TheAgitator.com
Quotable
Monday, April 7th, 2008"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. 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."
– Illinois State Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) to Rob Sherman, who was testifying before a committee of the Illinois House. Davis was referring to Sherman’s atheism.
Such are the perils when people don’t know or care about history. so sad.
“it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists … ”
wow. She sure sounds American. A real patriot.
Ironically, there is an Islamic scholar who is campaigning against the modern Middle East theocracies. It isn’t that he wants LESS Islam, but that he feels that you can’t really prostrate yourself before god if the state is compelling you to do it.
As opposed to this woman, who thinks that ideas are dangerous, … “because god want’s you to think believing in him was you’re only choice … ?”
On the one hand, I think Rep. Davis is a self-righteous, bigoted douche who doesn’t comprehend the free exchange of ideas. On the other, something has to liven up these hearings.
Wait, she’s a democrat? Wow, I’d have flubbed the call on that one. Lincoln is dead lady and all you’re doing is stomping on his grave.
It reminds me of the poll done regarding whether people would or would not vote for someone for President if he/she “were X”.
Atheists scored the lowest on the entire list, well behind gays.
Because I’m a heterosexual white male, it’s good to know that I still have at least one victim card to play, right? Except that in this country, playing that card would only make me more hated…
She says that as if there were no atheists in the state before this guy came to the hearing. I happen to know at least two atheists who live in Illinois right now.
Three hundred years ago, or today, in some parts of the world, admitting you’re an athiest would get you killed.
Same goes for gays, the only difference is they have way better PR. If you want advice on how to decorate your living room, who are you going to go to? A gay guy, or an athiest? Same principle applies for president. Who cares about the issues, a gay presidential candidate would make Mitt Romney look like Ron Paul.
I’d vote for either against the candidates we have lined up, but then again, I’d vote for most farm animals over the choices we’re going to have.
The worst thing about being a Christian is having to put up with being associated with that kind of idiot.
So the State of Illinois was not founded on the principles of limited government, freedom, open exchange of ideas, and tolerance of viewpoints different from hers? They got together and founded Illinois because they believed in God? I think not. Sure, most people back then believed in God, and religion played a part in their lives, but it is delusional to think it was that cornerstone of all things.
I am sure if Jesus was in her place, he would have said exactly the same thing….. He would also have read the Illinois Constitution, which she has sworn to uphold:
The Original 1818 version:
***
ART. VIII. Section 3. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent; **that no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience;** and that no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.
***
[That is the only place God is mentioned]
CURRENT VERSION:
—
Preamble:
We, the People of the State of Illinois – grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He has permitted us to enjoy and seeking His blessing upon our endeavors…
[This is the only place God is mentioned]
SECTION 3. RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever be guaranteed, and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his religious opinions; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness, or justify practices inconsistent with the peace or safety of the State. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship against his consent, nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
—
Now, licentiousness means:
1: lacking legal or moral restraints; especially : disregarding sexual restraints
2: marked by disregard for strict rules of correctness
So it seems to me, given that the practice of atheism does not affect peace and safety (with the exception of apparently affecting their own safety by being atheists) and atheists don’t use atheism as an excuse to marry their pet goat, that liberty of conscience is in full force with respect to atheists. Therefore, Rep. Davis is in violation of her oath to uphold the constitution (which is a sin, in case she has not checked to fine print on the Thou Shalt Not Lie commandment)
It’s a bit unsettling to see this in a State where the top 8 State politicians are all Democrats….
The woman is a fascist thug. She believes the state has the power to compel thought. Lots of innocent people end up dead when such thinking holds sway.
I think atheists are the most loathed minority alive in today’s America. We have at least one advantage over other minorities is that like gay people we can keep our atheism to ourselves if we like. Unlike gay people, one disadvantage is that most people think of atheism as a choice and hence that it is OK to revile us. I’d argue that I could no more choose to believe in God than a black man could choose to change the color of his skin, Michael Jackson notwithstanding.
Naturally, I find Davis’ comments to be offensive, though highly typical and even understandable. I mean, if you believe atheists are definitely going to hell, then our philosophy *is* very dangerous to other people. And then you have all the silly worries that people who have the mindset to become atheists will then go on to have no morals. There’s very little truth to that at least.
