Richard Dawkins was interviewed by Bill Maher last night about The God Delusion. He makes clear that his book was intended to sway the middle, not to persuade ardent believers. Interesting too that Dawkins once again makes clear that he is not certain there is no god, and on a 1-7 rating, where 1 is total belief and 7 is total unbelief, he puts himself at 6 or 6.9. I wonder how long the anti-evolutionists will keep getting this one wrong?
Speaking of getting it all wrong, leave it Davescot over on Uncommon Descent to get his facts wrong and offer a completely worthless analysis:
"I watched Dawkins on the Bill Maher show last night. Among other interesting things he said was when it comes to belief in gods if you were to rate his belief on a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being most belief and 10 being least he puts himself at a 6. Then he compares belief in gods with belief in fairies and pink unicorns. So I guess he’s conflicted about those too. Bill Maher then ridiculed religion in predictable trite ways which caused Dawkins to reconsider the belief rating and up it to “6 point 9″. Hilarious. Richard Dawkins is really a centrist on religious beliefs. Who’da thunk?"
Who'da thunk indeed, because the ratings question was posed as one to SEVEN, not one to ten. But then, since when does Davescot care about such a pathetic level of detail. Catch this one quick before it goes down that famous Uncommon Descent memory hole.
And finally, Dawkins had a hilarious response to the possibility of him having a deathbed conversion. He is going to have witnesses present with a tape recording to make sure it can be proven that he did not have a deathbed conversion. Alas, people like Davescot will probably make shit up about that too.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Kevin McCullough Demonstrates How Empty the Anti-Gay Marriage Arguments Are
The anti-gay marriage movement is really an interesting one. Alone among conservative issues, it stands as a completely undefended thesis. Oh sure, lots of people make lots of noise and type lots of words defending it, but there is never any real defense there. Never once have a I seen a clear simple explanation of the position. It shouldn't be that hard:
I, being of sound mind, and conservative predisposition, believe allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage and traditional families because of A, B, C, and D. The facts supporting this view are X, Y, and Z.
But you'll never see that. What you'll see instead are irrational rants like this latest offering from Kevin McCullough, full of sound and fury, made up shit, and nary a logical argument to be found.
He was kind enough to make this apparent with his title "Why Does Obama Hate Marriage?", and his opening paragraph:
Barack Obama despises the institution of marriage. This assumption can be made on sound reasoning and easy logic. Anytime someone works to oppose something - it is assumed.
Obviously reasoning and logic aren't KM's strong suit, since OBAMA IS MARRIED. Let's try easy logic that should be easy enough even for KM to follow: if a man is participating in something, he's not opposing it. More importantly, KM is sneaking in a little circular reasoning here. His argument is that Obama's support of gay marriage amounts to Obama opposing the institution of marriage. He doesn't get to use that conclusion as one of his premises. WHY or how does allowing gays to marry effect other people's marriages? This is the question none of the people on KM's side of the aisle can answer. I am starting to get as frustrated as Lewis Black on this question.
KM doesn't lend any assistence. His article is one long stream of unsupported assertions, ridiculous scare words, and made up shit, even by the lofty Townhall standards. Obama's views are described as "punishing the definition of how a family is even constructed", "hostility towards a family's survival", and "the most diabolical way ever conceived to punish" people like KM, with nothing whatever to support those contentions. And McCullough has the nerve to complain that "hardly a word is spoken of it". That's because so far the entire threat is in your head Sir. You've given the rest of us nothing to go on.
He speaks of:
"...scientific, mental health, and diseased ridden drawbacks of engaging in homosexual behavior"
but even if he represents the science accurately (and he gives us good reason to doubt him later), WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES? It's not like good monogamous Christians have to worry about catching STDs from the AIDS-ridden gay couple down the street. Ditto for his claim that the employment non-discrimination act would make it nearly impossible for a church to fire a youth pastor who had an inappropriate relationship with one of the boys. Granted that would be a social problem (granting KM's assertion FTSOA, which is generous given the many factual errors he makes), but once again, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES? No answer.
