Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Friday, April 11, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

by Rep Davis, CBS

Reposted from:
http://www.wbbm780.com/Lawmaker-Apologizes-For-Comments-Against-Atheist/1980701

Lawmaker Apologizes For Comments Against Atheist

CHICAGO (WBBM) -- State Representative Monique Davis is apologizing a week after she blasted an atheist activist during a hearing over a million dollar grant for a South Side church.

Because of Davis' rant, she was named Tuesday night as the "worst person in the world" --a dubious award doled out daily by news commentator Keith Olbermann on MSNBC's "Countdown" program.

Rep. Davis told atheist Rob Sherman that, "What you have to spew and spread is dangerous" and that "This is the land of Lincoln where people believe in God."

But, after being on the receiving end of a week's worth of public criticism, Davis called Sherman yesterday to apologize.

Sherman says Davis told him she "took out her frustrations and emotions on me and that she shouldn't have done that." Sherman says Davis' explanation was "reasonable" and that he forgives her.

According to Sherman and State Rep. Jack Franks….Davis claims her outburst was triggered by learning shortly beforehand…that there'd been another Chicago Public School student killed.

State Rep. Jack Franks was chairing the hearing that day and says Davis' outburst was uncharacteristic, adding "she was having a bad day."
submit to delicious Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, April 11, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 143 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #159009 by movingshadow on April 11, 2008 at 10:36 am

avatarAmazing how the death of a student could suddenly implant bigoted thoughts in her head

Other Comments by movingshadow

2. Comment #159013 by brian_d_w on April 11, 2008 at 10:40 am

She should still resign. Its good of Mr. Sherman to forgive her. However she has not asked the people of the secular republic that she represents to forgive her. If she can't do that she needs to be removed from office.

Other Comments by brian_d_w

3. Comment #159015 by hungarianelephant on April 11, 2008 at 10:43 am

avatarNot to condone Monique Davis' behaviour, but isn't it up to Rob Sherman to determine whether her apology was "inadequate", "late" and with a "grossly inadequate excuse"? And telling CBS seems an odd way of doing something in private.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

4. Comment #159016 by michabo on April 11, 2008 at 10:43 am

"Forgive me for making these comments, atheists always remind me of murderers, you know how it is. Will you forgive me?" Uh, sure...

Other Comments by michabo

5. Comment #159018 by Prankster on April 11, 2008 at 10:48 am

avatarOk she's apologized, but it's odd it took nearly a week and an "award" to spur her into action

It's also curious that her apology was announced by CBS-shouldn't a private apology be just that?

Other Comments by Prankster

6. Comment #159024 by Madphatcat on April 11, 2008 at 10:56 am

From what I can gather, she didn't tell CBS, Sherman did. Davis didn't actually publicly apologize - she apologized in private. And even worse she only apologized to Sherman. She offended all atheists (by implying they were dangerous and had no right to participate in government) and yet she only privately apologized to one.

That's not going to cut it.

Other Comments by Madphatcat

7. Comment #159027 by akado on April 11, 2008 at 11:00 am

avatarThat's a sade excuse for such an outburst.
As it seems to say "people being killed is a reminder of all things evil as such atheist" in her mind.
It to me is more of an insult than an apology.

Other Comments by akado

8. Comment #159028 by JammyB on April 11, 2008 at 11:02 am

That's great that she apologised but her outburst has still revealed her bigoted views, which no doubt she still holds dear.

Other Comments by JammyB

9. Comment #159030 by annabanana on April 11, 2008 at 11:05 am

avatarI still would prefer that she resign unless she suddenly becomes educated and enlightened to the fact that atheists who are Americans have just as many rights as any other American.

Other Comments by annabanana

10. Comment #159031 by Prankster on April 11, 2008 at 11:05 am

avatarMadphatcat

Sorry I meant to say that's what annoyed me and what I was trying to get across, in that he should have kept it private and not ran off and told CBS

Really she should have apologized to everyone offended by her comments including everyone here on the site who blitzed her with letters and e-mails but also the parents of the murdered schoolkid

That's what's sticking in my gullet-making pious announcements and spewing out hatred but blaming it all on an unfortunate death so making her have a "bad day"-lunatic......

