…and this is a 
Get out of here, atheists!
Category: Godlessness • Politics
Posted on: April 7, 2008 10:52 AM, by PZ Myers
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.
Comments
Not only a D but in a supposedly blue state. Good grief...
Posted by: Aquaria | April 7, 2008 10:55 AM
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
Posted by: Glen Davidson | April 7, 2008 11:00 AM
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.
Posted by: Jim RL | April 7, 2008 11:01 AM
Now, now — I definitely remember being told that "ATHEISM IS NOT A CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE".
Posted by: Blake Stacey | April 7, 2008 11:04 AM
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:
Posted by: Bartholomew | April 7, 2008 11:06 AM
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.
Posted by: socpsych11 | April 7, 2008 11:14 AM
Come on, she wasn't really attacking atheists.
She was just 'framing' them.
Posted by: Sigmund | April 7, 2008 11:16 AM
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.
Posted by: craig | April 7, 2008 11:16 AM
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!
Posted by: Damian | April 7, 2008 11:19 AM
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.
Posted by: Jim RL | April 7, 2008 11:19 AM
(.)(.)
Posted by: wÒÓ† | April 7, 2008 11:22 AM
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?
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | April 7, 2008 11:23 AM
clearly, she didn't frame the issue very well :)
I couldn't get the link to work to her contact info.
Posted by: randy | April 7, 2008 11:23 AM
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.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 7, 2008 11:23 AM
So the obvious question is how much of this grant money Rep. Monique Davis is getting?
Posted by: Bob L | April 7, 2008 11:25 AM
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!
Posted by: 386sx | April 7, 2008 11:28 AM
Unbelievable. This is my backyard! She's getting an earful (or an email-ful) from me!
Posted by: Brian | April 7, 2008 11:28 AM
"...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.
Posted by: craig | April 7, 2008 11:29 AM
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 . . .
Posted by: Physicalist | April 7, 2008 11:32 AM
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.
Posted by: JasonK | April 7, 2008 11:33 AM
What a raving nutbag. Has someone explained the "no religious tests" and "separation of church and state" clauses to this woman.
Posted by: JStein | April 7, 2008 11:33 AM
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.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | April 7, 2008 11:34 AM
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.
Posted by: UprightAlice | April 7, 2008 11:34 AM
Her official Illinois General Assembly webpage is here. She's described as an educational administrator. Disappointing.
Posted by: Bureaucratus Minimis | April 7, 2008 11:36 AM
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.
Posted by: Kyra | April 7, 2008 11:37 AM
I note that her strong religious views have not prevented her from being divorced.
Posted by: Ray M | April 7, 2008 11:46 AM
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.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | April 7, 2008 11:49 AM
This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God
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?
Posted by: Drew | April 7, 2008 11:49 AM
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.
Posted by: Dave | April 7, 2008 11:50 AM
Lincoln, the Freethinker
Robert Ingersoll, "The Great Agnostic," spent part of his life in Illinois, and even served as Attorney General of the state.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 7, 2008 11:50 AM
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.
Posted by: JimC | April 7, 2008 11:52 AM
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.
Posted by: Todd | April 7, 2008 11:53 AM
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.
Posted by: JimC | April 7, 2008 11:56 AM
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.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 7, 2008 11:59 AM
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.
Posted by: Shocked Brit | April 7, 2008 12:05 PM
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."
Posted by: MH | April 7, 2008 12:07 PM
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.
Posted by: G in INdiana | April 7, 2008 12:07 PM
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.
Posted by: nicole | April 7, 2008 12:08 PM
#32 Todd: That's the most sickening thing about the recording, IMO.
Posted by: impiri | April 7, 2008 12:09 PM
She's a member of Obama's church, Trinity United Church of Christ.
Posted by: Shadowin | April 7, 2008 12:11 PM
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.
Posted by: nicole | April 7, 2008 12:11 PM
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.