He then goes on an ignorant rant about how the military should enforce "Leave it to Beaver" sexual standards for the sake of morale. Facts cited to support these assertions? Zero, as usual. And...roll the tape boys...WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES? Apparently the only answer he's willing to give is that questioning this assertion makes one "maniacal":
"Obama's maniacal view is that the moral question of disciplining one's choices is completely unrelated to protecting America's families."
Well then I guess many millions of Americans are "maniacal" Kevin, and for a simple reason: You and yours have so consistently refused to explain this supposed connection that we are getting pretty confident that there isn't one.
His next subject is the Defense of Marriage Act, and there we get to see his habit of MSU raise it's ugly head, as he claims:
...97% of this nation...see no value whatsoever in changing [marriage's] definition
97%? Now where do you suppose McCullough got this figure? Where else? He yanked it out of his ass. One who bothered to actually research the actual polls
he planned on quaoting would see that support for allowing same-sex marriages runs about 25%-35%. But more basically, McCullough needs a civics lesson or two. Civil rights issues are protected by the constitution, as interpreted by our judicial system. They cannot be voted away. Thus when McCullough says things like:
"Thusly when four black robed, self-superior, societal engineers (they prefer to be called "judges") decided to ignore the will of the people in their state..."
He is talking nonsense Interpreting the law is the function of judges in our system. They are supposed to ignore the will of the people. Doing otherwise would render them moot. This is typical of the new conservatives. They do not believe in constitutional restrictions on their power of the majority, especially if they can work their gods into the conversation.
Unfortunately for them, that is also when they tend to spew the most baseless crap, and McCullough does not dissappoint, as he chants one of the favorite, and most blatantly inaccurate lies from his little conservative myth missal:
"Perhaps it is important to note what [marriage] has always been: one man, one woman, in sexual monogamous fidelity for life. It was established by God for three purposes, to civilize men, to protect women, and to nurture children. Thusly a society - even a nation - can continue to exist for generations."
Praise the gods, I so love correcting smarmy Christians on their own religion. If McCullough would bother to read that dust covered book he supposedly so reveres with "Bible" written on it on his back bookshelf, he'd note that many people in the Bible had, with Yahweh's blessing, many wives. Solomon alone was said to have 600. For those as ignorant of history as McCullough apparently is, polygamy dominated the globe for many thousands of years prior to monogamy becoming the trendy change. St. Augustine was among the first early promoters of mongamy, and it was not made offical law until 534 CE. Now whether or not Yahweh changed his mind is a question I leave for McCullough to ponder.
And a big "HELLO!" on this "monogamous fidelity for life" nonsense. Polls suggest the rate of infidelity is 65-85% for men and 45-65% for women. Studies also suggest the proportion of marriages ending in divorce is 35-44%. Those factors produce a range of 2.9%-12.5% of actual marriages in the U.S. that fit the pattern McCullough insists has always been the case. I guess he's heard the phrase "til death do us part" so many times he's started to believe it.
Finally, McCullough's final assertion belies an ignorance (and willful I'll bet) of cultures all over the world that have continued for generations despite never adopting his view of what marriage is.
So there you have it: All bluster, MSU, and poor reasoning. Not a single argument offerred for what, exactly, allowing gay marriage would do to traditional marriage that warrants the latter needing to be defended. Defended from what? I guess we'll never know.
I, being of sound mind, and conservative predisposition, believe allowing homosexuals to marry will destroy marriage and traditional families because of A, B, C, and D. The facts supporting this view are X, Y, and Z.
But you'll never see that. What you'll see instead are irrational rants like this latest offering from Kevin McCullough, full of sound and fury, made up shit, and nary a logical argument to be found.
He was kind enough to make this apparent with his title "Why Does Obama Hate Marriage?", and his opening paragraph:
Barack Obama despises the institution of marriage. This assumption can be made on sound reasoning and easy logic. Anytime someone works to oppose something - it is assumed.
