: Damian | April 10, 2008 11:38 PM
This is the Mel Gibson excuse. If you are drunk, or stressed out, or upset, or distracted, you don't make up crazy things to yell out of the blue. What alcohol, and stress, and distractions do is cloud your judgment, slow your reactions, and inhibit your filters.
"The drunk man's words are the sober man's thoughts" applies to Gibson, and likewise the things Davis said in a heated moment of stress induced passion reveal her honest thoughts that she is normally able to keep to herself.
The fact that she holds those beliefs at all, not that she let them out, is the problem.
Posted by: Jolly Bloger | April 10, 2008 11:42 PM
Yeah right. Get out the shovel...
Posted by: danley | April 10, 2008 11:45 PM
Does she believe the things she said? What is her actual opinion of atheists and atheist thinking? Why not offer a public apology? I'm sorry, but this is lame. Her frustration about the school shooting might have upset her, but it didn't put atheist hating thoughts in her brain.
It's like someone going on a racist tirade when they are drunk. It's not an excuse for being racist. Being drunk doesn't put ideas in your head it just makes stupid ideas sound better. At best she hates atheist and does think they are dangerous, but she generally knows better than to say so in public.
Posted by: Jim RL | April 10, 2008 11:46 PM
Ms. Davis' private apology for a very public tirade is cowardly and insincere at best. Her apology should be at least as public as her original outburst.
Posted by: castletonsnob | April 10, 2008 11:47 PM
If it is as she says, and another shooting was on her thoughts... it really does make a couple of things make sense. The non sequitur about guns in schools makes sense now. This sort of reaction ... kinda, sorta... makes sense. She was not really knee-jerking at atheists, but was (perhaps, arguably) lashing out at the first "opponent" that was available.
The delay in apology is sad, yes, but frankly each day's delay made an apology on the following day less likely, so this late apology was not easy for her. I do hope it was sincere.
Posted by: Anon | April 10, 2008 11:54 PM
Bullshit.
No amount of apology or excuse, short of 'I was under the control of the puppet masters at the time', is acceptable. She needs to be removed from office immediately, either by resignation or some other mechanism.
Posted by: Dennis | April 10, 2008 11:57 PM
re #3: "And her knee-jerk reaction was to blame atheists? What a total tool - I'm sure she's a credit to whatever district she represents..."
I agree. She is such a tool, i'm going to start referring to her as "Home Depot" Davis.
Posted by: Dennis | April 10, 2008 11:59 PM
re #3: "And her knee-jerk reaction was to blame atheists? What a total tool - I'm sure she's a credit to whatever district she represents..."
I agree. She is such a tool, i'm going to start referring to her as "Home Depot" Davis.
Posted by: Dennis | April 11, 2008 12:00 AM
bah. stupid comment thread. stupid inability delete posts. bah.
Posted by: Dennis | April 11, 2008 12:02 AM
When public figures say something indefensible and get called on it, they were always 'under the influence' of something. "I was tired" or "I was upset" or "I was misinformed" or "I just snorted four lines of coke and watched six hours of C-Span".
Horseapples. The thing she said when she was frustrated and upset (assuming that is really the case) is what she really thinks but usually restrains herself from saying.
You're making our state look bad, representative. Wanna show you're sorry? Step down. It's a little late for anything else.
Posted by: decrepitoldfool | April 11, 2008 12:04 AM
I'm assuming all of the "what was she thinking?" questions are outraged rhetoricals, because we all know why she said it. People like her actually think that atheists are evil. Period. I have no doubt in my mind that that small-minded woman actually thinks we're a danger, just as Sally Kern before her thinks gays are a danger. My biggest surprise came from the fact that she can hold such paranoid fundamentalist views yet still vote democratic on issues...though of course I haven't researched her voting record, so I don't even know if that's true.
Posted by: paul | April 11, 2008 12:11 AM
A public apology to all atheists would also be nice, being that she abused her public office to make bigoted statements slandering a minority group.
Posted by: Ryan Cunningham | April 11, 2008 12:15 AM
On the one hand, certainly, I abhor the idea of anyone using "I was just in a bad mood" as an excuse to lash out at anyone else, and am quick to regard subsequent apologies as being suspect, if not out and out insincere.
