1. Comment #157228 by DalaiDrivel on April 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm

It is absolutely true to say what he did, and fair to her that she receives this ridicule.

I would be angry at her bigotry if just listening to the actual recording of her tirade wasn't so god-damn (said in all sincerity) amusing.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

2. Comment #157229 by scooternyc on April 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm

"What this state was built upon"

Another idiot who has no idea about America's history.

The question to her should be, "why is it so important to you that America be founded as a christian nation".

The answer: ownership

She couldn't be more ANTI-AMERICAN if she tried.

Other Comments by scooternyc

3. Comment #157230 by FightingFalcon on April 8, 2008 at 6:33 pm

Just looking for this video on Olbermann's website. Thanks!

Keith Olbermann hit it right on the head - my feelings exactly.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

4. Comment #157238 by moschops on April 8, 2008 at 6:49 pm

Wow, rock on Olberman! For once atheists get some righteous retribution and we don't even believe in god.

Other Comments by moschops

5. Comment #157239 by PeaceFrog on April 8, 2008 at 6:49 pm

I live in Chicago and what I want to know is why this wasn't splashed across the front page of either major local newspaper? To my knowledge, this hasn't hit any of the local news!

Aside from a short column by Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune (whom I applaud for reporting on this incident), this has been noticeably absent from the media.

If I somehow missed any news articles on this, I'd appreciate being pointed to them. Thanks.

Other Comments by PeaceFrog

6. Comment #157240 by Glen Davidson on April 8, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Oh yeah, I saw that on TV.

It might be more meaningful for her to be "worst person in the world" if Bill O'Reilly wasn't given that title seemingly every other night. Sure, he's an annoying blowhard, but "worst person in the world" sort of loses its sting when he's getting it all of the time.

Davis deserves more than that, in fact, considering how little that title has come to mean. But it's still something. The godless may not have it so bad, really, yet the sense that religious bigotry against them is sanctioned by society and even the state is far from an acceptable position for the people's representative to hold.

I hope that Olbermann will go ahead and hound her for that apology she owes all freedom-loving Americans. It's not over until she does apologize, and I reserve judgment on whether it's truly over then--it depends upon what she says.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7

Other Comments by Glen Davidson

7. Comment #157241 by Diacanu on April 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm

YES!!

One of the posters in the other thread sent this in to Olbermann, and it worked!! You did it, buddy!!

*Goes to look up who it was*

Other Comments by Diacanu

8. Comment #157248 by Diacanu on April 8, 2008 at 7:09 pm

*Found it*

Quill!!

Hooray, Quill!!

Other Comments by Diacanu

9. Comment #157249 by xdrive on April 8, 2008 at 7:10 pm

I can't wait to see the backlash of the backlash. Davis will be immortalized in the bleeding hearts of the empty headed as a martyr for the cause of anti-separationism.

The next media cycle, boys and girls. The next media cycle. Get ready.

Other Comments by xdrive

10. Comment #157251 by LeeLeeOne on April 8, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Swish!

Ahhh, those short but albeit important words Worst Person in the World - Thank you Keith Oberman!

Excellent, just excellent.

BTW: PZ has a link on some guy named Scalzi. This Scalzi is one sick puppy....

EDIT: I was listening to the short segment and he was talking about Bill Orraally ... thank you for pointing this out. (sorry - eek)

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

11. Comment #157253 by Styrer- on April 8, 2008 at 7:15 pm

7. Comment #157241 by Diacanu on April 8, 2008 at 6:56 pm

YES!!

One of the posters in the other thread sent this in to Olbermann, and it worked!! You did it, buddy!!

*Goes to look up who it was*

That's right, I remember, the member said s/he had put it in to Olbermann.

IF it was our resident RD.Netter - fucking fantastic and thank you!

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

12. Comment #157256 by jjberg on April 8, 2008 at 7:22 pm

Swish!

Ahhh, those short but albeit important words Worst Person in the World - Thank you Bill Oberman!

Excellent, just excellent.

Keith...Olberman? you mean Keith, not Bill. That's that annoying idiot over on Fox

Other Comments by jjberg

13. Comment #157260 by Diocletian on April 8, 2008 at 7:27 pm

This made my whole Day! Thank you Oberman!!!