Obviously reasoning and logic aren't KM's strong suit, since OBAMA IS MARRIED. Let's try easy logic that should be easy enough even for KM to follow: if a man is participating in something, he's not opposing it. More importantly, KM is sneaking in a little circular reasoning here. His argument is that Obama's support of gay marriage amounts to Obama opposing the institution of marriage. He doesn't get to use that conclusion as one of his premises. WHY or how does allowing gays to marry effect other people's marriages? This is the question none of the people on KM's side of the aisle can answer. I am starting to get as frustrated as Lewis Black on this question.
KM doesn't lend any assistence. His article is one long stream of unsupported assertions, ridiculous scare words, and made up shit, even by the lofty Townhall standards. Obama's views are described as "punishing the definition of how a family is even constructed", "hostility towards a family's survival", and "the most diabolical way ever conceived to punish" people like KM, with nothing whatever to support those contentions. And McCullough has the nerve to complain that "hardly a word is spoken of it". That's because so far the entire threat is in your head Sir. You've given the rest of us nothing to go on.
He speaks of:
"...scientific, mental health, and diseased ridden drawbacks of engaging in homosexual behavior"
but even if he represents the science accurately (and he gives us good reason to doubt him later), WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES? It's not like good monogamous Christians have to worry about catching STDs from the AIDS-ridden gay couple down the street. Ditto for his claim that the employment non-discrimination act would make it nearly impossible for a church to fire a youth pastor who had an inappropriate relationship with one of the boys. Granted that would be a social problem (granting KM's assertion FTSOA, which is generous given the many factual errors he makes), but once again, WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES? No answer.
He then goes on an ignorant rant about how the military should enforce "Leave it to Beaver" sexual standards for the sake of morale. Facts cited to support these assertions? Zero, as usual. And...roll the tape boys...WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH TRADITIONAL MARRIAGES? Apparently the only answer he's willing to give is that questioning this assertion makes one "maniacal":
"Obama's maniacal view is that the moral question of disciplining one's choices is completely unrelated to protecting America's families."
Well then I guess many millions of Americans are "maniacal" Kevin, and for a simple reason: You and yours have so consistently refused to explain this supposed connection that we are getting pretty confident that there isn't one.
His next subject is the Defense of Marriage Act, and there we get to see his habit of MSU raise it's ugly head, as he claims:
...97% of this nation...see no value whatsoever in changing [marriage's] definition
97%? Now where do you suppose McCullough got this figure? Where else? He yanked it out of his ass. One who bothered to actually research the actual polls
he planned on quaoting would see that support for allowing same-sex marriages runs about 25%-35%. But more basically, McCullough needs a civics lesson or two. Civil rights issues are protected by the constitution, as interpreted by our judicial system. They cannot be voted away. Thus when McCullough says things like:
"Thusly when four black robed, self-superior, societal engineers (they prefer to be called "judges") decided to ignore the will of the people in their state..."
He is talking nonsense Interpreting the law is the function of judges in our system. They are supposed to ignore the will of the people. Doing otherwise would render them moot. This is typical of the new conservatives. They do not believe in constitutional restrictions on their power of the majority, especially if they can work their gods into the conversation.
Unfortunately for them, that is also when they tend to spew the most baseless crap, and McCullough does not dissappoint, as he chants one of the favorite, and most blatantly inaccurate lies from his little conservative myth missal:
"Perhaps it is important to note what [marriage] has always been: one man, one woman, in sexual monogamous fidelity for life. It was established by God for three purposes, to civilize men, to protect women, and to nurture children. Thusly a society - even a nation - can continue to exist for generations."
Praise the gods, I so love correcting smarmy Christians on their own religion. If McCullough would bother to read that dust covered book he supposedly so reveres with "Bible" written on it on his back bookshelf, he'd note that many people in the Bible had, with Yahweh's blessing, many wives. Solomon alone was said to have 600. For those as ignorant of history as McCullough apparently is, polygamy dominated the globe for many thousands of years prior to monogamy becoming the trendy change. St. Augustine was among the first early promoters of mongamy, and it was not made offical law until 534 CE. Now whether or not Yahweh changed his mind is a question I leave for McCullough to ponder.