Other Comments by Prankster

11. Comment #159037 by Mitchell Gilks on April 11, 2008 at 11:13 am

avatarSaying "I'm sorry, but it wasn't my fault" is not an apology I recognize. That isn't showing remourse, nor is it taking responsibility for her actions.

In not way is that an apology.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

12. Comment #159041 by sidfaiwu on April 11, 2008 at 11:15 am

avatarBully for her for apologizing. Perhaps an incident like this is exactly what Representative Davis needed to reevaluate some false assumptions she apparently had about atheists.

I may be naive, but I try to assume the best about people. I think she is earnest in her apology and will take her at her word.

And telling CBS seems an odd way of doing something in private.


Not for a politician. A public apology helps her save, or even gain, some political points.

Other Comments by sidfaiwu

13. Comment #159042 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 11:17 am

avatarI think the calls for Ms. Davis to resign are thoroughly misguided. Isn't this exactly what freedom of speech is? The freedom to be as forthright and even rude if you want without having to fear reprisal? If representative Davis is forced to resign over the issue doesn't it become the same as the fundamentalists who call for the death of cartoonists or the closing of theaters because of blasphemy? She dropped a bollock as they say, leave her alone now. True colours are shining through and maybe just maybe she will learn something important.

Other Comments by BFKate

14. Comment #159043 by Madphatcat on April 11, 2008 at 11:18 am

Prankster, perhaps you are right. I know nothing about this Sherman guy, but it seems like many people online are annoyed with his antics so revealing a private conversation to CBS may be usual behavior for him. I frankly don't really care about that though and neither do you.

More importantly:

The fact that she insulted a whole class of people and only apologized to one is ridiculous (Imagine if she publicly insulted all Jews! Apologizing to only one would make everyone even more pissed off!). Also, the fact that she blamed her BIGOTRY on some random kid getting killed is even more ridiculous.

Rep. Davis is pathetic.

Other Comments by Madphatcat

15. Comment #159046 by Jolly Bloger on April 11, 2008 at 11:23 am

avatar(reposted from my Pharyngula comment)

This is the Mel Gibson excuse. If you are drunk, or stressed out, or upset, or distracted, you don't make up crazy things to yell out of the blue. What alcohol, and stress, and distractions do is cloud your judgment, slow your reactions, and inhibit your filters.

"The drunk man's words are the sober man's thoughts" applies to Gibson, and likewise the things Davis said in a heated moment of stress induced passion reveal her honest thoughts that she is normally able to keep to herself.

The fact that she holds those beliefs at all, not that she let them out, is the problem.

Other Comments by Jolly Bloger

16. Comment #159048 by movingshadow on April 11, 2008 at 11:26 am

avatar"I think the calls for Ms. Davis to resign are thoroughly misguided. Isn't this exactly what freedom of speech is? The freedom to be as forthright and even rude if you want without having to fear reprisal?"


Should she be allowed to say blacks are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in government? Of course. Keep her job after such statements? Hell no.

Part of free speech is accepting responsibility for what you say.

Other Comments by movingshadow

17. Comment #159054 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 11:33 am

avatar"Should she be allowed to say blacks are dangerous and shouldn't be allowed in government? Of course. Keep her job after such statements? Hell no. "

Hell Yes. What does her opinion on any matter have to do with her performance in public office?

So where does accepting responsibility for what you say fit with the calls to kill Salman Rushdie or the Danish cartoonists? It's a nonsense. If people don't like what you say they have a right to reply not revenge. It's fine to call Ms Davis a bigot it's not fine to demand a pound of flesh because you don't like what she says. The people who have a right to call for her resignation are her constituents not everyone that she offends. If she is bad at her job they will dump her at the next election.