Other Comments by Diocletian

14. Comment #157263 by bayareadude on April 8, 2008 at 7:37 pm

I just called this woman's district office at (773) 445-9700 and left a message.

I basically asked how she justified envoking the name of Abraham Lincoln in an attempt to discriminate against an American citizen. As a Black woman she should be ashamed. As a representative of our government, she deserves to be removed from office!

Earlier this evening, Davis managed to have her email address deleted from her web site. In case you missed it, here it is:

mdavis2174@aol.com

Be sure and send her my best regards!

Other Comments by bayareadude

15. Comment #157269 by CruciFiction on April 8, 2008 at 7:47 pm

Keith had even more to say before this segment.


All of it here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=T35_vQms4Ck

Other Comments by CruciFiction

16. Comment #157270 by Clydey on April 8, 2008 at 7:51 pm

I like what I've seen thus far from Keith Olbermann. From what I can tell he's unbiased and has real principles. He is the anti-O'Reilly. I can only imagine that O'Reilly gets better ratings because he is unintentionally hilarious, while at the same time stirring up controversy with his embarrassingly ill-informed views.

Other Comments by Clydey

17. Comment #157281 by dragonfirematrix on April 8, 2008 at 8:21 pm

Mr. George W. Bush will probably want to award Rep. Davis with a metal of honors for her hate speech. Bush may even want her on the Supreme Court.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

18. Comment #157287 by Teratornis on April 8, 2008 at 9:02 pm

I don't have a problem with "hate speech" per se. I think it's better for people to say what they honestly think than to go around lying about it.

What Rep. Davis said is pretty much the standard litany in lots of churches. The reason Rep. Davis thinks what she thinks is that she's absorbed the standard litany for years and years in a closed circle where no other points of view get heard.

She also ignores the inconvenient fact that the white man's slave religion, imposed on African-Americans by force, hasn't exactly done much to check the crime wave engulfing her constituents. Why doesn't the African-American community give reason a try? It can hardly be worse than superstition has been.

I appreciate Ann Coulter's honesty in the same way. It's better to know exactly where people stand.

Coulter reminds me of the young child who hears her parents saying something unflattering about another person, and then naively goes and tells that person. If I am that person, I'd rather know what those parents really think about me. Most people would prefer to have everyone be polite and tell them comforting lies.

When Ann Coulter said, right out loud in public, that she wants to "perfect" Jews by Christianizing them, lots of people acted all shocked, but all she did was parrot the standard Evangelical doctrine that I heard as a child growing up. It's not surprising to hear a Christian say that, it's surprising that Christians almost never say it.

Let's not be like the fat acceptance movement and act all shocked now that we just learned someone finds us disgusting. I say it's better to air our differences and let's see what Rep. Davis has in a debate.

Other Comments by Teratornis

19. Comment #157297 by xdrive on April 8, 2008 at 9:26 pm

Can someone please explain for me the following mantra:

"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion! You don't have a right to NOT believe!"

I have no trouble understanding the words of their claim, it's how they arrive at this claim that I can't quite suspend my disbelief enough to grasp. I've heard my dad say this before and I pressed him to explain it. He tried to equivocate on the language of the clause and I called him on it. That's as far as we ever got.

So does anyone know the rationalization for this? Is it merely a half-assed effort to sound witty as one tries to defend the preposterous? I think so.

PS: I know Rep. Davis didn't say this, but this was clearly the spirit of her bullshit.

Other Comments by xdrive

20. Comment #157302 by MelM on April 8, 2008 at 9:41 pm

...it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists...

This is a necessary consequence of fanatical religion. It's why I believe there's much more to worry about on a personal level than even the corruption of science. I expect the nutters to stop at nothing if they think atheists are a threat to the salvation of their kids.

From "Religion vs. Free Speech by Craig Biddle, The Objective Standard, Summer 2006
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-summer/religion-vs-free-speech.asp

Thomas Aquinas: ...If, however, a heretic remains stubborn, the church, despairing of his conversion, takes care of the salvation of others, separates the heretic from the church with a sentence of excommunication, and delivers him to the secular courts to be removed from the world by death. . . .

Religion cannot keep to itself.

Other Comments by MelM

21. Comment #157310 by Teratornis on April 8, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Comment #157297 by xdrive:

Can someone please explain for me the following mantra:

"Freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion! You don't have a right to NOT believe!"

I have no trouble understanding the words of their claim, it's how they arrive at this claim that I can't quite suspend my disbelief enough to grasp.

Not to mention how they split that infinitive.

Well, obviously they exercise their right to NOT believe in Santa Claus.

Never let a religious person suck you into a false dichotomy. The choice is not between their belief vs. "unbelief." It's between their belief and the infinitely many other possible beliefs. I like to ask religious people what they think about other religions. It's never good. I also like to ask how they know all the other religions are wrong.

When people embrace unreason and cultivate a lack of critical thinking, their whole belief system is incoherent, so it's not surprising when their sentence structure becomes incoherent as well.

I've heard my dad say this before and I pressed him to explain it. He tried to equivocate on the language of the clause and I called him on it. That's as far as we ever got.

I recall a Peanuts cartoon in which Linus phrases an argument for Lucy, but before he finishes, she hits him. In the next frame, she justified her actions with: "I had to hit him; he was starting to make sense."

So does anyone know the rationalization for this? Is it merely a half-assed effort to sound witty as one tries to defend the preposterous? I think so.

I don't know, but when you figure that out, maybe you can help me on a verse that used to baffle me when I was a kid:

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. -- Romans 10:17

I could follow the first clause, but the second clause never made sense to me. How does hearing come "by" the word of God? I was pretty sure I was already able to hear. The only way I could see for the word of God to improve my hearing would be for me to hear it first, so this seemed to present a chicken-and-egg problem. The verse would make a lot more sense if it just said: "Faith cometh by hearing the word of God." But it doesn't say that.

Much of the Bible is like that. The closer you look at it, the less it makes sense.

Most Christians don't try to figure it out, they just chant it and enjoy the act of chanting.

It's like scat singing, I think.

Other Comments by Teratornis

22. Comment #157311 by Teratornis on April 8, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Comment #157302 by MelM:

...it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists...

This is a necessary consequence of fanatical religion. It's why I believe there's much more to worry about on a personal level than even the corruption of science. I expect the nutters to stop at nothing if they think atheists are a threat to the salvation of their kids.

She did not specify the danger. Maybe she meant atheism is a threat to "our" children if they want to skip a lifetime of honest work by entering the ministry. The atheist philosophy might reduce the number of marks.

But actually it is possible to earn good money as an atheist. I imagine it takes more work, though, because atheists generally do not tithe.

Of course the sad joke is that Rep. Davis is probably oblivious to the greatest threat facing children today: the failure of their parents to plan for peak oil and the coming shortage of liquid fuels.

Other Comments by Teratornis

23. Comment #157361 by beeline on April 9, 2008 at 1:45 am

I recognised Rep. Davis's behaviour immediately because I have a two year-old child.

When she doesn't get what she wants, and realises too late that there's a good reason for it, she fights back with the only weapon left in her arsenal: shrieking irrationally.

It's called "a tantrum".

Yelping religious dogma is the 'grown up' version of shrieking because it uses big grown-up-sounding words.

Other Comments by beeline

24. Comment #157363 by Steve Zara on April 9, 2008 at 1:52 am

Comment #157361 by beeline

This is a good point. It is probably reading too much into her words if one considers what she said a thought-out political position. It was a rant. Of course, what she should have done is apologised straight away.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

25. Comment #157365 by PJG on April 9, 2008 at 1:54 am

What worried me far more than Ms. Davis's vitriol was the applause and support she got from others in the room - listen to the man who called out support when she said he (Mr. Sherman) had no right to be there.

That is REALLY scary. One nutter isn't really THAT worrying so long as the insanity is recognised. Also, Mr. Sherman was accusing her of being involved in the misappropriation of $1M and ad hominem attacks by the (allegedly) guilty are not unheard of!

Other Comments by PJG

26. Comment #157366 by PJG on April 9, 2008 at 1:58 am

Beeline

Spot on

Do we want (emotionally) two-year-olds holding office anywhere in the world?

Other Comments by PJG

27. Comment #157381 by k1mgy on April 9, 2008 at 2:52 am

Perhaps there are parallels here to the Salem Witch Trials. Davis reveals the hatred, stupidity and fear that brought innocence to the gallows. As an Atheist, I am certain of a hard road ahead.

Meanwhile, Davis is most certainly bonkers. What's in the water out there?

Not brought forth in this story is that the hearing was poking at the soft, bloated underbelly of Chicago's corruption and malfeasance machine. There are only a handful of US cities holding a reputation for as much public corruption. Perhaps the State of New Jersey ranks only second to Davis' home town.

Given her over the top reaction (she clearly has "issues") it makes me wonder if she's being defensive, not for reasons of some religion, but rather because she's got something else to hide.

Here's what makes matters worse: this one is alleged to be a Democrat.

Other Comments by k1mgy

28. Comment #157382 by IanG on April 9, 2008 at 2:53 am

In the US in December 1955 a black woman was told to get out of her seat because people of her skin colour had no right to there.

This was one of the memorable moments of a movement that led to black people in the US gaining civil power.

In the US in April 2008 a black woman used that power: she told a man to get out of his seat because people of his belief had no right to be there. She went so far as to say that it was dangerous for children to even know that his view existed. She was applauded.

A timely reminder of the Lord Acton's dictum that, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Thankfully, because of Rosa Parks and others, Monique Davis will now find herself judged by the content of her character rather than by the colour of her skin.

She will be found wanting.

An unreserved and genuine apology for such an intemperate and emotional outburst of intolerant bigotry is the only course of action open to a civilised human being.

In the absence of such an apology people will draw their own conclusions as to the true content of Monique Davis' character.

Other Comments by IanG

29. Comment #157416 by beeline on April 9, 2008 at 4:26 am

I sometimes think it's uncharacteristically kind of people like this to let us know, in very clear terms, what kind of fool they are, which is odd, because you'd think they'd want to hide it.

It's a delicious irony of the universe that foolishness, by its very nature, will reveal itself because the fool is too foolish to know how to hide it, and in some cases to even realise that they should do if they want to 'get ahead'.

Foolish people aren't really a worry when compared to clever, dishonest people, who are good at 'hiding' and cheating.

Other Comments by beeline

30. Comment #157419 by KRKBAB on April 9, 2008 at 4:30 am

Teratornis, I howled with laughter when I read your words: "It's like scat singing"! Holy mother of god, that's real fuckin' funny! Ow! Yeah Baby, (Austin Powers). You must be American, right? (bad grammer. eh?)If your not, you should be. We have a sense of humor that's a little different than the Brits (not that there's anything wrong with their's). Excuse my real slow response and bad grammer.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

31. Comment #157422 by Lionel A on April 9, 2008 at 4:35 am

Here we have yet another own goal by religious ridiculites. It seems to me that this incident points to the need for ensuring that a very thorough investigation into the misappropriation of public funds reaches a satisfactory conclusion. I find the fact that the school concerned was in financial difficulty interesting as is its destruction by fire. Have these occurrences been fully investigated? If not then I suggest they should be. It seems like a can of worms has been revealed here.

Oh! Is it not about time representative Davis' photo' at:

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=95&MemberID=1148

was brought up to date, although perhaps there will not be a need for that page for much longer.

Other Comments by Lionel A

32. Comment #157442 by Logicel on April 9, 2008 at 5:26 am

For you diggers out there, make sure you digg this post regarding Davis ranting at Sherman (it has nearly 3000 diggs and is on the front political page of digg):

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Illinois_Legislator_Children_shouldn_t_know_atheism_exists

Other Comments by Logicel

33. Comment #157443 by windweaver on April 9, 2008 at 5:27 am

I sent the article below to Davis's email address:

Why Women Need Freedom From Religion

Organized religion always has been and remains the greatest enemy of women's rights. In the Christian-dominated Western world, two bible verses in particular sum up the position of women:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."--Genesis 3:16
By this third chapter of Genesis, woman lost her rights, her standing--even her identity, and motherhood became a God-inflicted curse degrading her status in the world.

In the New Testament, the bible decrees:

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."--1 Tim. 2:11-14
One bible verse alone, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18) is responsible for the death of tens of thousands, if not millions, of women. Do women and those who care about them need further evidence of the great harm of Christianity, predicated as it has been on these and similar teachings about women?