And a big "HELLO!" on this "monogamous fidelity for life" nonsense. Polls suggest the rate of infidelity is 65-85% for men and 45-65% for women. Studies also suggest the proportion of marriages ending in divorce is 35-44%. Those factors produce a range of 2.9%-12.5% of actual marriages in the U.S. that fit the pattern McCullough insists has always been the case. I guess he's heard the phrase "til death do us part" so many times he's started to believe it.
Finally, McCullough's final assertion belies an ignorance (and willful I'll bet) of cultures all over the world that have continued for generations despite never adopting his view of what marriage is.
So there you have it: All bluster, MSU, and poor reasoning. Not a single argument offerred for what, exactly, allowing gay marriage would do to traditional marriage that warrants the latter needing to be defended. Defended from what? I guess we'll never know.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Dress-Up is Against the Bible!
Just when I thought I knew my Biblical family values, here comes the Voice of Christian Youth America to tell me I forgot one: playing dress up.
Students at Pineview Elementary in Reedsburg had been dressing in costume all last week as part of an annual school tradition called Wacky Week. On Friday, students were encouraged to dress either as senior citizens or as members of the opposite sex.
A local resident informed the Voice of Christian Youth America on Friday. The Milwaukee-based radio network responded by interrupting its morning programming for a special broadcast that aired on nine radio stations throughout Wisconsin. The broadcast criticized the dress-up day and accused the district of promoting alternative lifestyles.
"We believe it's the wrong message to send to elementary students," said Jim Schneider, the network's program director. "Our station is one that promotes traditional family values. It concerns us when a school district strikes at the heart and core of the Biblical values. To promote this to elementary-school students is a great error."
Schneider conveniently omits the fact that the kids themselves chose this as the way to be wacky that week. So are the kids themselves anti-Bible? And where does the Bible say that
dressing up as a member of the opposite sex or as an older person is wrong? You'll note nowhere in the story does anyone back up this claim. Where does it say "Thou shalt not wear a dress if you are a man"?, or "Thou shalt not imitate an old person"? I guess in the same place it says "life begins at conception: nowhere but in the imagination.
I wonder if Jim Schneider believes the actors in Shakespeare's time (all men, and likely majority Christian) were violating Biblical values when they dressed as women for their roles? Do Eric Idle and John Cleese of Monte Python fame have a fiery hell awaiting them for doing so many skits in drag? Or how about the many actors who wear makeup to appear older than they are for their roles?
And these people wonder why the rest of us don't take them seriously. This is the same crowd that worries about gay teletubbies. A bit of fun for the kids to break up the monotony of studying for NCLB exams somehow becomes part of TEH GAY AGENDA.
Children, can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-d? I thought you could.
Students at Pineview Elementary in Reedsburg had been dressing in costume all last week as part of an annual school tradition called Wacky Week. On Friday, students were encouraged to dress either as senior citizens or as members of the opposite sex.
A local resident informed the Voice of Christian Youth America on Friday. The Milwaukee-based radio network responded by interrupting its morning programming for a special broadcast that aired on nine radio stations throughout Wisconsin. The broadcast criticized the dress-up day and accused the district of promoting alternative lifestyles.
"We believe it's the wrong message to send to elementary students," said Jim Schneider, the network's program director. "Our station is one that promotes traditional family values. It concerns us when a school district strikes at the heart and core of the Biblical values. To promote this to elementary-school students is a great error."
Schneider conveniently omits the fact that the kids themselves chose this as the way to be wacky that week. So are the kids themselves anti-Bible? And where does the Bible say that
dressing up as a member of the opposite sex or as an older person is wrong? You'll note nowhere in the story does anyone back up this claim. Where does it say "Thou shalt not wear a dress if you are a man"?, or "Thou shalt not imitate an old person"? I guess in the same place it says "life begins at conception: nowhere but in the imagination.
I wonder if Jim Schneider believes the actors in Shakespeare's time (all men, and likely majority Christian) were violating Biblical values when they dressed as women for their roles? Do Eric Idle and John Cleese of Monte Python fame have a fiery hell awaiting them for doing so many skits in drag? Or how about the many actors who wear makeup to appear older than they are for their roles?
And these people wonder why the rest of us don't take them seriously. This is the same crowd that worries about gay teletubbies. A bit of fun for the kids to break up the monotony of studying for NCLB exams somehow becomes part of TEH GAY AGENDA.
