entries friends calendar user info Theocracy Watch Previous Previous Next Next
profile
Dark Christianity
Name: Dark Christianity
calendar
Back April 2009
1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930
links
page summary
Dark Christianity - Rep. Monique Davis (D-Il) - Atheists have no right to redress their government
Exploring and Exposing Dominionist Christianity
eiredrake
[info]dark_christian
[info]eiredrake
Add to Memories
Tell a Friend
Rep. Monique Davis (D-Il) - Atheists have no right to redress their government
It just goes to show that the Republican party doesn't have a lock on the crazy Christofascist  paradigm.

Illinois House Panel Criticizes deputy Governor in hearing on $1 million grant to school
Representative tries to put the fear of God in Atheist
Rep. Monique Davis to atheist Rob Sherman: `It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!'
RobSherman.com
Rep Monique Davis - Wikipedia

Audio of the Exchange( From the Tribune )

Contact Information For Representative Monique Davis (D-Chicago)

Ms. Davis Email Address: mdavis@hdsmail.state.il.us
                                                mdavis2147@aol.com
Did you hear about the state legislator who last week blasted a Lutheran minister during a committee hearing for spewing dangerous religious superstitions, and then attempted to order the minister out of the witness chair on the grounds that his Christian beliefs are "destroying what this state was built upon"?

Of course you didn't, because it didn't happen and would never happen. Not to a Christian, not to a Jew, not to a Muslim or to anyone who subscribes to any faith.


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.

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.
You will no doubt note that Mr. Sherman was polite and calm through the whole exchange with the Christofascist . Something I'm glad with because I likely would have reacted with a lot less composure myself. Dealing with religious fascists isn't a time to lose your cool. Sherman's web page has some good references not only to the US Constitution but to the Illinois state constitution which says:

Section 3: 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.
Of course it also says in that very same section:
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;

With the documents founding both this nation and the state of Illinois being so very clear on the issue. The governor should not be giving public tax dollars to any religious institution for any reason. It doesn't matter if the majority in the state happened to be Christians. Everybody pays into the tax pool and Representatives such as Ms. Davis are supposed to represent the interests of all their constituents. The operative question would have to be why does Rep Monique Davis ( D-Illinois ) hate America? Another question would also be if she's so much for God, why does she not listen to his teachings?

Matthew 6:6 - And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

And since she had to take an oath of office to become a Representative in the first place:

Matthew 5:34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne

[REDACTED - Not because I disagree with it but because it is distracting from the issue] Mr. Sherman has every right to stand before whatever state or federal governmental body and get the redress of grievances guaranteed to him by the US Constitution. He also has the right to pursue whatever belief system or philosophy or lack there of that he might wish , also as guaranteed to him by the US Constitution.

The bottom line is that this country is not a Christian theocracy. It is also not China. It is not Saudi Arabia. It is not Iran. This is a constitutional republic wherein every man and woman has same right to liberty and no one can be told "You have no right to be here, get out of that seat!". Even if the state of Illinois suddenly decided that Atheists had no place in it, their Constitution is trumped by the US Constitution. Which despite what Injustice Scalia says, does not exclude those who do not believe as citizens.

No one has the right to force you to pray to any deity let alone force your children to. Religious expression is personal and guaranteed to EVERY man, woman, and child in this nation. Mr. Sherman wasn't trying to take away anyone's right to pray, indeed by the very documents that formed this land he CAN'T because he doesn't have the power to. If a child or teacher wants to pray at any time of the day, so long as they are not disruptive for the rest of the students they are guaranteed the right to pray. The teacher just cannot LEAD the class in prayer.

The truth is that the alleged dangers of his philosophy wasn't the issue before body. Nor was the issue whether or not he had a problem with god. Or if god was swell. The issue was that in deliberate opposition to the Illinois state constitution the Governor was attempting to give a million dollars in public taxpayer money to a church. Granted this sort of nonsense has been going on at the federal level since the Faith Based Initiatives office was formed. But even there, it is illegal and unconstitutional to do so. This man was merely testifying to this fact and a right wingnut ( and a Democrat in this case ) decided to open up her big mouth and make it clear that she believes that only people subscribe to her particular belief system are acceptable to her.

If it were the case that Atheists should have no rights, then it would say so in the US Constitution. You can claim that 'One national under God' BS until you're blue in the face. The Constitution doesn't say that and with luck it never will. Because you cannot have true freedom in anything unless you have the freedom to make any choice you wish. Having some random governmental type tell you that you have to be a Baptist or a Wicca or a Taoist or an Atheist is NOT freedom. It is oppression.

This is the same BS that Atheists, Agnostics and people of religions that the majority religion do not approve of, face from many quarters. We are screamed at. We are harassed. We are preached to. We are attacked in the media. We have our homes and our vehicles defaced and vandalized. We are denied the same rights and privileges that every other citizen enjoys. There are cases where the children of Atheists have had to leave school districts because of harassment and physical attacks, not just by other children but by school administrators! We have even had Presidents tell us that they did not believe that Atheists should be counted as US Citizens. If the positions had been reversed and Mr. Sherman had condemned Ms Davis there would have been a tremendous uproar. Yet from this situation we hear not a peep.