Other Comments by BFKate

18. Comment #159059 by Dune010 on April 11, 2008 at 11:42 am

avatar

Hell Yes. What does her opinion on any matter have to do with her performance in public office?


Ummm, what?

Other Comments by Dune010

19. Comment #159061 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 11:48 am

avatar"Ummm, what?"

Not sure what you want me to clarify.

Other Comments by BFKate

20. Comment #159064 by Diacanu on April 11, 2008 at 11:54 am

avatarBFKate-

Well if the opinions of a politician don't matter to their performance, let's stop having Presidential debates.

And I seem to recall Strom Thurmond getting elected decades ago BECAUSE of his bigotry.

As for people being offended having no right to demand a person resign, how far would you go with that?
How nasty a thing can these assholes say?
How nasty a thing can they believe?
What, we won't vote for David Duke, cuz we know he was a fucking Klansman, but if he managed to keep it in the closet, and THEN start spouting a stream of hate speeches once elected "oh well, shut up and wait for the next election cycle"??

Wow, that's...something...

Other Comments by Diacanu

21. Comment #159065 by movingshadow on April 11, 2008 at 11:56 am

avatar"So where does accepting responsibility for what you say fit with the calls to kill Salman Rushdie or the Danish cartoonists?"

I didn't call upon atheists to kill her, nor did I call for a lynch mob to oust her from office. She made her private thoughts public, she needs to grow a metaphorical pair and stand behind her convictions. She can't expect people to ignore her unconstitutional ideas come election time.

edit: And there should be a mechanism for when someone blows their top like this and reveals their idiocy.

Other Comments by movingshadow

22. Comment #159067 by Diacanu on April 11, 2008 at 12:03 pm

avatarmovingshadow-


...her unconstitutional ideas...


That's it right there.

She can hate atheists in the privacy of her home all fucking day, I don't give a shit, but once she tries to shut some one up, and throw them out, and say they have no right to be there, well, that's dangerous to democracy, and to fuck with her.

It's the same tired old "waaa! You're intolerant if you don't tolerate my intolerance!", argument.

Blow it out your ass, bigots.
It ain't gonna fly.
Try another one.

Other Comments by Diacanu

23. Comment #159068 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 12:04 pm

avatar"Wow, that's...something..."

Yes that IS something. It's called Freedom of speech and what you described is exactly how it works. If you want to punish people based on something they have said what's the difference between you and the people issuing fatwas? If you don't like what they say by all means make the argument against them. If you want them banned just because you don't like what they say that's censorship. It's what they do. If someone is bad at their job that is a different matter altogether. In the example you cited, if someone is banning black people based on race that has crossed the line from being an opinion to being an act. Different thing. Making people take responsibility for their actions I can agree with.

Other Comments by BFKate

24. Comment #159069 by Diacanu on April 11, 2008 at 12:07 pm

avatarBFKate-


that's censorship.


Like how she censored the atheist dude?


If someone is bad at their job


Like telling someone they have no right to speak, and be part of the process in a fucking democracy?

Blow it out your ass, lady.

Other Comments by Diacanu

25. Comment #159070 by friendly-atheist on April 11, 2008 at 12:08 pm

having a bad day still doesn't change the fact that she obviously has intolerant views. lashing out at an atheist and telling him he has no right to be there is unacceptable. if she had said this about any other group, the public outrage would be great. if someone said this about islam, they would be receiving death threats. it just goes to show you how far the U.S. still has to go in learning tolerance.

Other Comments by friendly-atheist

26. Comment #159071 by movingshadow on April 11, 2008 at 12:10 pm

avatarWho wants to punish her? What do you mean, I want "them banned"? I don't want to kill her, she just has no place in the government of what is supposed to be a secular free country, as her statements revealed.

Can you really not see the difference between "She has bad ideas, and probably shouldn't hold her public office seeing as how those ideas are contrary to the spirit of that office" and "death to the infidels" ?

