Ill. Rep. Monique Davis: it's dangerous for children to know atheists exist, orders atheist to stop testifying
Don't miss the audio.
Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.Link, MP3 Link to audio (Thanks, Jessica!)I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?
I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--
Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?
Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!
Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court---
Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.
I find it odd and sad how vilified atheism is. Gallup polls show most Americans would rather have a gay Muslim as president (nothing wrong with either!! Just you'd think as homophobic and arab-phobic Americans are...) than have an atheist president.
Yet: while between 5 and 15% (depending on what polls you read) of Americans are atheist, atheists make up And most Nobel laureates are/were atheists.
(Of course, to be fair, being in prison does not necessarily make you a bad person or even "criminal" in my mind, as a HUGE percentage of inmates are in there for consensual crimes such as minor drug use (vs. dealing).)
Most atheists I know are anti-war, anti-hate, anti-bigotry, while most Christians I know are pro-war, pro-death penalty, pro-xenophobia, pro-Earth raping.
1) Mech, you know some odd people.
2) I think that the BB servers have gone Skynet, by way of Simon Powell. I tried to post the above comment and received the following error:
Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Text entered was wrong. Try again.
1) Mech, you know some odd people.
2) I think that the BB servers have gone Skynet, by way of Simon Powell. I tried to post the above comment and received the following error:
Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:
Text entered was wrong. Try again.
replace "Atheist" with "Islam" or "Judaism" and this woman would be out of a job faster than HD-DVD assembly line workers.
And the Christians in this country have the nerve to claim they are the oppressed ones.
Rob Sherman and I had a similar discussion about the existence of Santa Claus in 2006.
I let him know that if kids are instructed that there might not be a Santa Claus, they will have no reason to avoid being naughty while their parents are out of the room. Their disposition for the entire year would change for the worse!
I also reminded him that we were in the land of Lincoln, (in this case Nebraska) where Christmas is enjoyed by kids and parents alike.
Also, I called him "Scrooge".
I am ashamed to share a country with this horrible waste of humanity.
Someone needs to send her to tolerance class.
Well that's very odd to see a represenative from Illinois act that way. I would assume that this woman is from the southern part of Illinois and not from Chicago. People in Chicago do believe in god (I work in a Catholic hospital) but they aren't this bizzare.
But without God in their lives, people might have to take responsibility for their own actions and expect others to do likewise and we certainly don't want that sort of dangerous belief filtering down to our perfect precious children.
OK, so maybe I'm a little angry. Sorry. I'm just absolutely repulsed that a person who's supposed to be a leader is setting such a dangerous, abhorrent precident.
If she's not capable of not acting like a bigot, she needs to step down.
I second Mech's observation. No wonder some in the mid-east think this occupation is the start of The Crusades Part Deux. They see us better from far away than we can see ourselves living right here.
This just goes to show that you don't have to waste gas flying around the world to find fundamentalist extremism...just look around the neighborhood.
This woman taints my political party with her stupidity and insane belief in invisible sky wizards. She needs to STFU and GBTW.
What an [unprintable word referring to the end stage of the digestive system.] What a perfect little [unprintable word] Rep. Davis is. She should be ashamed of herself.
However.
As an atheist concerned about how atheism is represented to a society in which we are neither the majority nor terribly well-understood, I am BEGGING any people who share that non-belief in divinity to avoid making the same [unprintable word] mistake that Rep. Davis did. Please, please, PLEASE do not externalize evil onto Christians or believers of whatever stripe.
Bigotry is bigotry, and I'd like to keep the moral high ground, thanks very much.
[My "text entered was wrong," too. Hope this is the right text!]
Weird...BB messed up my post. Where it says:
"Yet: while between 5 and 15% (depending on what polls you read) of Americans are atheist, atheists make up And most Nobel laureates are/were atheists."
should read:
Yet: while between 5 and 15% (depending on what polls you read) of Americans are atheist, atheists make up less than 1% of the prison population. And most Nobel laureates are/were atheists.
(Oh I see why: I used the "less-than" symbol before instead of the words.)
I got 'wrong text' too.
Im impressed than a journo for a newspaper is taking to time to reply to so many of the comments on that post. Kudos to ZORN.
We can always contact her and tell her what we think of her views:
http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=909
I think it's absurd that this sort of gasbag is elected to public office.
Oh, and nmantzoros? Davis is from the south side of Chicago. My guess is (without researching) that she is (what she would refer to) as a God-fearing African-American woman, upstanding in her church, and strongly believes in the "responsibility" of Christians to spread the Good News.
Disturbing.
Also, I'd just like to toss this out there: "invisible sky wizard" is roughly in the same connotative space as n****r.
It's something you say when you want to get a little rush out of dehumanizing someone who's not part of your clan. It's a little like saying, "You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying."
Bigotry is as bigotry does.
Apparently, even a basic understanding of the Bill of Rights isn't a prerequisite for holding office in the Illinois General Assembly.
Why is boing-boing censoring swear words?! Not only is it some *very* bizarre and archaic understanding of the relation of language to God's wishes that perpetuates the "swear-word" insanity... but it also seems grossly inappropriate for Boing Boing in particular!
For shame... Asshole. Cunt. Fuck. Shit.
It's one thing to kick someone off the boards for racism or bigotry. But these "bad words" are one of the silliest things I've ever seen in our society; and that's among some great competition!
"And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!"
Funny, the Romans used to say the same thing about Christianity.
Looks like 'text entered was wrong' is what Rob Sherman in the article got, too... (though he didn't get the 'try again').
I didn't see any swear word censoring...
Also, I got the bad text message on my last post. It was informative and would have made Christians into atheists and atheists into Christians.
Making fun of someone for their beliefs, a system of thoughts they are in full control of, is quite different than making fun of them for how their DNA encodes their melatonin levels.
Invisible sky wizard FTW!
@17 But even those who believe in God (ie, Jehovah/Yahweh, the God of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), believe that he is an "invisible sky wizard." It's a euphemism that certainly seems to imply that its believers are themselves silly, but only implicitly -- and surely only to those who also don't believe as the standard Christian does. Is He magical? Can he defy physics by His will? Then he is a wizard. Is He above us? According to many verses in the Bible, He is quite *literally* in the sky. That's where Elijah went, that's where Jesus went, that's where the voice always comes from, etc. Is He (generally speaking) invisible? Yes. While He may be technically "omnipresent," the Father (as well as Yahweh in Judaism) is clearly *above* us -- if not in the sky, then beyond it, in space. So He's either an invisible sky wizard or an invisible space wizard.
Incidentally, Jesus is a zombie. And Catholics, by their own chosen definitions, are cannibals.
If it sounds silly, you don't have to believe it. If you do believe it, own it.
My apologies for my scathing comment against Boingboing's censorship. My post was *not* censored, as I had expected, and I can only guess that the poster above with censored text censored it him/herself.
As offensive as her statements are, I am surprised that anyone here (or even in general) would be surprised - particularly at her being an elected official and saying such things. What she has said on this occasion still pales in comparison to public remarks about atheists by former presidents (such as Bush senior - google 'bush atheists') who denied atheists could be patriots or even citizens. This sort of thinking is par for the course with them.
My words to fellow atheists: You cannot play live and let live with people who want to destroy you. Until people of faith actually exhibit some tolerance, we have to fight the war they demand with us in yet another act of self-contradiction of (alleged) principles)
semiotix: Why should people who have irrational beliefs be free of ridicule, or at least why should those beliefs be guarded from ridicule?
If any deity takes offense at my use of the term "invisible sky wizard" in invite it to strike you down in order to get my attention (stolen from Carlin, obviously). The only logical reason to kowtow to these delusional twats is because the wield disproportionate influence and therefore some otherwise rational people feel the need to bow and scrape, or some people confuse intellectualism with passivity.
Frankly people with these phony bullshit beliefs are the one's primarily responsibly for fucking things up for the rest of us, and this includes Pagans/Neo-Wiccans, animists, Joos (theist, not ethnic), and all the rest. I'm fucking sick of them and their crutch, kill them all and let entropy sort them out.
/ok, don't actually kill them; but don't ignore the fact that these beliefs are based on either willful ignorance or outright stupidity.
I wonder if Monique Davis goes to Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church.
She's the right religious sect (United Church of Christ), and the District is close enough.
@25 "You cannot play live and let live with people who want to destroy you." I think Gandhi and MLK would have something to say about that. Also, simply in principle, what is the point of fighting fire with fire when your whole purpose lies in your distaste for fire in all its forms?
Your quote sounds dangerously like something some Fox News pundit might say about killing all the Arabs. It's, in fact, the exact philosophy behind everything from genocide to eugenics.
This is why the "enlightened" never win. They think they have to become unenlightened to get on top, and then history again scratches its head when, like always, the bottom becomes just like the top they toppled, and it all starts over again.
I believe if you log in again, you are then able to post.
Rep. Monique Davis certainly is ill! She needs to be put out of her misery.
Ha,
That would be perfectly acceptable behavior for a South Side alderman but she's a rep, wow.
Anyway,
It's truly sad that this church burned down, it was a really beautiful Sullivan & Adler building. It was also considered the birthplace of gospel music in case any of you didn't know.
From wikipedia:
The building was designed as a synagogue by Chicago architects Louis Sullivan and Dankmar Adler, and built in 1890 and 1891. Originally, the structure was the home of Kehilath Anshe Ma'ariv [1], an important congregation in the development of Reform Judaism; Adler was a member, and his father was a rabbi. A Baptist congregation moved into the building in 1922, forming Pilgrim Baptist Church.
The church is credited as the birthplace of gospel music in the 1930s. Thomas A. Dorsey, the "Father of Gospel Music", was the music director at Pilgrim Baptist for decades. Albertina Walker, Mahalia Jackson, Aretha Franklin, Sallie Martin, James Cleveland, The Staples Singers, and The Edwin Hawkins Singers are among those who have sung at the church.
Famous members of the congregation include Bessie Coleman. The church also hosted the funeral service of boxer Jack Johnson in 1946, and was prominent in the Civil Rights Movement. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered sermons at the church during the height of the movement.
In 1973, the building was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the building was designated a Chicago Landmark in 1981
Yet: while between 5 and 15% (depending on what polls you read) of Americans are atheist, atheists make up less than 1% of the prison population
Though I'm an atheist myself, I have to point out that since conversion in prison earns brownie points at parole hearings, atheists in prison might be more likely to lie on religious surveys.
I would love to know I live in a world where people don't fear the unknown as much as they seem to, and a world where we respected the opinions of others we live around.
To know for SURE what we as a human race have coming to us after we die is to expect the caterpillar to know what a thermal updraft feels like on fresh butterfly wings.
Allow others around you to believe in what they want and what they feel is right with themselves, and don't fear that. I think fear is a big part of this person's problem; fear of an alternate way of seeing life.
Respect everyone, live as best as you can, and don't fear the unknown. Instead, find your own truth and know it's special for you.
Actually, according to the article, she is the representative for Chicago.
I wrote her a letter telling her, in essence, that if she doesn't understand that this is a country where people are free to hold and express their views, then she is the one who shouldn't be in the public forum.
But I have to say that those of you who are surprised probably don't know much about Illinois and Chicago politics. We specialize in state and local politicians who are certifiably ignorant and rabid, if not insane. Also, Sherman has been a highly effective gadfly over the last few decades. It's not surprising that some of the more narrow-minded politicians can't help but snap when they come into contact with him.
(Gah, this "text in error" thing is annoying!)
32: Good point!
Although, if Christianity is THE sign of the best morality, and atheism is fundamentally amoral and evil, you'd think the number of atheists in prison would still be at a higher percentage/Christians in prison much lower percentage. If not flipped.
And the Nobel thing still stands. :)
And anecdotal evidence: Nearly every atheist I know is an advocate for human rights and decency.
semiotix , April 8, 2008 10:37 AM:
Maybe God should start his own civil rights movement against such, er... racism, er... heresy against himself? LOL Couple bolts of lightning should do the trick, no?
semiotix, seriously... if "invisible sky wizard" is roughly in the same connotative space as "nigger", then I guess calling the "True Russian Orthodox Church" sect a "cult" is also close to the same connotative "nigger" space as well?
BTW, the "True Russian Orthodox Church" was those, er... "religious practitioners" who recently holed up inside a cave outside of Moscow and stockpiled food and 100 gallons of kerosene. You know, the whole "end of the world" coming thing?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/europe/defiant-russian-cult-holed-up-in-cave-for-end-of-the-world-400863.html
Dare we call them a "cult"? After all, we don't want to sound racist, right? er, what? LOL
Besides, don't worry... My God slaughtered the invisible sky wizard eons ago in glorious interstellar battle. It's a moot argument. My God was bigger than your god.
Dementia among the elderly is so sad.
Shame on her.
Aren't we all a little sick of her 19th century, Little House on the Prairie, spinster-schoolmarm idea of what's appropriate?
Here's her contact info--tell her how you feel!
http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?MemberID=909
organized religion always shows it true face sooner or later. "Convert or die!"
@24: I mistakenly self-censored because I mistakenly thought I'd gotten the "wrong text" message for calling Rep. Davis an asshole. (Looks like it was an HTML thing instead.) Sorry to be the cause of further self-censorship on the part of others.
As for the rest of you--well, hey, no one expects to be able to reason bigots out of their bigotry, because bigotry is deeply rationalized. Every time a black man is in the news for having committed a crime, Rush Limbaugh is beside himself with joy because it proves what he knew about them all along. Could you point out the flaw in that thinking? Sure, but you wouldn't expect to make much headway. So it goes with every form of bigotry. Even the "good ones" are suspect, crazy, weird, different, other.
Dominionist assholes like Rep. Davis aren't representative of theists any more than heterosexual rapists are representative of heterosexuals. If it's an article of faith for you to believe otherwise, don't let me get in the way of your dogma. But don't expect me to be thrilled that someone on my "team" thinks just like she does.
@26:
Did you mean "Jews" or "Juice?"
Either way, you spelled it wrong.
Point 1: Worst. Comment. System. Ever. "Text entered was wrong"?!
Point 2, for #17: Your argument cheapens both the word "bigotry" and the experiences of its victims.
What's your stance on the Tooth Fairy's role in society, by the way? Would you still be my friend if I proselytized post-dental hygiene to you?
"Dare we call them a "cult"" (#37)
I would like to suggest "Christofascist" as a name for this cult.
I personally think it's dangerous to believe in a god who would allow the deaths of 600 Chicagoans during the 1995 heat wave. Well, Chicago was too decadent, wasn't praying hard enough, and deserved what it got, a la New Orleans, right?
(Apologies if double post)
#43 I think the boingboing comment system is having issues today. The error message amuses me though.
I am also entertained that this is my second attempt to post. I was previously pwned by that very same error.
Think Mrs. Davis is nutty?
You should see some of our Chicago aldermen. She's no Arenda "Most politicians are ho's!" Troutman.
an interesting test.If this Davis is not in jail shortly, well then,you will know you are lost.
Why would she be in jail?
I would like to see her apologize and resign, though.