Children, can you spell p-a-r-a-n-o-i-d? I thought you could.
Expelled Exposed
For all the coverage of the Expelled movie, including several reviews from people who have actually sufferred through it, check out the National Center for Science Education's site. The NSCE promises a full response on April 15.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Updated Future Electoral Map: McCain Takes the Lead
Taking recent polls by state and applying them to the electoral map, here are the results for an Obama/McCain matchup:
McCain - 326
Obama - 203
Tied - 9
If we toss all the states in the "Too Close to Call" category that had margins of victory less than 5%, it looks like this:
McCain - 228
Obama - 159
Too Close to Call - 151
So while McCain has pulled ahead, it's a somewhat thin lead given the whopping 151 electoral votes in the TCTC category that prevent him from getting the required 270 for a win. Personally, I'll believe McCain can win New York when I see it. That would certainly solidify his RINO status.
And in case lightning strikes, or she finds a way to cheat her way in, or the Super Delegates all have a brain hemmorage, here's what a Clinton/McCain matchup would look like:
McCain - 302
Clinton - 236
And with the <5% margin states as Too Close to Call:
McCain - 249
Clinton - 107
Too Close to Call - 182
Now this is a solid lead. Hillary's three biggest projected winners, California, Florida, and New York, are all TCTC. It looks like Hillary would need a bigger miracle to win the general election than she needs to get the nomination.
Obviously we have a long way to go, given how much these polls are changing over time, and of course considering that we don't even have the vice presidential candidates yet.
McCain - 326
Obama - 203
Tied - 9
If we toss all the states in the "Too Close to Call" category that had margins of victory less than 5%, it looks like this:
McCain - 228
Obama - 159
Too Close to Call - 151
So while McCain has pulled ahead, it's a somewhat thin lead given the whopping 151 electoral votes in the TCTC category that prevent him from getting the required 270 for a win. Personally, I'll believe McCain can win New York when I see it. That would certainly solidify his RINO status.
And in case lightning strikes, or she finds a way to cheat her way in, or the Super Delegates all have a brain hemmorage, here's what a Clinton/McCain matchup would look like:
McCain - 302
Clinton - 236
And with the <5% margin states as Too Close to Call:
McCain - 249
Clinton - 107
Too Close to Call - 182
Now this is a solid lead. Hillary's three biggest projected winners, California, Florida, and New York, are all TCTC. It looks like Hillary would need a bigger miracle to win the general election than she needs to get the nomination.
Obviously we have a long way to go, given how much these polls are changing over time, and of course considering that we don't even have the vice presidential candidates yet.
Expelled Foot in Mouth Disease on Ken Miller
Mark Mathis, ass. prod. of the anti-evolution propoganda film Expelled, was interviewed by Scientific American editor-in-chief John Rennie, and among the topics covered was why Ken Miller, a devout Roman Catholic and biology professor at Brown University, was not included among the scientists interviewed for the film. After all, one would think a movie discussing whether scientists are censored by "Big Science" for mentioning their religious views, would be very interested in the experiences of a well-known, religious person who also happens to be highly acclaimed scientist and science author.
The answer for the thinking side of this issue isn't too tough to discern, but it is highly amusing to watch Mathis dance around trying not to admit the obvious. For the benefit of those not familiar with ID-speak, I humbly offer my translation of these edited-for-readibility remarks:
"[I'm] an associate producer. I don’t make decisions about who gets interviewed, [or] what makes it into the film."
Translation: I do not want to deal with this topic, or take any responsibility for it, because I know how bad it is going to make us look.
"...Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily. I don’t agree with Ken Miller...when you look at this issue and this debate...there’s one side of the line or the other...I don’t think you can intellectually, honestly...stand on a line that I don’t think exists"
Translation: Ken Miller's views conflict with my ideology, so like a good little zealot, I choose to ignore reality. And since my target audience of zealots pretends to think in a similar manner, and will tolerate no deviation from that vision, Ken Miller could not be in the film.
...the form of Catholicism that Ken Miller accepts and practices is...nowhere near...Catholic doctrine...[T]here...are some people who fall into that camp. And I am...certainly not a theological expert in this area. But...if you talk to the average Catholic person and...you start talking about how life came to be, they are going to cite a biblical view.
Translation: I don't know a thing about Catholicism, and I just don't care that the past two Popes affirmed evolution. My ideology depends on Catholics agreeing with me, so that's what I'm going to assert.
It's pathetic, isn't it? Note that he essentially says that people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins, and the last two popes, are intellectually dishonest. The evidence? They disagree with him, simple as that. The irony drips from a film ostensibly about closed-mindedness being made by people this extraordinarily closed-minded.
The answer for the thinking side of this issue isn't too tough to discern, but it is highly amusing to watch Mathis dance around trying not to admit the obvious. For the benefit of those not familiar with ID-speak, I humbly offer my translation of these edited-for-readibility remarks:
"[I'm] an associate producer. I don’t make decisions about who gets interviewed, [or] what makes it into the film."
Translation: I do not want to deal with this topic, or take any responsibility for it, because I know how bad it is going to make us look.
"...Ken Miller would have confused the film unnecessarily. I don’t agree with Ken Miller...when you look at this issue and this debate...there’s one side of the line or the other...I don’t think you can intellectually, honestly...stand on a line that I don’t think exists"
Translation: Ken Miller's views conflict with my ideology, so like a good little zealot, I choose to ignore reality. And since my target audience of zealots pretends to think in a similar manner, and will tolerate no deviation from that vision, Ken Miller could not be in the film.
...the form of Catholicism that Ken Miller accepts and practices is...nowhere near...Catholic doctrine...[T]here...are some people who fall into that camp. And I am...certainly not a theological expert in this area. But...if you talk to the average Catholic person and...you start talking about how life came to be, they are going to cite a biblical view.
Translation: I don't know a thing about Catholicism, and I just don't care that the past two Popes affirmed evolution. My ideology depends on Catholics agreeing with me, so that's what I'm going to assert.
It's pathetic, isn't it? Note that he essentially says that people like Ken Miller and Francis Collins, and the last two popes, are intellectually dishonest. The evidence? They disagree with him, simple as that. The irony drips from a film ostensibly about closed-mindedness being made by people this extraordinarily closed-minded.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Monique Davis: It's Not Enough to Apologize for Volume
Apparently embarrassed by the attention her ignorant anti-atheist tantrum against Rob Shermer on the assembly floor has gotten, including her being named worst person in the world by Keith Olbermann, Illinois State Representative Monique Davis has apologized to Mr. Sherman for her remarks.
Now I certainly applaud Ms. Davis' courage and moral fortitude in calling Mr. Shermer and apologizing to him. It is certainly a damn sight better than the behavior of the other newly famous bigot, Oklahoma Representative Sally Kern, who won't acknowledge any impropriety for this homophobic rant of hers. However, the content of Ms. Davis' apology is disturbing:
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.
Savor the irony as you note the conciliatory grace with which the evil atheist accepted Ms. Davis' apology. But did she apologize for her bigoted screed? Sure, she was wrong to take out her frustrations on Shermer, and she deserves credit for saying so. But that could apply just as well to rational comments as to those as irrational as hers were. Where is her apology for telling an American citizen with the right to any religious view he chooses that his view is "extremely dangerous", that he had "no right to be [t]here", and that he believed in "destroying what this state was built upon"? Where is her statement that she should not have said these things, and that atheists have just as much right to their views and to participate in civic affairs as anyone else? Her apology amounts to "I apologize for the volume of my bigoted tirade". Where's the apology for the bigotry?
That her outburst was supposedly caused by her learning that another public school child had died only makes the situation worse. What possible connection could she have in her head between atheism and children being killed other than an ignorant association of atheism and evil? For Ms. Davis and those who think she's done enough, and I'm being excessively demanding, imagine the following analogous situation. Representative He S. White, after hearing another child had been killed in his schools, yelled the following at Jay B. Black, who was there to discuss government funds being funnelled to an all-white school:
I don’t know what you have against white people, but some of us don’t have much against whiteness. We look forward to it and its blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to us, they want to fight. They want to fight us in school.