This is not the way America was supposed to be. Freedom is for all men and women in this country. Not just those who fit into the acceptability range of the largest group. Representative Davis should be condemned for her actions if not her attitude towards an entire segment of the populace. She may hold whatever belief she wishes but when she publicly attacks someone like that she should be ashamed of herself and should come forward and apologize for her statements. There is no place in America for this kind of bigotry.

Special thanks to PZ Meyers at Pharyngula for the heads up on this situation.

x posted to my lj: [info]eiredrake

Current Mood: annoyed

Comments
From: [info]djquestion Date: April 7th, 2008 07:25 pm (UTC) (Link)
Could you please cut this post?
eiredrake From: [info]eiredrake Date: April 7th, 2008 07:27 pm (UTC) (Link)
Sorry... I thought I had. LJ must have ate it during one of my edits. Fixed hopefully.
triadruid From: [info]triadruid Date: April 7th, 2008 07:35 pm (UTC) (Link)
Jesus Christ.
zarq From: [info]zarq Date: April 7th, 2008 07:40 pm (UTC) (Link)
And since she is a divorce as well, perhaps she should start worrying about throwing stones in glass houses.

What exactly does her marital status have to do with anything?
From: [info]existentme Date: April 7th, 2008 07:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
It has something to do with context, the presentation of perfection and hypocrisy, for one.

However, since the OP conceded in the post, that "unlike the screed she brought before the body against Mr. Sherman, her personal life isn't anyone's concern," your point of making a point of this smaller thing is rather pointless.

zarq From: [info]zarq Date: April 7th, 2008 07:59 pm (UTC) (Link)
Since the various Christian sects generally don't ban divorce anymore, it's not hypocritical for a Christian to get one.

However, since the OP conceded in the post, that "unlike the screed she brought before the body against Mr. Sherman, her personal life isn't anyone's concern," your point of making a point of this smaller thing is rather pointless.

The appropriate thing to do would have been to not bring it up at all. To make a personal attack and then dismiss the revelation as not "anyone's concern" is pretty disingenuous. It's a cheap shot that diminishes the OP's argument.
(no subject) - [info]elffin Expand
(no subject) - [info]existentme Expand
Oh damn - html form - [info]existentme Expand
Re: Oh damn - html form - [info]zarq Expand
Re: Oh damn - html form - [info]existentme Expand
Re: Oh damn - html form - [info]zarq Expand
Re: Oh damn - html form - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]existentme Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]rechan Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
elffin From: [info]elffin Date: April 7th, 2008 07:52 pm (UTC) (Link)
Her religious zeal is fine to be applied to others, including the people she is supposedly serving, yet fails to extend to her own life. This is recognised as "I'm Special Syndrome", rampant amongst fascist extremists.

It demonstrates that she picks and chooses that which benefits her, rather than adhere to the rule of (whomsoever's she has sworn to uphold) law.
zarq From: [info]zarq Date: April 7th, 2008 08:13 pm (UTC) (Link)
Her religious zeal is fine to be applied to others, including the people she is supposedly serving, yet fails to extend to her own life.

And do we know for a fact that she belongs to a sect of Christianity that bans divorce? Does the OP? Apparently not.

Ms. Davis belongs to Trinity Church, which is a member of the United Church of Christ network. United Church of Christ allows divorces. They even have prayers for people going through a divorce in their prayer books.

Since her religion accepts and acknowledges divorce, she's not being a hypocrite. She's not violating any of her personal religious laws by being a divorcee, either.
(no subject) - [info]elffin Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]elffin Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]elffin Expand
(no subject) - [info]peristaltor Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]elffin Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]djquestion Expand
(no subject) - [info]elffin Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]foomf Expand
(no subject) - [info]whiteknucklejoe Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
peristaltor From: [info]peristaltor Date: April 7th, 2008 07:59 pm (UTC) (Link)
Depending upon her church of choice, it could have everything to do with her rant.

I know of churches that will not allow divorcees in the congregation. Given the gist of her rant, and extrapolating that one of these exclusionary churches may actually be on the side of the angels, she could be courting some heavy irony.
zarq From: [info]zarq Date: April 7th, 2008 08:23 pm (UTC) (Link)
She doesn't and it doesn't. Ms. Davis belongs to Trinity Church, which is an affiliate of the United Church of Christ network. United Church of Christ allows divorces. They even have prayers for those going through a divorce in their prayer books.

There's a hell of a lot of irony here. She's an intolerant moron who should be booted out of her office immediately. But, she's not violating the laws of her religion by being divorced
(no subject) - [info]peristaltor Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
eiredrake From: [info]eiredrake Date: April 7th, 2008 08:07 pm (UTC) (Link)
She claims to be all right with god. Last I checked God doesn't like divorce.

What does Sherman being an Atheist have to do with his right to redress of grievances when protesting the potentially illegal use of public funds?

Nothing... and that's precisely my point.
zarq From: [info]zarq Date: April 7th, 2008 08:18 pm (UTC) (Link)
To repeat something I said in another comment:

Ms. Davis belongs to Trinity Church, which is a member of the United Church of Christ network. United Church of Christ allows divorces. They even have prayers for people going through a divorce in their prayer books.