Church writer Tertullian said "each of you women is an Eve . . . You are the gate of Hell, you are the temptress of the forbidden tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law."

Martin Luther decreed: "If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

Such teachings prompted 19th-century feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton to write: "The Bible and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of woman's emancipation."

The various Christian churches fought tooth and nail against the advancement of women, opposing everything from women's right to speak in public, to the use of anesthesia in childbirth (since the bible says women must suffer in childbirth) and woman's suffrage. Today the most organized and formidable opponent of women's social, economic and sexual rights remains organized religion. Religionists defeated the Equal Rights Amendment. Religious fanatics and bullies are currently engaged in an outright war of terrorism and harassment against women who have abortions and the medical staff which serves them. Those seeking to challenge inequities and advance the status of women today are fighting a massive coalition of fundamentalist Protestant and Catholic churches and religious groups mobilized to fight women's rights, gay rights, and secular government.

Why do women remain second-class citizens? Why is there a religion-fostered war against women's rights? Because the bible is a handbook for the subjugation of women. The bible establishes woman's inferior status, her "uncleanliness," her transgressions, and God-ordained master/servant relationship to man. Biblical women are possessions: fathers own them, sell them into bondage, even sacrifice them. The bible sanctions rape during wartime and in other contexts. Wives are subject to Mosaic-law sanctioned "bedchecks" as brides, and male jealousy fits and no-notice divorce as wives. The most typical biblical labels of women are "harlot" and "whore." They are described as having evil, even satanic powers of allurement. Contempt for women's bodies and reproductive capacity is a bedrock of the bible. The few role models offered are stereotyped, conventional and inadequate, with bible heroines admired for obedience and battle spirit. Jesus scorns his own mother, refusing to bless her, and issues dire warnings about the fate of pregnant and nursing women.

There are more than 200 bible verses that specifically belittle and demean women. Here are just a few:

(See Woe To The Women: The Bible Tells Me So for a more comprehensive list)

Genesis 2:22 Woman created from Adam's rib
3:16 Woman cursed: maternity a sin, marriage a bondage
19:1-8 Rape virgins instead of male angels

Exodus 20:17 Insulting Tenth Commandment, considering a wife to be property
21:7-11 Unfair rules for female servants, may be sex slaves
22:18 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
38:8 Women may not enter tabernacle they must support


Leviticus 12:1-14 Women who have sons are unclean 7 days
12:4-7 Women who have daughters are unclean 14 days
15:19-23 Menstrual periods are unclean
19:20-22 If master has sex with engaged woman, she shall be scourged


Numbers 1:2 Poll of people only includes men
5:13-31 Barbaric adulteress test
31:16-35 "Virgins" listed as war booty


Deuteronomy 21:11-14 Rape manual
22:5 Abomination for women to wear men's garments, vice-versa
22:13-21 Barbaric virgin test
22:23-24 Woman raped in city, she & her rapist both stoned to death
22:28-29 Woman must marry her rapist
24:1 Men can divorce woman for "uncleanness," not vice-versa
25:11-12 If woman touches foe's penis, her hand shall be cut off


Judges 11:30-40 Jephthah's nameless daughter sacrificed
19:22-29 Concubine sacrificed to rapist crowd to save man


I Kings 11:1-4 King Solomon had 700 wives & 300 concubines


Job 14:1-4 "Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one . . ."


Proverbs 7:9-27 Evil women seduce men, send them to hell
11:22 One of numerous Proverbial putdowns


Isaiah 3:16-17 God scourges, rapes haughty women


Ezekiel 16:45 One of numerous obscene denunciations


Matthew 24:19 "[woe] to them that are with child"


Luke 2:22 Mary is unclean after birth of Jesus


I Corinthians 11:3-15 Man is head of woman; only man in God's image
14:34-35 Women keep in silence, learn only from husbands


Ephesians 5:22-33 "Wives, submit . . ."


Colossians 3:18 More "wives submit"


I Timothy 2:9 Women adorn selves in shamefacedness
2:11-14 Women learn in silence in all subjection; Eve was sinful, Adam blameless


Why should women--and the men who honor women--respect and support religions which preach women's submission, which make women's subjugation a cornerstone of their theology?

When attempts are made to base laws on the bible, women must beware. The constitutional principle of separation between church and state is the only sure barrier standing between women and the bible.

For more information about the treatment of women in the bible, read the books Woe to the Women: The Bible Tells Me So by Annie Laurie Gaylor and The Born Again Skeptic's Guide to the Bible by Ruth Hurmence Green.

Other Comments by windweaver

34. Comment #157453 by Vaal on April 9, 2008 at 5:49 am

Excellent article Windweaver.

Other Comments by Vaal

35. Comment #157511 by FreeThink25 on April 9, 2008 at 8:03 am

This is simply fantastic. The more publicity stuff like this gets, the better it is for us.

I wish this happened more, because it forces the average christian american to re-evaluate their beliefs about atheists, and forces them to rationalize what exactly it is that they have against us. The more this happens, the less reasons they'll be able to come up with.

Let's get some more idiotic legislators pissed off!!!!

Other Comments by FreeThink25

36. Comment #157534 by Lucas on April 9, 2008 at 8:35 am

It would be awesome if someone asked Mr. Obama what he thought about this, see if he'll reveal his true colors. The man is a pretend Baptist in Chicago; he must know of Ms. Davis. Can anyone out there get close enough to ask him how he feels about this woman's tirade? Will he properly defend freedom of religion and speech and denounce her, or stick with his black Baptist schtick? I mean, the guy is only half black and half Baptist. His mom was a white atheist.

Concerning Ms. Davis, there should be regulations in place that immediately remove people from positions of power when they do things like this. Period. No more public office. You cannot overtly admit (scream) to the world that you are prejudiced against a large group of your constituents. What would happen if someone said that about Baptists? Or blacks?

Other Comments by Lucas

37. Comment #157586 by LeeLeeOne on April 9, 2008 at 9:57 am

Windweaver, I second the comment about your article being excellent. Reading it, I felt all of the human emotions; from disgust, to realization, to tears, to empowerment and energy. Thank you for your article.

Other Comments by LeeLeeOne

38. Comment #157607 by Mitchell Gilks on April 9, 2008 at 10:32 am

Well, she is quite an idiot. Just in the way she speaks, setting aside what she actually said.

I do hope this gets some publicity.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

39. Comment #157614 by robotaholic on April 9, 2008 at 10:40 am

I actually DON'T believe in her right to say this. As a representative she cannot support religion- at least not in this capacity.

Teratornis:

I don't have a problem with "hate speech" per se. I think it's better for people to say what they honestly think than to go around lying about it.

I totally agree with you that I would prefer honesty over lying (I'm brutally honest about everything to everyone and the friends I have a true friends because of it) but in this ladies capacity as a represenative she should do her job- which doesn't include hate speach or bigotry.

Other Comments by robotaholic

40. Comment #157628 by cowalker on April 9, 2008 at 10:56 am

The part where she said it's dangerous for children to even know about atheism is an irresistible reminder of the quasi-Mormon cult being investigated in Texas after allegations of child abuse. The poor, deluded women and children looked like extras from "Little House on the Prairie" as they evacuated the compound. I suppose they imagine they're dressing like 19th century pioneers, but they're clearly wearing Simplicity creations based on looking "old-fashioned."

For more than two generations the children of the cult have been isolated from modern America and taught that everyone outside the compound is an evil predator. They know of no other way of life than the forced marriage of young girls to the most powerful older men in the group. It would certainly be "dangerous" to the cult for the youth to know about other philosophies of life, because when they compared them to their cult's practices, the latter would look pretty sick.

What a fearful, narrow mindset Davis's sentiments betray. She obviously has no confidence in the strength of her own beliefs.

Other Comments by cowalker

41. Comment #157632 by cepmk on April 9, 2008 at 11:00 am

It's funny how ugly can go all the way through!
Hateful, stupid, ignorant, insulting, but truthful to herself. Nothing is quite like an honest bigot.