Think of all of the atheists you know and all of the devoutly religious people you know. Which group on the whole is the more decent, moral, trustworthy group of people? I know where my money is.
Still, the sad thing is that there are people out there who would do bad things if they didn’t think they would go to hell for it.
Shame on her and using her faith to grandstand. There isn’t a worst type of zealot out there.
[...] –Monique Davis wants to destroy atheists. Maybe if they’re lucky, she’ll just acquiesce to them being spanked and closely monitored by their kids’ grandparents. [...]
[...] (HT to The Agitator.) [...]
I love how certain fundie Christians claim the US was founded on so-called “Christian principles” such as freedom and tolerance, yet those same Christians decry any mention of atheism. Cognitive dissonance, I suppose.
As an atheist, I can’t help but giggle at the statement that “it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!” Of course it’s nothing new, but it’s an explicit example of the underlying insecurity that seems to be prerequisite for this kind of evangelical mindset. Why would the philosophy that atheism (a short way of saying, the refusal to believe in things for which there is no evidence) be so dangerous for our kids even to know about? Is that it would make a whole lot of sense?
Sense typically doesn’t play in ignorant zealots like her.
God bless Rep. Davis! :D Agitator readers from the Land of Lincoln are all thinking, “Well, at least while Representative Davis was launching her tirade there was a brief respite from machine politics, plots to embiggen the state treasury and attempts to further legislate the hell out of life in this state.”
I’d much rather debates in the Illinois assembly include more lunacy from the likes of Davis and less lunacy in the form of socialist policy-making from the rest of the state’s government. Let ‘em kick at each other all day long. Just leave the rest of us the hell alone.
I want to know the context of the comments.
“Rep. Monique Davis (D-Chicago) interrupted atheist activist Rob Sherman during his testimony Wednesday afternoon before the House State Government Administration Committee”
What was the issue? What was “atheist activist” Rob Sherman talking about? Was it an issue government has any business being involved in?
Note I am not defending Rep. Davis’s remarks. The Bible tells Christians to share the Gospel, and frankly her remarks seem like a really bad way of doing that.
Re: 20–Mr. Sherman was testifying about a proposed grant of $1 million to rebuild a Baptist church, which he believes is unconstitutional. More info, including audio (which is truly unbelievable), here.
Bigoted Illinois Representative Blows Up at Separation of Church and State…
You may remember atheist activist Rob Sherman from the Illinois moment of silence controversy I blogged about way back when. Fresh from victory on that score, Sherman has most recently been challenging some shady grants to a church and school by the s…
Thanks, nicole.
So what we really have here, is nothing new. When groups fight over handouts, ad hominem attacks are almost a sure thing.
Have Baptists in Illinois really gotten so pitiful they’re begging the government for a handout? When Jesus said “ask,” I don’t think he meant “ask the state government.”
Wow…that rant of hers sure sounds like hate speech to me.
It also sounds like a clear admission that she cannot possibly uphold that constitution quoted above.
The Land of Lincoln is not only the state of the U.S. president whose views were closest to atheism (Lincoln), but where the Great Agnostic, Robert Ingersoll, was state attorney general.
“I am impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it.” I said it once before, but obviously it bears repeating.
Greetings from Central Illinois all! I am one of those “rare” Illinois atheists. If we are to believe Zeb, I have at least two “co-religionists” in my home state. Thank Jebus, I felt sooo alone. Actually, if Rep. Davis had attended the state ACLU conference here in Peoria on Saturday, she probably would have encountered a few more atheists. But what would a phony populist like her know about civil liberties? Robert Ingersoll played right here in Peoria (sorry, I had to say it) for at least twenty years, and a statue of the colonel still stands in Glen Oak Park. I for one am quite proud that my hometown is connected to “the great agnostic.” But none of this info matters to Monique Davis. According to her, there is no place in IL for my kind. The state government should not have to recognize my rights or serve me because I dare to ask for evidence. Davis would probably love to silence freethinkers like me for the sake of the children. Hey Monique, kiss my non-believing ass and retire, or at least stay up in DA CITY!