Since her religion accepts and acknowledges divorce, she's not being a hypocrite. She's not violating any of her personal religious laws by being a divorcee, either.

She claims to be all right with god. Last I checked God doesn't like divorce.

Apparently G-d doesn't. At least, not her G-d.

What does Sherman being an Atheist have to do with his right to redress of grievances when protesting the potentially illegal use of public funds?

You made your point well for most of the rest of the post. In fact, I agree with just about everything you said about her and the way fundamentalist Christians treat atheists. But attacking her marital status as unChristian seemed like a very cheap, and frankly inappropriate shot.
greymalkini From: [info]greymalkini Date: April 7th, 2008 07:46 pm (UTC) (Link)
Not pick nits, but perhaps one should recheck the spelling of "fascism", lest someone think the post is about angry tailors from the title.
From: [info]existentme Date: April 7th, 2008 07:54 pm (UTC) (Link)
Amazing.

I'd be interested in seeing the crowd support for Ms. Davis' pronouncement - I'd be willing to bet it was rather overwhelming, perhaps even thunderous, George Lucas might say.

One must be ever-vigilant, lest one assume there are no maniac politicians with D's in front of their names.
eiredrake From: [info]eiredrake Date: April 7th, 2008 08:13 pm (UTC) (Link)
That's one of the reasons I decided to post it. There are plenty of whackos to go around for both sides of the aisle

virginia_fell From: [info]virginia_fell Date: April 7th, 2008 08:04 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah, I read about this on PZ Myers' blog.

I don't even know what to say. This is astounding. It's also shameful that she had people clapping and giving her "That's right" while she was ranting. This just blows my mind.
friarjohn From: [info]friarjohn Date: April 7th, 2008 09:14 pm (UTC) (Link)
In a time when rhetoric is getting increasingly hyperbolic, I'm not at all surprised.

Many people see people like Hitchens and Harris as threats to themselves and respond to their rhetoric by bumping it up notch. And then there is a higher pitched responce to that. And so the cycle goes. All it dose is reinforce the Dominionist party line.

Not sure where to go from there, but thats it.
virginia_fell From: [info]virginia_fell Date: April 7th, 2008 11:56 pm (UTC) (Link)
Well, I emailed her. My email is reproduced here.

I didn't even touch the whole "atheists are awful" thing, or the moral paternalism thing. I just hit her in her Bible. Hard.
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]virginia_fell Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]zarq Expand
(no subject) - [info]eiredrake Expand
(no subject) - [info]ladybrigid Expand
rechan From: [info]rechan Date: April 8th, 2008 09:36 am (UTC) (Link)
Just to point something out. Notice that she has a D by her state.

That's right. If that D wasn't there, I would've said she was a died in the wool right winger.

It just goes to show you that behavior is not politically associated, and this whole Red State/Blue State R vs. D business is just silly. People can be and are cocks, no matter what group they stand in.
ladybrigid From: [info]ladybrigid Date: April 8th, 2008 06:47 pm (UTC) (Link)
Point taken. But the GOP does seem to have more than its fair share of them, IME. Or maybe, as was pointed out upthread the Dems just keep theirs under wraps better.
lihan161051 From: [info]lihan161051 Date: April 9th, 2008 04:38 am (UTC) (Link)
There is some correlation between political party and dominionist affiliation, but it's not by any means perfect. There are Republicans who aren't beholden to the neopentes, and there are Democrats who very much are.

(And Fred Phelps self-identifies as a Democrat. I have to cringe every time I hear that.)
lihan161051 From: [info]lihan161051 Date: April 9th, 2008 04:37 am (UTC) (Link)
You can claim that 'One national under God' BS until you're blue in the face. The Constitution doesn't say that and with luck it never will.

"Under God" was actually added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. It's not part of the Constitution and never has been. :) (Neither is the "In God We Trust" on our coins and currency.) And as much as the dominionists (and fellow travellers) would like us to think that those words mean this is a "Christian Nation", nope, thanks for playing ..
eiredrake From: [info]eiredrake Date: April 9th, 2008 12:51 pm (UTC) (Link)
Yeah but truth never stopped Dommies.

Trust me, I'm familiar. My even wife had to argue it with her father recently. Who claimed "No it's not, it's in the Preamble to the Constitution."

I wish I had been there. Because i could have made an easy $500 off of him.

Edited at 2008-04-09 12:52 pm (UTC)
ladybrigid From: [info]ladybrigid Date: April 9th, 2008 03:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
"Under God" was actually added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. It's not part of the Constitution and never has been. :) (Neither is the "In God We Trust" on our coins and currency.)

IIRC, it was added during the "Red Scare" when McCarthy was accusing everybody and his dog of being a communist. Eisenhower didn't want anyone to think he wasn't a loyal american so he supported the additions.
heofmanynames From: [info]heofmanynames Date: April 10th, 2008 05:48 am (UTC) (Link)
let's not forget: every commie is a godless commie!
77 comments or Leave a comment