Other Comments by movingshadow

27. Comment #159072 by Noodly on April 11, 2008 at 12:10 pm

avatarNow that I've suddenly learnt that a student has been killed in Chicago - even though I don't know how (did s/he stab themselves with a crucifix by mistake?) - I feel a wave of bigotry coming on: I hate all oppressed minorities because someone I don't know was killed !!!!!

Other Comments by Noodly

28. Comment #159076 by Bigorra on April 11, 2008 at 12:13 pm

avatarPerhaps Davis' outburst was uncharacteristic, as Rep. Franks says, but that doesn't make her comments not indicative of her true sentiments. The death of the CPS student is sad and unfortunate, and my condolences go out to the family, so I find it disgusting that she would use the incident to justify her actions. People can choose to accept her apology or not, but her actions again show her to have a very shallow respect for other people. She needs to step up and apologize to everyone for her poor judgment, without making reprehensible rationalizations.

Other Comments by Bigorra

29. Comment #159078 by Steve Zara on April 11, 2008 at 12:18 pm

avatar
Yes that IS something. It's called Freedom of speech and what you described is exactly how it works.


This was not freedom of speech. It was an attempt to shut someone else up and have them evicted from a debate.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

30. Comment #159079 by black wolf on April 11, 2008 at 12:19 pm

avatarI've posted about her apology on another comment thread before, so I'll just briefly reiterate here.
- she did not take back one assertion
- she did not take back a single accusation
- she apologized only after receiving at least hundreds of protesting letters and emails
- Sherman accepted the apology for diplomacy's sake, as he's a competitor in the next election
- she needs to be closely watched in the future, and I also recommend to any people in the position to do so to ask her publicly if she thinks the statements she made were un-American, anti-Democratic or un-Christian
- ask her also if she thinks clauses in legislation to deny atheists access to public office are appropriate
- last but not least, she needs to be asked what her opinion of atheists actually is, and if what she said in the hearing still reflects her opinion, and if she has merely chosen to keep this opinion in closed circles or in private in the future for political reasons

Other Comments by black wolf

31. Comment #159080 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 12:19 pm

avatar"Who wants to punish her? What do you mean, I want them banned"? I don't want to kill her"

I think calling for Ms Davis' resignation for expressing an opinion is a punishment and a type of ban, as well as a form of censorship. I don't think anyone wants to kill her but they do want to see her pay some kind of price. That is not freedom of speech. People's commitment to freedom of speech is always tested in situations like this, it's the bigots opinions that are the hardest to bear. Either it's an absolute freedom or it's not a freedom. For example;

"Blow it out your ass, lady. "

I will have a good go at so blowing it.

Other Comments by BFKate

32. Comment #159082 by Star Spangled Eagle on April 11, 2008 at 12:23 pm

avatar(She should have sent a letter of apology to him….)

Dear Atheist heathen bastard,

Please forgive my public insults made toward you for no apparent reason. I should not have made unsubstantiated claims about my state and its revered figure, President Lincoln. Since clearly my actions were unwarranted and completely bat-shit crazy, I feel I should offer an explanation: A child was killed in Chicago and your appearance in the hearing triggered a reaction in me, I was angry about death and whenever I think about children dying I think: "What you have to spew and spread is dangerous" (because children get killed) and that "This is the land of Lincoln where people believe in God." (and children get killed)
I'm sure you can understand how this would upset me! Since killing children is wrong and the land of Lincoln doesn't take kindly to the killers of children.

I hope this clears up everything, baby killer.

Yours in Christ,

Monique "Stupid Twit" Davis

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

33. Comment #159084 by Dr Benway on April 11, 2008 at 12:27 pm

avatarBFKate, we atheists won't enjoy freedom of speech for long if we allow our political leaders to tell us to shut up because "it's dangerous for kids to even know" about atheism.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

34. Comment #159089 by movingshadow on April 11, 2008 at 12:30 pm

avatar"I think calling for Ms Davis' resignation for expressing an opinion is a punishment and a type of ban, as well as a form of censorship."