Would you change your opinion of Davis if you knew that she’s in Rev. Wright’s flock? Because it’s not bigotry or ignorance or outright stupidity in Southside Chicage, it’s the remnance of slavery and the drug war, right?
You have no right to be here!…
“It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!”
……
As a believer, I am more saddened by Rep. Davis’s antics the more I read. First there is the sheer obnoxiousness of shouting down someone who believes differently than she does, and the fear she has of those different beliefs. It seems to me that one must not have much faith if they fear young people learning about other belief systems.
Even worse, apparently the original topic of discussion was a one million dollar grant that was “promised” to a Baptist church, for the purpose of rebuilding after a fire, which ended up going to a school instead. What would Jesus do? Probably not petition the Roman government to fund his ministry. It’s a pretty small God whose will can be thwarted by a bureaucratic snafu, and who depends on taxpayer support to sustain his flock.
I don’t know about you guys, but I plan on emailing her my thoughts. I did a quick Google search and found her email on the first link I clicked in (mdavis2147@aol.com). I urge you to do the same.
I wonder if other people like the religious zealot Rep. Davis recognize the irony that this is the same sort of garbage spewed by radical muslims…
My contention has always been that the only REAL difference between the majority of our intolerent christian population and islamic radicals is very small in reality. Their views of those who don’t believe as they do is EXACTLY the same…good company to keep folks. That’s right…indoctrinate your children early (just like the islamic radicals), give them no other alternatives to ponder or consider. Raise them to hate and distrust anyone who isn’t the RIGHT brand of their religion…and your on your way.
What is REALLY said with the statement, “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!” – What Davis REALLY means is that, “Our religious beliefs are founded on such a fragile series of beliefs and flimsy evidence that any opposing view is dangerous because our and our children’s faith isn’t strong enough to survive an alternative point of view and a lifetime of indoctrination to overcome hearing 60 seconds of someone who thinks its all bullshit.”
Rep. Davis and anyone who agrees with her is an idiot to the nth degree.
What is a good equivalent to the word “Islamist”, but for Christian nuts?
dicks?
Sullivan uses “Christianist,” which fits well enough. They’re not concerned with the teachings of the church, just yelling about how great their team is and how everybody else is evil.
The most reviled person in America is not the atheist, it is the anarchist. Or, that rare daily-double if you will, the atheist-anarchist.
For, you see, though some are willing stick their necks out to expose the illusion of religion, there are only perhaps one in ten of those who progress to challenging the illusion of the State, which is far more deeply entrenched in the mind of the individual than religion.
There is no separation of religion and State anywhere, the two concepts are actually one. Each is founded on the same false principles of non-differentiation, infinite “entities” and denial of objective reality.
OK, how about the most reviled people in America who exist in any significant numbers then?
Good thinking Nando. I will be e-mailing the high priestess of the IL General Assembly shortly. I’ll be doing all I can locally to make sure this episode is not pushed under the rug. As an Illinois atheist, I thank you all in advance for your support. And Radley, thanks for reporting on this issue.
I disagree. To the “average” American, someone who is an anarchist is viewed as a kook, not an object of hate. I’d say, on average, Republicans hate Democrats and Democrats hate Republicans far more than either hate anarchists.
Exactly.
“OK, how about the most reviled people in America who exist in any significant numbers then?”
Exactly my point. To me, 1 is a significant number — the only significant number. The individual is the only objective referent. People is an infinite entity, undefined and therefore meaningless. That is the master illusion that the State achieves, the rendering of the individual meaningless and the substitution of the infinite entity “people.”
“I disagree. To the “average” American, someone who is an anarchist is viewed as a kook, not an object of hate. I’d say, on average, Republicans hate Democrats and Democrats hate Republicans far more than either hate anarchists.”
Again, what is an “average American?” There is no such thing. There are only individuals who live within the geopolitical boundary “America.” Ask an individual his opinion of anarchists and you will receive a different subjective opinion for each one. Categorization serves to eliminate differences, and therefore eliminate meaning. As for being “hated” less than the idiots who choose one wing of the same bird of prey over the other hate each other, it’s only because anarchists are powerless against the overwhelming brainwashing that most individuals exist under. Review history and find that some of the most hated individuals actually have been anarchists.