Posted by: Kyle W. | April 7, 2008 12:13 PM
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
Posted by: Theodore | April 7, 2008 12:14 PM
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.
Posted by: jmd | April 7, 2008 12:15 PM
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.
Posted by: JimC | April 7, 2008 12:20 PM
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."
Posted by: DaveX | April 7, 2008 12:22 PM
I wonder how god feels about her divorce:
Vote Smart
Posted by: jumco | April 7, 2008 12:25 PM
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.
Posted by: DaveX | April 7, 2008 12:26 PM
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.
Posted by: Mold | April 7, 2008 12:29 PM
...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
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | April 7, 2008 12:31 PM
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?
Posted by: MH | April 7, 2008 12:31 PM
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?
Posted by: True Bob | April 7, 2008 12:32 PM
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.
Posted by: Damian | April 7, 2008 12:32 PM
>
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."
Posted by: Mikewot | April 7, 2008 12:35 PM
@ 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.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 7, 2008 12:36 PM
guess we know who going to be the next replacement host on the View
Posted by: the Pale Scot | April 7, 2008 12:36 PM
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.
Posted by: jumco | April 7, 2008 12:37 PM
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.
Posted by: Scrofulum | April 7, 2008 12:38 PM
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
Posted by: SteveM | April 7, 2008 12:39 PM
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".
Posted by: Kyle | April 7, 2008 12:41 PM
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.
Posted by: Doug | April 7, 2008 12:42 PM
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.
Posted by: JimC | April 7, 2008 12:44 PM
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.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 7, 2008 12:47 PM
"...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.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 7, 2008 12:48 PM
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:
She's actually pretty much on the money with this remark, all the more disappointing that she went off on the atheist.
The only upside (from the Obama campaign at least) is that it won't get much press at drag his church back into the news since it's only an atheist being attacked.
Posted by: tacitus | April 7, 2008 12:49 PM
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.
Posted by: Colugo | April 7, 2008 12:49 PM
Davis's email address is:
mdavis@hdsmail.state.il.us
Posted by: Patricia C. | April 7, 2008 12:49 PM
#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.
Posted by: MH | April 7, 2008 12:51 PM
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!
Posted by: Nick Gotts | April 7, 2008 12:53 PM
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.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | April 7, 2008 12:56 PM
Not too surprising for someone who sponsored the resolution
Posted by: Quidam | April 7, 2008 12:56 PM
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.
Posted by: Joshua Arnold | April 7, 2008 12:57 PM
(#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.
Posted by: Theodore | April 7, 2008 12:58 PM
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.
Posted by: Atomicmutant | April 7, 2008 12:59 PM
#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.
Posted by: Mikewot | April 7, 2008 1:04 PM
I guess we know who needs to worry about being expelled!
Posted by: Monado, FCD | April 7, 2008 1:05 PM
@#74, a round of applause!
Posted by: MH | April 7, 2008 1:06 PM
@ 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.
Posted by: Physicalist | April 7, 2008 1:07 PM
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.
Posted by: nicole | April 7, 2008 1:12 PM
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."
Posted by: Colugo | April 7, 2008 1:15 PM
dunno if anyone else has posted this. the email given at Project Vote Smart is mdavis2147@aol.com
Posted by: funknjunk | April 7, 2008 1:15 PM
@#79, so she arranged for public funds to be donated to a church? Isn't that unconstitutional?
Posted by: MH | April 7, 2008 1:18 PM
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/
Posted by: Lowell | April 7, 2008 1:18 PM
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.
Posted by: Kseniya | April 7, 2008 1:23 PM
#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.
Posted by: CrypticLife | April 7, 2008 1:27 PM
For a black woman state representative, Unique Depravis certainly is trying to keep atheists in their place. The civil rights issue is not over...
Posted by: Bill Anderson | April 7, 2008 1:28 PM
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.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | April 7, 2008 1:31 PM