On the other hand, I'm not terribly fond of holding and fostering a grudge, as I feel that such a thing is a poisonous waste of time. Really, what else can Mr Sherman do or ask for now that an apology has finally been wrung out of Rep. Davis?
Posted by: Stanton | April 11, 2008 12:21 AM
Posted by: Stanton | April 11, 2008 12:26 AM
It's tragic that a student was killed, but it has nothing to do with Rob Sherman, or atheists in general, and it does not excuse her attitude in any way.
It sort of does if you think of her as a stupid primate (namely a human being). Nearly every crisis tends to increase what social scientists call "Right-Wing Authoritarian" scores, which means more adherence to tradition (in name) and more show of aggression towards socially acceptable targets. You should understand this. The whole point of public atheism (or public homosexuality etc.) is to make 'traditional' authorities admit you're human, thus making attacks on you seem less acceptable.
Posted by: hf | April 11, 2008 12:28 AM
Really, what else can Mr Sherman do or ask for now that an apology has finally been wrung out of Rep. Davis?
Ask her to meet with an organization of atheists from her district to discuss the issues raised in her ridiculous attack.
One issue that arises out of this is, How can atheist and secularists make use of this situation? Part of that, as has been discussed here, is raising the issue of irrational bigotry against atheists--we have developed moral systems, that are capable of decrying killing kids in a school--that have no need for a supernatural deity. The situation presents what we might call an opportunity for atheists and secularists to draw out some of the issues (I dunno what kind of organized presence exists in the Chicago area, which would seem to be a relevant site of action, potentially including an educational meeting that can also be used as an educational moment...)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | April 11, 2008 12:29 AM
Oh, my God! The next time I act like a complete asshole and scream hateful stereotypes in my church, court, synagogue, or parliament, I'm going to blame it on the fact that I heard there was an unfortunate incident somewhere that day. Thanks for the tip!
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 11, 2008 12:32 AM
Actually, Ms. Davis' comments suggest that she was under the influence of the classic bigotry that atheists (and evolutionists) are responsible for all school violence, since they took prayer out of the school and put evolution in. It is as bad a slander as Mel Gibson's drunk rant that Jews were responsible for all of the wars in the world. And it should be treated as such.
Posted by: Alonzo Fyfe | April 11, 2008 12:33 AM
Oh, for crikey sake, she apologized. Put the curmudgeonly professor routine on hold for--I don't know--ten or fifteen minutes or so. Sometimes it's beyond tired.
Posted by: Aaron Baker | April 11, 2008 12:39 AM
I prefer an honest bigot with the courage of their fucked-up convictions to a coward who'll kiss their own stupid ass in the name of political expediency.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | April 11, 2008 12:41 AM
I think Monique Davis' tirade had nothing to do with her mood that day, and everything to do with both her hatred for atheists and for Rob Sherman personally. In case anyone missed it, Rob Sherman went to court to have the Illinois "Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act" declared unconstitutional. Thankfully, he was granted a preliminary injunction. Guess who was a co-sponsor of that bill in the Illinois General Assembly? You guessed it - Monique Davis. See here.
Posted by: Drew | April 11, 2008 12:41 AM
Actually, the reason given by Sherman and Franks that
makes sense. It doesn't justify what she said, but it does fill in a missing piece of the puzzle.
If you listened to the tirade, you may remember that she made a rather off topic comment about stopping guns in school. I was rather perplexed by the comment, since that was a wholly separate issue from funding damaged private schools/churches and/or atheism.
So, I believe that that was on her mind at the time. That said, what she said was inexcusable and wrong no matter what was clouding her judgment at the time. I'm glad she apologized, but the incident reflects a need to better educate people about atheism and how we're not all a bunch of evil Devil-worshipers on a crusade against God, because it's shameful that those statements got applause from at least two people and an amen.
Posted by: Meng Bomin | April 11, 2008 12:56 AM
This may seem weird, but I'm kind of excited about how this turned out. Yeah, it wasn't a public apology, and yeah, she probably has the same opinions still, but we were able to get some kind of retraction.
I can't help but think that the ferocious response to Davis' comments was unexpected. Maybe the god-soaked bigots out there will look for microphones before mouthing off next time. There are lots more of us where Mr Sherman came from, and we are not shutting up.