Other Comments by cepmk

42. Comment #157648 by Steven Mading on April 9, 2008 at 11:32 am

The typical sort of response to an atheist asking for proper separation of church and state is something along these lines: "what's the problem, why do you atheists think you have anything to complaining about here?" What makes this situation so much worse than that is when her comments drifted into the "atheists should not be allowed to be full participants in government" sort of area. When she said that he had no right to even be there at the microphone raising his complaint at all, that's when she really went too far.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

43. Comment #157656 by Steven Mading on April 9, 2008 at 11:45 am

Comment 31: by Lionel A had this:

Oh! Is it not about time representative Davis' photo' at:

http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=95&MemberID=1148

was brought up to date, although perhaps there will not be a need for that page for much longer.

What's funny is that when I pulled up that page in another tab, the browser abbreviated the title of the page as "Illinois General Ass". (-embly)

Seems appropriate to me.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

44. Comment #157679 by Tumara Baap on April 9, 2008 at 12:07 pm

Davis' remarks are tragic on several levels. They come from a woman African American Democrat.

As windweaver's superb post points out, it took a brave freethinkers/agnostics such as Elizabeth Stanton and Margaret Sanger to advance women's causes of voting rights, equal treatment, right to contraception etc. Davis would not be in the position of political power today if not for these atheist women standing up to bibles being hurled at them, ridicule, harassment and even imprisonment.

Secondly, the bible says nothing against slavery. In religious societies, each party will try to cherry pick those parts of a religious text that support their agenda. That said, it was the southern slave owners who were on firmer theological footing. The bible thus never made the slightest dent in that awful institution for thousands of years. And if it weren't for the emasculation of religious authority so that reason could breathe, Davis today would still be picking cotton and getting her backside whooped, in turns.

Davis also brings up the subject of atheists "destroying". I am not sure exactly what she meant, but if she wants to learn about how atheists, humanists, and freethinkers contribute to American society, I'm certain we could give her more than an earful. Right through our founding fathers from Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine to elite science and academia today, freethinkers have overwhelmingly contributed to modern high civilization, under whose umbrella Davis now comfortably lives.

Davis is also a democrat. In the 2004 elections, whereas the fundamentalist Christian vote went to Republicans, an ever larger lions share of the secular vote (consisting of both believers and non-believers) went to Democrats. This may be a religious country, but it is more so a secular one.

Davis, Davis, Davis, talk of grappling the wrong end of the stick! I encourage her office be bombarded with the specific themes of each toe she's stepped on.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap

45. Comment #157788 by FightingFalcon on April 9, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Not brought forth in this story is that the hearing was poking at the soft, bloated underbelly of Chicago's corruption and malfeasance machine. There are only a handful of US cities holding a reputation for as much public corruption. Perhaps the State of New Jersey ranks only second to Davis' home town.

As a native of New Jersey, I'm curious as to what you mean by this.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

46. Comment #157808 by Skepticon on April 9, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Here's what I sent:

Three cheers for you Representative Davis for sticking it to those lousy Atheists!!!!

Who are they to demand equal rights! Who are they to want a say in our representative government!

Only people who look and think like us should be allowed to speak!

You're a Christian, right!

You're a white person, right!

Then you just go on demanding that everyone be just like you.

You can count on our support -- we support our own kind!

Cornelius T. Veritas,
Citizen of the United States"

Other Comments by Skepticon

47. Comment #157856 by quill on April 9, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Wow, I almost choked when I saw this. So nice to have someone in the national news media on our side for a change. It would've been even better if he'd quoted Lincoln directly, but still, amazingly gratifying that he did this much. Thanks Keith. :)

Time to apply some additional pressure. Please, everyone send a polite email to the Honorable Representative Jack D. Franks (jack@jackfranks.org), chairperson of the Government Administration Committee at which Davis' remarks were made, asking him to censure her for her disgraceful behavior.

Other Comments by quill

48. Comment #157862 by MelM on April 9, 2008 at 4:09 pm

The Lincoln page at "Positive Atheism"; amazing.
There's one accusation of an attempt to fabricate Lincoln's piety.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/lincframe.htm

Other Comments by MelM

49. Comment #157911 by anunseenruler on April 9, 2008 at 6:13 pm

ooooo.... look out! I'm dangerous.

Hey, chicks dig that kinda thing don't they?

Other Comments by anunseenruler

50. Comment #157950 by pkruger on April 9, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Well I think atheists are about as dangerous as all the older kids who tell the younger kids there really isn't a Santa Claus.

Other Comments by pkruger