@ #23
The problem with your position is that it's a deliberate oversimplification. I know plenty of people who believe in God, but none of them would consider him(her, whatever) as a literal "person", much less one that performs magic and lives in the sky. The concept of divinity is far more complicated and nuanced than that, and I think you know it.
Yeah, it's a funny joke and all, but as serious analysis it's akin to Mr. Garrison's "You're the retarded offspring of five monkeys having butt sex with a fish-squirrel!" anti-evolution speech.
[http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1847939160]
Reading this makes me appreciate my local LUG. We have atheists, religious people, agnostics, and humanists. And we all treat each other with respect and are all good friends. Because when it comes down to it we are all people.
Plus religion IMO is such a small factor that it seems like a petty thing to fight over. Why argue over what form a persons higher being takes, if they believe in one, when we can figure out problems on a global scale.
I think the saddest thing is how many lives have been lost or ruined over religion.
I would like to point out that Davis is not the only one who appears to be acting in an inappropriate fashion.
The recent April 4th post on Sherman's website, www.robsherman.com, has him saying "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."
“@25 "You cannot play live and let live with people who want to destroy you." I think Gandhi and MLK would have something to say about that. Also, simply in principle, what is the point of fighting fire with fire when your whole purpose lies in your distaste for fire in all its forms?”
Neither would have anything to say, since both were assassinated. However, prior to being murdered, Gandhi himself declared his efforts to be a failure, and they resulted not in a free, peaceful and unified India but in two aggressive, divided nations.
@“This is why the "enlightened" never win. They think they have to become unenlightened to get on top, and then history again scratches its head when, like always, the bottom becomes just like the top they toppled, and it all starts over again.”
This sort of argument was not atypical while the American colonies of Great Britain were debating whether they should to go so far as to take up arms in revolution. Ultimately, they did and yet in the end their enlightenment wasn’t abandoned nor has there yet been a ‘reset’. So in fact, we discover what any moderately thoughtful person realizes, which is that there is a time and place for forceful action in defense of ones rights or beliefs.
I don’t currently agree with the sentiment that atheists have to take the fight to the faithful on their own terms, but that doesn’t make it some kind of genocidal, fear-mongering bigotry to believe otherwise, either. There are instances in which some social injustice, refusing to compromise or embrace reason/compassion in its oppression of others, must be dismantled, by force if necessary. Davis has stood before the populace and tried to incite the masses against those who have done no wrong. She lies and slanders about a harmless group of people, ignores and undermines the Constitution and the rights it represents, but if someone in righteous outrage refuses to put up with that crap anymore, that person has ‘crossed the line’? Wrong.
I personally believe that things look optimistic, overall, for an expansion of ideological tolerance. But this article is clear proof that the opposing argument could be made, and condemning those who refuse to sit idly while that happens as being the sorts of people responsible for genocide, just to defend a, “don’t make waves,” attitude strikes me as shallow and insulting, especially when backed by such obvious errors as, “This is why the "enlightened" never win.”
The philosophies most likely to sponsor genocide are those that begin with sentiments like, “You have no right to be here!” The reaction, “I’m not going to sit there and let people like that incite hate against me or threaten my rights,” is actually one of the single most sane and appropriate responses possible. While an aggressive face to this response is not always productive, it’s still a superior behavior to the opening shots of intolerance. Further, claiming that it never works is nothing short of dishonest or delusional, and comparing those who embrace the behavior to the sponsors of genocide is itself just another form of exaggerated fear-mongering.
I for one prefer the irony that there is much controversy about the namesake of the "Land of Lincoln" and his religious beliefs. The people in the "Land of Lincoln" believe in god, even if it's not conclusive that Lincoln himself did.
Xodarap 23: Incidentally, Jesus is a zombie.
Sorry, but that's just stupid. A zombie is by definition a mindless animated corpse. People who believe in the literal Resurrection believe that Jesus is/was more of a bodiless mind than a mindless body. He's always disappearing, and he floats up to Heaven at the end. Even the being-raised-from-the-dead bit is less essential to zombiehood than the mindless part (see p-zombies, a concept based on the idea that there's no way to be sure anyone but you is actually consciously thinking). I know those statements are obnoxious on purpose, but they don't work if they're factually inaccurate.
Logruszed 26: Explain how the "Neo-Wiccans" (which by itself shows you don't know shit about either Wicca or NeoPaganism) are fucking anything up for you? How do animists negatively affect your life?
If you can't cite examples, do I get to contend that you're speaking out of either willful ignorance or outright stupidity, and dismiss you out of hand?
You don't know anything about MY religion, and don't want to, I'm sure. I'll just say this: the idea that being religious necessarily involves false beliefs, or indeed that it's necessarily about "beliefs" at all, is a shallow, narrow view of religion. Not all religions are systems of beliefs, much as Ill Rep (bad reputation?) Monique may believe otherwise. There are even non-theistic religions out there, as y'd knw f y wrn't wllflly gnrnt nd/r stpd.
Xodarep 28: Hear, hear.
@#33:"To know for SURE what we as a human race have coming to us after we die is to expect the caterpillar to know what a thermal updraft feels like on fresh butterfly wings."
i really like this.
Favorite tidbit:
"This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln "
AND Exactly what is that supposed to mean?
Rationally...
The state that existed a hundred years ago
isn't the one that this myth believing woman lives in today.
and yet she holds a position of authority while ranting and repeating a license plate slogan like it really means something.
I'm beside myself with their religious non thought.
@50:
God is CERTAINLY a "person!" I think what you mean is that He is not a *human*. Not being a person would bar Him from being a God. Even a supercomputer with AI is a person. Anything with a personality is a person. Also, non-persons don't have moral responsibility, while the Christian God most certainly does.
You're reading the wrong book if you think He doesn't live in the sky. Several verses are very clear on this, and I can quote them to you if you really want me to. Jesus went to the sky, and so did Elijah, as I said. Heaven is a PLACE, which means that it has a spatial location (even a non-material place has a location), and according to the Bible, it is upward from us (yes, literally upward) -- putting it in space or in the sky (smart answer is space :P). He is also unmistakably invisible (as is Heaven, I assume, or we'd someday find it in a high-powered telescope!). I think all self-proclaimed mages (who should rightfully be asked first) would agree with me that magic(k) is the ability to alter reality in accordance with one's will. Because that's what causal sciences also allow us to do, I assume that magic(k) also requires that its effects be outside the predictable lines of scientific causality. God is most certainly magical. If not, He is mundane -- the two are exhaustive. Would you prefer Invisible Space Mage? More dignity, maybe?
People seem to act insulted when someone throws logic at God, like He's above it. He's not, and omnipotence has NOTHING to do with defying laws of logic. Can God make a rock to heavy for Him to life? Certainly not, since then there would be a rock such that He couldn't lift it (and lifting rocks -- of any size -- is well WITHIN the bounds of omnipotence, since it is a physical, not metaphysical, act). In fact, as that proves (as there's no logical contradiction involved) is that God also can't break metaphysical rules. Or moral or mathematical ones for that matter. Physical ones, yes, and there are plenty of those to retain His impressive divine power. Of magic.
The concept of God's divinity is NOT nuanced. It is this:
1) Essentially Omnipotent (=df "can do anything that is metaphysically possible")
2) Essentially Omniscient (=df "Is actively aware of all propositional truth values")
3) Essentially Perfectly Good (=df (a) "cannot violate moral laws," and (b) "must fulfill all moral obligations")
4) Necessarily Exists (big one to define, see Descartes' Meditations for some starters -- or learn modal logic/ontology for full concept)
5) Creator of the World (the "world" is modal universe alpha, the one we see and live in, and as this isn't an essential property, it works to stand in an existence-dependency relation to that universe, regardless of "will" involved -- arguably)
The Judeo-Christian-Islamic trinity will add a lot to that list, including conformity to the Torah, for example. Still, He's just a really BIG and IMPRESSIVE invisible space wizard...
Wow. Sounds like she should reread the bits in the Bible about tolerance and self-restraint in judging others.
(BTW, nmantzoros, while not as offensive, your statement that she must be from Southern Illinois is just about as stereotypical as this woman's concept of atheists. Come down and visit sometime, and be shocked at how "normal" we are...)
Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Chicago was called the "Windy City" not because of the lake, but because of all the hot air blown by politicians there.
#52 DA BEAKER, I'm not a huge Rob Sherman, but to be fair, you should probably continue that quote:
"On the 40th anniversary, today, of his murder, I'm sure that my boyhood hero, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would have been appalled at Rep. Davis' bigotry."
or just quote the whole thing:
Friday, April 4: State Representative Monique Davis (D-Chicago) declares that Rob Sherman is a danger to the children of Illinois and has no right to testify before an Illinois legislative committee because he is an atheist. On Wednesday, April 2nd (my 55th birthday), I testified in Springfield before the House State Government Administration Committee. My testimony was that Governor Blagojevich's plan to donate one million tax dollars to Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago is unconstitutional. For background, see the March 4th update, below. Representative Monique Davis responded for the committee. She accused me of hating god. She said that the state should donate the million tax dollars to Pilgrim Baptist Church because the people of Illinois believe that there is a god. At a time when we are in the midst of a decades-long pervasive epidemic of Roman Catholic priests raping America's children, Representative Davis said that I was a danger to the children of Illinois because I tell them that there is no god. She said that I had no right to inform children of that perspective. She then ordered me out of the witness chair, screaming, repeatedly, "Get out of that seat," because I'm an atheist. 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. On the 40th anniversary, today, of his murder, I'm sure that my boyhood hero, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would have been appalled at Rep. Davis' bigotry. Eric Zorn wrote a column, yesterday, about the exchange between Rep. Davis and myself. His column is complete with both a printed transcript of part of the exchange between Rep. Davis and me, as well as a link to an audio recording of most of the exchange. Here is a link to Eric Zorn's column. Here is a direct link to the audio recording, courtesy of Eric Zorn and the Chicago Tribune. Then e-mail me at rob at robsherman dot com and let me know what you think.
MUIRNE81, I've been in Southern Illinois many times. I have relatives there. Mom lives there. Sister lives there.
It's a scary place, religion wise and gun wise. It's a "newsmax.com" scary place.
@#33:"To know for SURE what we as a human race have coming to us after we die is to expect the caterpillar to know what a thermal updraft feels like on fresh butterfly wings."
Someone said they liked this. I hate it.
I DO know **FOR SURE** (I want to say that in a mocking voice :P) what will happen when I die.
Do you know for sure what will happen if you poke out your eyes? You won't be able to see.
Do you know what will happen if you poke out your ears? You won't be able to hear.
Do you know what will happen if you poke out your whole brain? You won't be able to think.
Without reflection (thought), there is no experience. Without experience, we are not conscious. Without a brain, there is no mechanism for reflection. Hence -- we will be unconscious. Sure, you can hide behind the same "science just doesn't see my spirit" (which makes me wonder WHAT you think it COULD be composed of), but I CAN say FOR SURE that your spirit isn't, without you brain, capable of thought. JUST like your hand isn't capable of sight. Wrong instrument.
Let me put it to you another way? Ever been knocked out? You know why they call it "being unconscious," right? Because your thought centers are relatively inactive. And without them, no consciousness. You need nerves to feel, you need eyes to see, you need brain to think or have emotions.
Your "bar" for sureness is far, far too high. Some may say that we can't be sure of ANYTHING. But then, they aren't sure of that, either, and shouldn't be saying it, let alone proselytizing it...
@#33:"To know for SURE what we as a human race have coming to us after we die is to expect the caterpillar to know what a thermal updraft feels like on fresh butterfly wings."
Someone said they liked this. I hate it.
I DO know **FOR SURE** (I want to say that in a mocking voice :P) what will happen when I die.
Do you know for sure what will happen if you poke out your eyes? You won't be able to see.
Do you know what will happen if you poke out your ears? You won't be able to hear.
Do you know what will happen if you poke out your whole brain? You won't be able to think.
Without reflection (thought), there is no experience. Without experience, we are not conscious. Without a brain, there is no mechanism for reflection. Hence -- we will be unconscious. Sure, you can hide behind the same "science just doesn't see my spirit" (which makes me wonder WHAT you think it COULD be composed of), but I CAN say FOR SURE that your spirit isn't, without you brain, capable of thought. JUST like your hand isn't capable of sight. Wrong instrument.
Let me put it to you another way? Ever been knocked out? You know why they call it "being unconscious," right? Because your thought centers are relatively inactive. And without them, no consciousness. You need nerves to feel, you need eyes to see, you need brain to think or have emotions.
Your "bar" for sureness is far, far too high. Some may say that we can't be sure of ANYTHING. But then, they aren't sure of that, either, and shouldn't be saying it, let alone proselytizing it...
@55 -- Not a zombie? Undead, then, right? Okay -- Jesus is the walking dead -- the undead. Many would say that's enough to be a zombie. My friend gets incredibly annoyed whenever he sees a movie wherein zombies can run. "Zombies can't run," he says, as though he knows one. However, even in zombie "canon" Romero movies, zombies learn how to think. Jesus was a special zombie -- the kind that can think. :)
Xodarap 58 sez
Well, yes, but it's primarily (and arguably entirely) the art of changing consciousness at will. Could be entirely; many of us just don't worry that much about the distinction, because the more magic you do, the more you realize that it fundamentally doesn't matter. See, this common but incorrect assumption is what allows many people to dismiss magic without examining any facts, because with that assumption, anything magic does MUST conflict with science, and therefore it must not be true; if it doesn't conflict with science, it automatically falls out of the realm of magic, and again magic does not exist.The fact that magic DOES exist and DOESN'T conflict with science would (and, I hope, will) take a whole book to explain, but I'll just leave you with a couple of thoughts.
Magic is not about causality. Causality is the turf of science, where magic does not tread. There is science in magic, and magic in science, but they're two different ways of looking at the same things, not two things only one of which can be true.
Magic lies more in perception than in action. The Mandelbrot set is magical; it's a wondrous part of Nature that we couldn't see until we developed reasonably fast computers, just as microbes are part of nature we couldn't see until we developed microscopes. Mathematics is the only pure science—and is also the most magical of the sciences. You can't use science to decide about magic any more than you can use a spreadsheet to decide whether you're in love...it's maybe not completely useless, but it's fundamentally the wrong tool.
@#62:
Well, sure, you could go all realist on me. I just liked it for the image it evoked, and the way it related to the emotional state I was in when I read it.
Unconsciousness isn't that simple though is it? When living, we still have some brain function that continues. So there is still something, some feeling, some sense of experience. Maybe not that you can consciously parse, but alot of coma stories include vivid dreams, and other senses of being "there."
While, death, which noone experiences until it comes, isn't something they're going to come back and tell you about.
That quote to me basically said, you won't know for sure until you're there. You can imagine what death will be like. You can assume. But you won't "know."
@53: "Win" was an ill-chosen word. Certainly, the enlightened have always ceased to remain enlightened after seizing power -- in any form, to any large degree.
The post I was commenting against declared something about hypocrisy -- either that the Christians' "war" against Atheists is hypocrisy, or that the atheists' picking up that gauntlet is a necessary hypocrisy. I think both are true.