Victory for the noisy atheists!
Posted by: Daniel | April 11, 2008 12:56 AM
Posted by: Bob O'H | April 11, 2008 12:58 AM
Waiting a week robs the apology of any sincerity. What, it took her a week to get over her snit? Not buying it.
But boy, she's slick.
The emotional baggage of the dead student story smoothly and invisibly takes her apology beyond mere explanation, which is what the story is meant to suggest, and into the realm of excuse. Now her outburst wasn't her fault, it was her heartbreak over a dead student that made her do it. And lucky for her a dead student excuse is untouchable because if you question it, you're automatically seen as a callous dickhead.
So her insincere apology isn't even really an apology at all, it's a convenient and calculated excuse that no one can question.
But Sherman did the right thing, even though I bet he rolled his eyes.
One thing I'm curious about though, who broke the story? Did Sherman mention to the news services that he got the call, or was it announced in a Davis press release?
Posted by: Denis Loubet | April 11, 2008 12:58 AM
Here's a thought.
This is not about just one person. It's not only about Monique Davis. Monique Davis has, apparently, apologized. Rob Sherman has accepted the apology. I think that's a good move on Sherman's part; but for those who disagree... what more could be done?
One thing that could be done is to refuse to recognize the apology, give lots of reasons for thinking it is insincere or insufficient, and continue to apply pressure for a formal censure or resignation. Not my recommendation, but it's an option.
Another is to look at this not as a bigotry of one individual against another, to be handled by punishing Davis as an individual, but as a larger issue for which the State Government has responsibility as a body.
I think the constructive thing to do would be to applaud the apology, and emphasize that this is a recognition that the outburst was inappropriate. The outburst occurred at a formal hearing, before a State Government committee, and the outburst was intimidation of a citizen in the very seat of government; a government ruled by a constitution that explicitly states any citizen has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The house failed as a body.
What I would like to see people do is move on to petition State Rep. Jack Franks, who was the chair of the meeting, and also to petition the leader of the house or the governor or someone at the top. I would like to see pressure applied THERE to have a formal and public statement of support for Rob Sherman and any other citizen who participates in the civic process of government hearings and the like. I would like to see the house as a body formally recognize the apology as a laudable and appropriate response to a clear abuse, deplore the original tirade, and back that up by giving a corporate apology for letting this occur.
This should be clear, and direct from the house itself (not second hand from Rob Sherman) and addressed to the nation. As Odermann said: the apology is due to all Americans. The apology is due not because Sherman was insulted, but because of the insult to your democracy and constitution.
Posted by: Duae Quartunciae | April 11, 2008 12:59 AM
[i]The best thing I can see that's come out of this is that politicians may be starting to learn that insulting atheists has consequences. I'd wager there are a few officeholders tonight who are thinking we have more political clout than they had realized[/i]
Amen!
Really, it's the best we can hope for. Of course it's an insincere apology, just as the "apologies" of Don Imus and others have been insincere. The real value of the apology is not that one state legislator had a real change of heart about atheists (she almost certainly didn't), but that all politicians have learned that there's a price to be paid for taking pot shots at us. (Some will continue to think that it's a price worth paying, of course.)
That doesn't mean I won't be happy to see her challenged in the next election.
Posted by: Screechy Monkey | April 11, 2008 1:02 AM
Wait, he forgives her? The child-killing, concentration-camp building, academic career-sabotaging, Hitler-enabling atheist forgives her?
Surely not, we all know that forgiveness(TM) is a christian trait and only christians are capable of forgiving someone who trespasses against them(TM)(R)(C)
So, that has to be a typo, obviously they misspelled "put a devil-worshipping Islamic gay pagan global warming universal healthcare curse upon"
I wonder what fauxnews will do with this. She's xtian nutbar and a democrat...
Posted by: AlanWCan | April 11, 2008 1:18 AM
Oh and Stanton gets a Molly nomination for this: "Something tells me that she would sooner juggle flaming chainsaws while gargling Gershwin on live television than do something like that.
Posted by: Stanton"
I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type...
Posted by: AlanWCan | April 11, 2008 1:24 AM
I do not deny the irony for a moment, but the question must be asked: since when has forgiveness been an exclusively Christian trait?
Posted by: Lee Brimmicombe-Wood | April 11, 2008 1:46 AM
The student's death may serve as an honest explanation for Davis's outburst - but not as an excuse. She directly insulted a not-insignificant minority of American citizens, but does not care to acknowledge it, and - as noted by Duae above - gave the finger to the Consitution as well. She'd make a good fascist. But who knows? Maybe this will prove to be a transformational experience for her.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 1:55 AM
Yet another mindless, vitriolic attack leading to what is effectively a not-pology, which is answered by the atheist behaving like a decent human being and accepting it anyway.
Where does she specifically say that she rejects her previous comments?
Does she anywhere say that atheists are not dangerous, that Davis' comments were not "spewing", that atheists do have a right to sit and speak, that Lincoln was in fact, not Christian, and so on?
Didn't think so.
NOT-POLOGY.
Posted by: efrique | April 11, 2008 1:57 AM
People are imperfect. Remember when you snapped at someone at home because you were angry at someone at work?
Give her a break. Once. If it happens again, then you will know what kind of person she is.
Posted by: Phil | April 11, 2008 1:59 AM
Gah, typo... in #45.
"...that Sherman's comments were not spewing..." dammit.
Posted by: efrique | April 11, 2008 2:00 AM
Since never - hence the snarky double-irony in Bob's remark.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 2:05 AM
Phil, your point about human nature is noted, but there's some backstory here: Davis has tangled with Sherman over Separation issues before.
Davis co-sponsored a bill, synopsized below, that Sherman petitioned - successfully - to be declared unconsitutional:
See comment #34.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 11, 2008 2:13 AM
That wasn't an apology, that was an excuse -- and a poor one at that. She was in a bad mood because of a school shooting, so decided to take it out on an atheist being questioned on an unrelated topic?
What that say to me is that she's sorry that there has been so much fall-out, and she's sorry that her ridiculous views came out in such a public manner, but - by dog - she is most certainly not sorry she holds them.
Posted by: Armchair Dissident | April 11, 2008 2:45 AM
Oh, this is laughable. Come people, what do you want? A bigoted woman, (who regerdless will continue to be so) has been shown the fact that such actions have consequences politically for her. Remember, she's a POLITICIAN. We should have little care for her inner thoughts, and more for her actions. Now, being shown that such actions have severe consequences, she will be more likely to keep her animosity to herself and be less likely to act on it so brashly again. This is a plus even though may of us would rather not have her in office to begin with. Yet, if enough of us actually have the integrity to stick to our principles and not forget about this, we can even vote her out of office. FSM bless America. While I have no illusions about the fact that she's a bigot. I could care less if she's sincere! Sincerity? Laugh-Out-Loud. I want her stances to change. And so they have, and so they will if anyone here who's currently so up in arms continues to look into her actions and call her on them even if PZ doesn't post them.
This is a win for us, even if some view it as slight. If Davis didn't think we mattered politically there would have been NO apology. So why am I reading a group of people blind to the fact? Were we expecting her to change her views and suddenly approve of atheists? it seems that expectations of what could be accomplished (let alone what should be) were far too unreasonable.
Point of fact: A bigoted rep, has been forced, through major non-religious political pressure that was non-existent a decade ago, to retract her statements. It's almost like the ACLU can begin to breathe. Almost. The moral of the story is this is a point for all of us who wrote in. Celebrate and have some perspective. We'll have plenty to bitch about tomorrow.
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 2:51 AM
what if we were retards instead of unbelievers?
would her apology be acceptable if she had blamed retards for all of the school shootings?
I agree that her excuse is actually worse than the origonal tirade - she is actually linking atheism to the shooting of students?
The sad fact is that atheists are still hated in America, and the reasons for it are plain - all those school shootings are pissing the good christians off, and we are obviously all to blame for putting the awfull idea that life is meaningless - their straw dog - into the students heads.
Posted by: dan | April 11, 2008 2:55 AM
dan,
I can't see how you gleaned that from the statement. Her excuse, thin as it is, runs like this: Some student was shot. I was upset. Therefore I flew off the handle when I shouldn't have.