I don’t see you (blacks) fighting guns in school. You know?
I’m trying to understand what you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people are white, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--
It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that you exist! Now you will go to court to fight kids for being white. 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!
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.
Now yes, religious views are different than race in that there is cognition involved with religion, and it can change, whereas race we are stuck with forever. But freedom of religion and racial nondiscrimination are both protected rights in our country, and a public official should uphold both most fervently, thus the analogy. And clearly someone saying what He S. White said above would be justifiably hounded and possibly forced to step down, especially if he apologized for it without addressing the bigoted nature of his comments.
Monique Davis owes Rob Shermer and the rest of the unbelievers of this country a lot more than what I see here. It's not enough to apologize for taking out her frustrations on an innocent man. She needs to admit quite clearly and in public that it was wrong of her to imply that atheists are dangerous, or want to destroy the government, or are responsible for school shootings (an especially ignorant comment, since an atheist is far more likely to support gun control than someone spouting the kind of bile Ms. Davis spews). Anything less earns her the brand of unapologetic bigot, unworthy of the office she occupies, the same as someone that would scream similar nonsense at an innocent black man about blacks. As improper behavior for government officials, there is no difference between the two except who's ox is being gored.
Now I certainly applaud Ms. Davis' courage and moral fortitude in calling Mr. Shermer and apologizing to him. It is certainly a damn sight better than the behavior of the other newly famous bigot, Oklahoma Representative Sally Kern, who won't acknowledge any impropriety for this homophobic rant of hers. However, the content of Ms. Davis' apology is disturbing:
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.
Savor the irony as you note the conciliatory grace with which the evil atheist accepted Ms. Davis' apology. But did she apologize for her bigoted screed? Sure, she was wrong to take out her frustrations on Shermer, and she deserves credit for saying so. But that could apply just as well to rational comments as to those as irrational as hers were. Where is her apology for telling an American citizen with the right to any religious view he chooses that his view is "extremely dangerous", that he had "no right to be [t]here", and that he believed in "destroying what this state was built upon"? Where is her statement that she should not have said these things, and that atheists have just as much right to their views and to participate in civic affairs as anyone else? Her apology amounts to "I apologize for the volume of my bigoted tirade". Where's the apology for the bigotry?
That her outburst was supposedly caused by her learning that another public school child had died only makes the situation worse. What possible connection could she have in her head between atheism and children being killed other than an ignorant association of atheism and evil? For Ms. Davis and those who think she's done enough, and I'm being excessively demanding, imagine the following analogous situation. Representative He S. White, after hearing another child had been killed in his schools, yelled the following at Jay B. Black, who was there to discuss government funds being funnelled to an all-white school:
I don’t know what you have against white people, but some of us don’t have much against whiteness. We look forward to it and its blessings. And it’s really a tragedy -- it’s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to us, they want to fight. They want to fight us in school.
I don’t see you (blacks) fighting guns in school. You know?
I’m trying to understand what you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people are white, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous--
It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that you exist! Now you will go to court to fight kids for being white. 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!
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.
Now yes, religious views are different than race in that there is cognition involved with religion, and it can change, whereas race we are stuck with forever. But freedom of religion and racial nondiscrimination are both protected rights in our country, and a public official should uphold both most fervently, thus the analogy. And clearly someone saying what He S. White said above would be justifiably hounded and possibly forced to step down, especially if he apologized for it without addressing the bigoted nature of his comments.
Monique Davis owes Rob Shermer and the rest of the unbelievers of this country a lot more than what I see here. It's not enough to apologize for taking out her frustrations on an innocent man. She needs to admit quite clearly and in public that it was wrong of her to imply that atheists are dangerous, or want to destroy the government, or are responsible for school shootings (an especially ignorant comment, since an atheist is far more likely to support gun control than someone spouting the kind of bile Ms. Davis spews). Anything less earns her the brand of unapologetic bigot, unworthy of the office she occupies, the same as someone that would scream similar nonsense at an innocent black man about blacks. As improper behavior for government officials, there is no difference between the two except who's ox is being gored.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