I certainly don't advocate just "ignoring" it. But I also don't think that the more successful civil rights movements were *simply* ignoring the problem. Quite the opposite; but they were nonviolent.
My point about fighting fire with fire when fire is the very problem in the first place remains apt. The point is that when atheists become bigoted against Christians, and start exhibiting the same behavior and sentiment about which they complain so fervently, they "lose" (also ill-chosen, but an easy word to throw in for simplicity).
A battle over principles is never worth abandoning your principles. Makes sense, yes?
Moon, I stand corrected. All people south of I-80 have 20 assault weapons each, cradle snakes, drink Stag all day (while driving!), and walk around chewing on straw.
Where is Representative Davis from?
BTW, I've been to Chicago many times. I have relatives there. My father lives there. Aunt lives there. It's a scary place, religion wise and gun wise. It's a "airamerica.com" scary place.
Wouldn't you be offended if I really believed that last bit?
Let's all move on from attitudes like "people who live here are this" and "this place is *x* *y* *z*". That's the same world view that Rep. Davis has. That's the same world view that gets us into conflicts at home and abroad.
To add on, the way it was worded was so broad.
"To know for SURE what we as a human race have coming to us after we die..."
That could mean anything. What will happen to the earth after we die? What EXACTLY will happen to our remains after we die? How will the place we inhabited but no longer affect change with time?
You seemed to read that and look only to the possible allusion to an afterlife.
I just made me think a bit.
Xodarep 63: Indeed, the mark of the true scientific viewpoint is doubt. Being entirely without doubt leads to being like the stpd btch we're discussing here today, or to falsify data in your research when it doesn't fit the current theory. Even Einstein fell prey to this, when he denied that the universe could be expanding. I believe he had the humility to recant later, however.
Try living in a perpetual state of doubt. It's uncomfortable at first, but then joyful, and it makes it much easier to be nice to people who believe things different from what you believe yourself. You should absolutely act on your own beliefs, however derived, and may I say that deriving your beliefs from the best available scientific evidence you can lay hands on is one of the better ways...but science is discovering new things all the time. The Big Bang is an innovation in my lifetime, for example, and it changed everything. Don't hold on too tight to your beliefs, or when they go down you'll go with them...like Fred Hoyle, poor man.
_____ 64: Now yer jus' bein' gooofy.
Xodarep 67: A battle over principles is never worth abandoning your principles.
Hear, hear!!! Or, as Lois McMaster Bujold put it, the only thing you can't trade for your heart's desire is your heart.
Lincoln, was a very, very mild christian at best, and there's plenty of evidence to support this. And in the time he lived in, when athesim was even more feared and ostracized then it is now -- makes him the last person you would invoke to obtain religious supremacy ...
There are a few details worth noting that I haven't seen yet mentioned.
(Full disclosure: I am running for office in Illinois, and I do know Rob somewhat from my political dealings.)
Rob Sherman is a Green candidate for the 53rd District State Representative - same job, different district as Ms Davis. Seems to be a detail that's overlooked.
(For an interesting means of promotion, check out the 'Shermanator', a toy-hauler RV that he instead uses to truck LTL freight. Clever bloody idea.)
His daughter is the main plaintiff in a federal lawsuit, which seems to be gaining reverse class action status (i.e. one plaintiff vs. many defendants), which alleges that a recently passed state law which mandates a moment of silence at the start of each class day is s lippery slope to full-blown school prayer.
Despite being a highly religious person, I do agree on this point.
Oh, and the class action part? Originally they sought an injunction against the local school district, but the federal court is basically calling out ALL the school districts in the state to defend this.
He also has a reputation as a very vocal and staunch proponent of church-state separation (kinda obvious when you read this piece). And yes, I fully believe that religion and politics should not mix.
Now, I have to play devil's advocate ever so slightly to be fair.
The preamble to the Illinois State Constitution states..
Again, don't agree with it, but it's there...
@66: Again, your bar for knowledge is inanely high. By that same logic, I can't KNOW whether a bottle that I drop will fall to the ground until I try it. After all, gravity is only a law because it hasn't failed yet. But knowledge requires three things: (a) adequate justification, (b) belief, (c) truth. No, (c) does not require some divine "direct link" to what makes things true -- otherwise nothing would be knowable. I can at least say that I have plenty of justification for my belief. It is also true, as I pointed out:
A man without eyes cannot see; a man without a brain cannot think.
The point is this: you cannot say that I don't KNOW what will happen when I remove my eyes. I do. I don't have to "experience it when it comes" to know. Eyes are what LET me see.
To get less materialist (warning: I am NOT a materialist; I'm an epiphenomenalist dualist), all thought and consciousness are CAUSALLY DEPENDENT on the material brain. That is, if I insert a rod in a particular part of the brain, blocking communication, I will be unable to read words, but still able to interpret pictures. Moved again, I can read, but can't interpret pictures. Moved again, I cannot see. Moved correctly, I cannot think or experience at ALL. We can, with the same causal sureness with which we credit gravity (and I do KNOW that gravity exists, even though I can't define it!), predict the immaterial mind's (if it does exist) reactions to stimuli in the material brain. If I alter my serotonin levels, I will become happier or sadder, or more relaxed or agitated. I do believe that there is an immaterial mind -- but just as there is no picture on the monitor without the CPU, there is no mind without the brain to work it. Our vision, itself, is an immaterial thing (even surfaces don't actually exist in the material world, but they do in our vision), but it depends on the eye to create it -- it is causally dependent.