The point of the matter is she's APOLOGIZING. She recognizes (for any reason) that saying such things is unwise for a politician and such inanities shouldn't be repeated. The link made in the apology is not atheism=shootings, even if that's what she really thinks. The point was she was upset and therefore acted uncharacteristically. The intended message is "I don't hate atheists." And I don't care if she really believes that in her heart of hearts. She's professing it now, and won't be so foolish as to make statements or vote for bills that cross this group again without a good deal of forethought. And that's just how we want it.
Posted by: Michael X | April 11, 2008 3:08 AM
An apology is an apology. It isn't private, we are reading it right now on the internet. Has anyone ever seen a creationist apologize for being a moronic lying, Death Cultist intent on bringing back the Dark Ages.
Their attitude is always, "why yes, I lie a lot and when the Dark Ages come we will have a short, touching ceremony with you and a stack of firewood and wave good bye. Now why is that a problem?"
Posted by: raven | April 11, 2008 3:11 AM
I have to be honest though. I have seen things just as bad as what she said on the other side from this blog and the sad thing it is very common. :(
Posted by: Planet Killer | April 11, 2008 3:39 AM
Planet Killer, that may be true, but only to a limited extent (i.e. none of us say that they should shut up and get out of the 'chair' even if we often wished it but then only on the public or political stage). I.e. keep beliefs personal and not try and impose them on others, directly or through the law, and the average atheist will simply have the occasional quiet chuckle at their delusional belief systems or simply ignore it altogether. Much as I do with a couple of my closest friends who happen to be devout xians. Because their belief system is a personal one, visible only by how they live their lives not how they try to impose it on myself or others.
Nor do we try to deny them their constitutional rights, even if we sometimes think they don't really deserve them for the way they abuse them.
But, however 'irrational' you may see some on here as being, there is one huge difference. That being that none here are representing their constituents, all their constituents, while seeing some of those constituents as being = !citizens. Not only unworthy of the protection of the constitution but actually trying to deny them that protection on a political stage.
See the difference?
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | April 11, 2008 4:14 AM
I'm going to pile on to the "not good enough" responses.
She goes on a raving, bigoted rampage, and attempts to essentially disenfranchise an individual, and the best she can do is "she took out her frustrations on him". She saw him as an enemy and attacked him and his beliefs in the state legislature. A public apology is entirely appropriate, since she said that the atheist philosophy is dangerous even if kids just hear about it. Imagine if I were to say, in the state capitol, that Christianity was dangerous and that it could warp the minds of young children if they even heard about it. I'd be ridden out of town on a rail!
But this self righteous bitch gets to say that atheism is poison even if you just HEAR about it, and we should let her off the hook just for saying that she shouldn't have said it while never even beginning to imply that she didn't hold the bigoted beliefs that she'd just professed to having?
I don't believe this would really be a GOOD idea, and it would be a cheap shot at best, but I'd LOVE to publicly tell her that she and "her kind" (oh yeah, bringing out the race card) don't deserve to be able to hold public office and she just demonstrated that with her uncivil tirade, and then later called to tell her that I'd had a hard day at work and just took my frustrations out on her. I'd like to see if she'd openly accept it and be as gracious as Sherman apparently was.
Sherman has accepted it, good for him I suppose, but I'd agree that calling for some degree of censure against Davis would be entirely appropriate. Her words were not solely directed at him, as such her apology (and preferably a REAL apology, enough of this notpology nonsense) needs to be directed at more than just him as well.
Posted by: Nomad | April 11, 2008 5:19 AM
So her apology is basically the excuse "the nasty thing that happened made the prejudice and bigotry jump into my head".
Wow that's fucking lame. Yet another data point in the religious freak notpology study. sorry kind hearted folks but whatever her reasons for framing her apology in the manner above, I for one would refuse to accept it (not that I count in this instance but you know what I mean). Apology it ain't, it's a whiny excuse for her actions which does nothing to hit at the heart of what she should be apologising for: her expression of prejudice.
The sad thing is that the simple fact that she "apologised" at all is an IMPROVEMENT! Although I think a better apology would have taken the form "I fucked up. I have no excuse. My bad entirely." Getting her out of office/her resigning is sadly a pipe dream. We still have extant politicians who express virulently racist sentiments decades after the civil rights movement (a far more serious disenfranchisement btw), anti-atheist/secularist sentiments will take a lot longer to decline.
Louis
Posted by: Louis | April 11, 2008 5:27 AM
Wait a sec ... did she apologize for WHAT she said ... or just for her rude behaviour? Something seemed to be missing from that "apology".
Posted by: ZekeCDN | April 11, 2008 5:33 AM
I agree with Michael X on this one.
I don't care if a politician doesn't like atheists - only that they treat atheists with respect.
We all have prejudices - personally, I can think of many nasty things to say about theists. But I wouldn't say them to their faces simply because it's rude.
I think a lot of people in the comments want to convict Davis of a thought crime, when they probably hold equally intolerant thoughts about her religion.
Her real crime is inappropriate behavior - not inappropriate beliefs.
Posted by: Blair T | April 11, 2008 5:49 AM
Well, some of you want your pound of flesh, don't you?
I gotta say, this:
Followed by this:
(from the same comment: #13) does not impress me.
As Michael X said: we feeble atheists forced an apology from a state representative. Let's have a quick cheer before we turn the waters red with her blood.
Posted by: pedlar | April 11, 2008 6:03 AM
What do you guys want? She dutifully worships and glorifies an angry, jealous, vengeful god...and some of his holy "love" rubbed off on her. Don't you see? She was talking in tongues...maybe that murder in the school was the latest "sign" of her god's goodness and omnipotence and her "love" for Sherman then spewed out of her but since he's atheist he just didn't understand the tongues of faith.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | April 11, 2008 6:13 AM
Not really. AIUI, Chrisitan Forgiveness requires a blood sacrifice of an innocent third party, and then is only offered to those that request it in a specific way.
Atheists. OTOH, can simply decide they are not going to burden themselves with a lifelong grudge over something.
Posted by: steve_h | April 11, 2008 6:29 AM
I call Bullshit on the Abusers' Excuse. She sounds like a 6-year old bully who has learned to cry on demand to escape the punishment s/he deserves. And it's not even a clever dodge, but rather an effing typical "some trauma outside their control" that made them lash-out and abuse someone else, never their own true self.
No credit from me. The second you make excuses, you've proven your lack of integrity.
Posted by: Moses | April 11, 2008 6:53 AM
Congratulation to all American atheists and secularists! A real victory.
Since Davis has now apologised, in however limited and insincere a way, I'd agree with Duae Quartunciae that trying to get official recognition that she should have been called to order immediately, would be the best course of action. After all, she has now admitted what she did was inappropriate, as should have been evident to the meeting's chair, so this would build on what has already been achieved. If the house does not have standing orders against such outbursts against witnesses, it should have. If it does, they should have been enforced.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 11, 2008 6:53 AM
"But, however 'irrational' you may see some on here as being, there is one huge difference. That being that none here are representing their constituents, all their constituents, while seeing some of those constituents as being = !citizens. Not only unworthy of the protection of the constitution but actually trying to deny them that protection on a political stage."
I still do not get it. I understand what you are saying however, you still have the right to believe what you believe. She was angry and yes she was wrong in what she said, but people still believe in freedom of speech for all people and not just for Christians. That changes of course on the Internet because there isn't really freedom on forums like this (really) unless you create your own forum.
Posted by: Planet Killer | April 11, 2008 6:56 AM
Seriously, does anyone think that a week later, a person who a week before showed the most stunning display of irrationality and idiocy suddenly got introspective and thought "you know, I was a bit hasty.
Oh hell, I had one guy take a year. It took him that long to find the stones to apologize. Privately... after a very public ripping of new orifice. So it's not just the public servants that have trouble in this department.
Sure, the apology sould have been public, but now she is faced with an atheist being *nice* to her, and that's gotta hurt.
Posted by: Graculus | April 11, 2008 6:56 AM
SciAm has a nice audio interview with Mathis for an hour. It's relatively amusing, if you like hearing thinly veiled no true christian fallacies and such.
http://www.sciam.com/media/sound/2008-04_matthis-sciam-roundtable_p2.mp3
Posted by: Dutch Delight | April 11, 2008 6:58 AM
John says:
See the difference?
PK responds:
I still do not get it.
predictable.
Posted by: Ichthyic | April 11, 2008 7:00 AM
If your spouse/partner beats you and puts you in the hospital someday, you gonna settle for flowers and an insincere apology?
Posted by: Moses | April 11, 2008 7:04 AM
I'm glad she apologized, but she still deserves to lose her job in the next election and never hold public office again.
Posted by: Carlie | April 11, 2008 7:05 AM
I'm sure it was very easy for Rob Sherman to accept Monique Davis' apology, since he knows that her outburst may cost her the next election. Rob may have forgiven her, but hopefully the voters won't.
J. D.
Posted by: J. D. Mack | April 11, 2008 7:06 AM
"I don't care if a politician doesn't like atheists - only that they treat atheists with respect."
Do the militant athiests on here deserve respect?
That is the 1 million dollar question.
Look, I am all for what you want to believe, but when I come here day after day and see insults pounded out by people like PZ Myers it really makes me wonder.
Is it okay for you to respect people that insult you from having different belief systems than your own?
You can argue all you want about evolution or how there is no God, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter.
People are going to believe what they want to and they should not be forced either way. This is why Dawkin's fails because he tries to push science to conclusion that is backed by his own world view. At the end of the day it changes nothing, it is his own world view backed by his own point of view about science. In the end it gets us no where because science constantly changes and what was right one day becomes wrong when we get more evidence.
Even if there was evidence for God, you are never going to see it. Because if you believe in a world view that there is no God, you will ignore the obvious and look for what you want to look for.
If PZ myers and company want to do something they should use their millions to help people out. This will matter more than trying to convert everyone to a single world view.
By the way I love computers and love programming and I am always looking for the next big thing and I love science too, it has created jobs and improved all of our lives. I just can't see myself limiting myself to this narrow minded single dimentional point of view.
I just don't see science stopping global warming and even if they did they are not going to stop mankind from killing each other even if religion did not exist. That is the point here. It does create jobs and make our lives better but it does nothing to stop humans from doing themselves in.
Posted by: Planet Killer | April 11, 2008 7:12 AM
Unlike many of the commenters in this thread, I cannot read Davis's mind and so have no idea whether her apology was sincere, calculating, or a bit of both. I would suggest, though, that it doesn't much matter which is the case.
Here's what does matter. Atheists are, famously, the most despised minority in America. Otherwise decent people who would never tolerate racial or sexual or what-have-you invective aren't bothered in the least by slurs against non-believers. Yet here, for once, is an example of somebody slagging off atheists and then, after feeling heat for it, backing down. I'm not sure that has happened before in American public life.
In a way, it might be better if Davis's apology were merely cynical and face-saving. That could suggest, you see, that we are beginning to enter an age in which bigotry against atheists, for the first time, causes one to lose face.
Not all that long ago, it was socially acceptable to make pejorative remarks about blacks and Jews. By no means was everybody a racist or antisemite in those days; but those who weren't tended to stand there embarrassed while the Klansmen and Jew-haters cracked their little jokes. Today, that sort of thing is emphatically not socially acceptable. There are still a lot of racists and antisemites, but they need to take care they are among their own before they start using the N-word and telling Jew jokes. More recently, the same process has begun WRT gays (though there's clearly still a long way to go).
So if Davis's apology was sincere and heartfelt, well, that would just be a decent person realising that she had behaved indecently, and asking pardon for it. But if the apology was cynical political manoeuvring, it might just possibly signal that we are at the cusp of the same process beginning WRT atheists that is already underway WRT other groups -- she had to apologise, because going forward there will be a social and political cost to pay for anti-atheist bigotry.
Even if I am right about that, of course, there is still a long way to go. Anti-atheism will remain socially acceptable for many, and for a long time to come. And there will continue to be positive political benefits to be gained from active anti-atheist bigotry, just as Republicans learned in the 1960s that they could win seats by appealing to those who hate blacks, and currently win seats by appealing to those who hate gays.
But the absolutely crucial distinction is that, once this process begins, tolerating or even promoting bigotry becomes the characteristic of a faction, not of society as a whole. Up till now, a large majority of non-atheist Americans of any and all political stripes has disliked, distrusted and misunderstood their atheist fellow-citizens -- or at least, has been prepared to tolerate the dislike, distrust and misunderstanding of others without being bothered by it. Davis's apology suggests that, maybe, that is beginning to change, and increasing numbers of non-athei