So we should go on letting teachers tell kids that the world is 6000 years old? It's their freedom of speech. We should let someone like Bush make up shit about a country as a pretext to invasion? Its his freedom of speech.

Those aren't even good examples for the problem in question, but you're so fond of blindly following your idea of free speech, I want to see where you'll take it.

Other Comments by movingshadow

35. Comment #159091 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 12:31 pm

avatarDr Benway,

I don't think at any point I suggested we atheists should shut up when we are told to. I feel exactly the opposite. I just don't think we should be the ones advocating the banning of opinion by calling for people like Ms Davis to resign because they have an ill thought out point of view.

Other Comments by BFKate

36. Comment #159093 by Podaar on April 11, 2008 at 12:33 pm

avatarComment #159080 by BFKate
I think calling for Ms Davis' resignation for expressing an opinion is a punishment and a type of ban, as well as a form of censorship.
Because representatives are part of the legislative body, their "personal" prejudices have relevance. Her JOB is to uphold the freedoms and rights of all citizens. Calling for the resignation of a bigot is appropriate.

-- Gregg

Other Comments by Podaar

37. Comment #159095 by Diacanu on April 11, 2008 at 12:34 pm

avatarBFKate-


I think calling for Ms Davis' resignation for expressing an opinion is a punishment and a type of ban, as well as a form of censorship.


It wasn't just an opinion.
Wake up.
Get on the same page, the one where the actual discussion is taking place, would you?

And freedom of speech isn't a "get out of everything", card.
She tried to fuck with someone's rights.
You can't turn around and snivel that her right to fuck with someone's rights are being fucked with if she's removed from the office that allows her to do so.

It'd be like whining that a teacher getting fired for being a pedophile is intolerance.

Sorry, pedophiles ought not be teachers, and fascists ought not be in public office in a democracy.

Other Comments by Diacanu

38. Comment #159097 by Corylus on April 11, 2008 at 12:35 pm

avatarThis takes me back to this thread.

http://richarddawkins.net/article,621,Panel-discussion-on-atheism-where-no-atheists-are-included,CNN

This was when another idiot made the statement that she just wished all atheists would 'shut up'.

I would urge anyone who hasn't seen this one to give it a view.

Other Comments by Corylus

39. Comment #159099 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 12:40 pm

avatarmovingshadow,

I think that teachers telling kids the world is 6000 years old may well make them bad teachers. The issue is still the same. They make their argument we keep on demolishing it. You win by force of argument. As for Bush's argument for war. What has that got to do with this?

Other Comments by BFKate

40. Comment #159102 by Bonzai on April 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Diacanu

It wasn't just an opinion..

And freedom of speech isn't a "get out of everything", card.
She tried to fuck with someone's rights.
You can't turn around and snivel that her right to fuck with someone's rights are being fucked with if she's removed from the office that allows her to do so.

It'd be like whining that a teacher getting fired for being a pedophile is intolerance.


Did Sherman "get out" after being told to? I could be wrong but I don't think he did.

Davies simply has no power to eject him. Her telling him to "get out" was not legally binding, It was bullying, but not an abuse of office and it didn't deprive Sherman's right to speak. It was very rude and exposed her bigotry, but it wasn't illegal.

I am afraid it was in fact only an opinion, though very rudely and "forcefully" expressed.

I don't think your comparison of pedophilia holds up.

Other Comments by Bonzai

41. Comment #159103 by movingshadow on April 11, 2008 at 12:42 pm

avatarIt has nothing to do with bush's war, (i think that) I said "like bush", it was a hypothetical question, I phrased that poorly. Would you argue that charges of perjury go against the right to free speech? Do you yell fire in movie theaters?

They can go on making their creationists arguments but they do not deserve to hold their jobs if they insist on telling my children lies. The right to freedom of speech is not the right to keep your job when your views are in direct conflict with the role demanded of you by that job.