Determinate causation; it is enough for knowledge. I know that I will not have thought after I am dead. Just as I will not have sight. Similarly, sight is an interpretation of the movement of a portion of the electromagnetic spectrum through space -- to see, one would have to be able to absorb light, which would require a MATERIAL object for that absorption. Even if it didn't, ghosts aren't absorbing light, or we'd see them...
I'm a born-again evangelical Christian, but it sickens me how these extremists have given the public the perception that all Christians are intolerant Neanderthals.
I know a lot of Christians who think like me, that Christianity can hold its own in a free marketplace of ideas.
@66
There's all sorts of epistemological problems here, and if we take these sorts of "you don't know" problems to their logical conclusion, we conclude that we don't know anything. And yet we continue to go on living, getting in our cars every morning, more or less "knowing" that there isn't a hungry cougar waiting in the passenger seat. If we didn't "know" that our cars were cougar-free, we'd never get near them.
We draw a lot of conclusions about our world based on logic and experience, and make predictions based on what we think is strong probability. I don't know that I won't return home today to find my dishwasher full of diamonds, but I can say with a high degree of certainty that it will not. That prediction then informs my actions- I won't take bet my savings at the racetrack, knowing I have a dishwasher full of diamonds to fall back on.
In the same way we can predict the contents of our dishwashers, we can predict life events with a fair amount of certainty. I predict that if I ever break my leg, it will hurt like hell, because leg injuries I've sustained in the past have hurt like hell, and I've heard reliable, first-hand accounts of victims of broken legs. And so, I can predict with a fair degree of certainty what death will be like. I can infer that it's something like sleep, which I've spent about half my life doing. Only I probably won't dream, because I've heard reliable first-hand accounts from scientists that the activity that causes dreams ceases at time of death. And it will be different from sleep in that I won't wake up, because the probability of rising from the grave is almost infinitesimally small. Even if Jesus did it, he's only one of about 90 billion, so I don't like those odds. Therefore, I can infer with a great degree of certainty that death will be much like sleep, but without dreams, and without an awakening at the end.
Philosophically, we can never "know" anything, but practically, we substitute the term "predict with a great degree of certainty based on logic, life experience, and reliable third party testimony" with "know."
Lizardman @ 25 public remarks about atheists by former presidents (such as Bush senior - google 'bush atheists') who denied atheists could be patriots or even citizens.
I have googled it.. Sherman (the same dude Davis was ranting at) asserts that Bush said this at a press conference that Sherman attended. It looks like no other attendee has ever verified that this occurred, and that no one claims to have a recording of the event. Sherman insists that responses on the subject from the White House counsel at the time confirm that the statement was made as given, when the responses clearly don't confirm or deny it.
The evidence on this one seems shaky enough to me that I'll stick to being offended by other, more easily verified, things -- it's not like there's a shortage.
#76: "I don't know that I won't return home today to find my dishwasher full of diamonds"
Will you put this on a t-shirt? You had me laughing so hard. Brilliant.
@76 Sorry, just plain wrong. Saying that philosophically, we can never know anything, is like saying, "Scientifically, I am a 300-foot mega-hippopotamus." See, people think that philosophy is just something everyone understands and gets a piece of. But there are those of us who study it, and discover it to be a very coherent and well-developed rational science. And, just like physics or any other science, it has rules and agree-upon laws. NO philosopher would agree with you that we can't know anything. What about this: "All bachelors are unmarried." We KNOW that, because it's in the definition, and it can't possibly be false. There is no universe in the set of metaphysical universes, wherein there are married bachelors.
Similarly, there is a degree of INDUCTIVE certainty that meets the bar for knowledge. Whether or not you KNOW that there won't be diamonds in your dishwasher is certainly up for debate. But you DO know that you won't fly to the moon using your hair like a propeller. You do know that you won't jump over skyscrapers for fun. You do know that a fish will not be elected president. (They aren't allowed to run, btw). You also know that if you lose access to your brain, or it turns off completely (ie, stops processing electrical impulses), eg if you die, you will not be able to think. ;) Because one FOLLOWS the other. And you will know that you will not meet any married bachelors (where "bachelor" means "unmarried male").
Malex: I get your point, but if they believe in a god which is not actually an entity and has no supernatural abilities then don't they really just believe in spending time with people singing songs or having quiet time on whatever sabbath they observe? Perhaps they enjoy the belief that they are in communion with other humans who share a similar family and personal background and similar ethos? Is this what you you mean to describe? Because I define belief in god as explicitly belief in the supernatural.
And I'll say it more explicitly: Belief in the supernatural is stupid and/or infantile (I think it's ok for kids to believe in magic, the Easter bunny, or whatever).