Other Comments by movingshadow

42. Comment #159104 by brian_d_w on April 11, 2008 at 12:43 pm

BFKate said

I think calling for Ms Davis' resignation for expressing an opinion is a punishment and a type of ban, as well as a form of censorship. I don't think anyone wants to kill her but they do want to see her pay some kind of price. That is not freedom of speech. People's commitment to freedom of speech is always tested in situations like this, it's the bigots opinions that are the hardest to bear. Either it's an absolute freedom or it's not a freedom.


The freedom of speech is a very specific thing. It's the protection of citizens from government prosecution for any statements that they make.

Monique Davis does not have to face any criminal charges nor civil law suits. Thats the protection afforded to her by the First Amendment.

She is an elected official, this is a privilege not a right. She is in office to represent the will of the people. If she is found to be out of line, it is the right of her constituents to ask her to resign, or force her out. She clearly does not respect or understand the concept of secular government, therefor she has no role in one.

Other Comments by brian_d_w

43. Comment #159107 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 12:49 pm

avatar"It'd be like whining that a teacher getting fired for being a pedophile is intolerance."

This is mixing up action and opinion again. Paedophilia is an offence against the person.

"Sorry, pedophiles ought not be teachers, and fascists ought not be in public office in a democracy." This is true but I don't think we can call Ms Davis a fascist just yet.

Other Comments by BFKate

44. Comment #159108 by Diacanu on April 11, 2008 at 12:49 pm

avatarBonzai-

That's why I said she TRIED to.

I don't want bungholes like this to even try.

If the crowd, and the other legislators had been on her side, she would've gotten him thrown out.

And if there'd been no internet, we wouldn't have heard of this.

And I'm sure this sort of thing went down before the net.
Damn sure the mainstream media wouldn't have been sympathetic.
Plus, no blood or sex.

Fuck it, you gotta nip this shit in the bud.

Other Comments by Diacanu

45. Comment #159109 by Diacanu on April 11, 2008 at 12:54 pm

avatarBonzai-


I don't think your comparison of pedophilia holds up.


I think it's dead-on.

A pedophile is a pedophile wether they're a practicing one or not.

If a teacher gets caught with a stack of kiddy-porn, and a bunch of NAMBLA literature, they fire his ass.
They don't wait for him to touch a kid, he's just gone.

Other Comments by Diacanu

46. Comment #159110 by Bonzai on April 11, 2008 at 12:55 pm

That's why I said she TRIED to.


Should people be fired because of ill intent?

She has apologized, he has accepted it, I think it should be over. Let them vote her out if the electorates think that her views on atheism make her unfit for office.

Other Comments by Bonzai

47. Comment #159113 by Diacanu on April 11, 2008 at 12:58 pm

avatarBFKate-


This is mixing up action and opinion again.


See post 47.

Other Comments by Diacanu

48. Comment #159114 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 1:00 pm

avatarbrian_d_w

You said
"The freedom of speech is a very specific thing. It's the protection of citizens from government prosecution for any statements that they make."

I'm no expert on law and this sounds like a fairly legal definition of freedom of speech which is not the sense I use the phrase in. I do believe the freedom has to be absolute to have any value.

Other Comments by BFKate

49. Comment #159115 by Diacanu on April 11, 2008 at 1:03 pm

avatarbrian_d_w


She is an elected official, this is a privilege not a right. She is in office to represent the will of the people. If she is found to be out of line, it is the right of her constituents to ask her to resign, or force her out. She clearly does not respect or understand the concept of secular government, therefor she has no role in one.


Exactly.
She can be an atheist hating twat in her private life all she wants, but on public time, and the public dime, she has to represent everyone.

Other Comments by Diacanu

50. Comment #159116 by BFKate on April 11, 2008 at 1:03 pm

avatarDiacanu

"If a teacher gets caught with a stack of kiddy-porn, and a bunch of NAMBLA literature, they fire his ass"

Again, don't know about the US but in the UK this would be an offence, not an opinion.

Other Comments by BFKate
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: