Chicagoist: State Rep Says Atheism is Dangerous

Rodonn

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:19:47 -0600

Addendum http://chicagoist.com/2008/04/09/state_rep_says.php#comment-1333896 My apologies to Maria... it was Spav1

Rodonn

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:53:26 -0600

I'd respectfully ask Maria to do a little research before sully the name of my country. Over here, we have numerous elected ATHEISTS both at local and national level, whereas one couldn't get nominated in the US. Tony Blair waited to resign before he admitted his religious beliefs, since we regard the loudly religious as mildly eccentric, and not suited to power at all, unless they're clergy... he didn't want to be called a 'nutter' So, I'd thank you to keep England out of your rants...

dan l

Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:17:09 -0600

Rob Sherman proving that atheists are nut jobs too.

Kjelstad

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:17:03 -0600

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).

dan l

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 23:25:47 -0600

Prescott, Except that the point was conceded long ago when "marriage" was given a legal definition. There is no requirement of a "religious rite" to be recognized by the state as being married. Conceded by whom? Dude: If you're so fuckin' nuts that you don't believe that there are atheists who are as obnoxious at the religious nuts out there, I'll just rest on that point. Move on, young kook.

jmagic

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:39:55 -0600

great just what we need ... more Shiite(s).

Prescott Carlson

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:39:28 -0600

Wow, "sorry" for all the "quotes" in that last "comment"...

Prescott Carlson

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 22:33:51 -0600

Funny, Prescot - that's exactly what the fundies say about gay marriage. Except that the point was conceded long ago when "marriage" was given a legal definition. There is no requirement of a "religious rite" to be recognized by the state as being married. Your example is a good reason why some atheist "zealots" realize that those little concessions can come back and bite you in the ass down the road and feel the need to "nitpick". P.S. You might want to look up the lexicon use of "wingnut".

dan l

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:51:37 -0600

I still get a kick out of the atheist's self-import that allows them to believe that because they preface their horrific bullshit with "well, I don't believe in god so I can't be a wingnut" meanwhile still being a wingnut.

dan l

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:50:04 -0600

Atheist: "'in god we trust' on a dollar bill offends my non-religious sensibilities. It should be illegal." Huh, and here I thought the argument was more about violating the Establishment Clause than it was about "feelings". Who knew? Funny, Prescot - that's exactly what the fundies say about gay marriage.

frp

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:40:51 -0600

@ mike_thoms: I forgot about that -- he was prosecuted for physically abusing his son, that's right. This really makes him a humongous prick, on top of all of the other bull-shit that fills him....

mike_thoms

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 19:11:58 -0600

Rob Sherman is a child-abusing asshole too and I'm not just saying that. But aside from that he's a self-aggrandizing ass who clogs the legal system with frivolous lawsuits all for the glorification of his ego. He is not a good American either. He doesn't want people to have freedom of religion, he just wants everyone to not have religion, not be able to practice their religion where they want. I'm not right-winger, I'm a liberal, but this guy is an ass and a half. He sucks on ice.

Prescott Carlson

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:57:56 -0600

Pinko

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:39:46 -0600

P.S. The historic Chicago Catholic church, St. Hedwig's, is on fire as I write, so we'll probably be repeating this same thread a year from now...

Pinko

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:24:25 -0600

Hey self-proclaimed agnostics, quit being such pussies and get off the fence already... Eh...what facts? God damnit! Why wasn't I informed that the existence of God had either been proved or disproved beyond a scientific doubt?! The way I see it, our beliefs don't ultimately matter anyway. For the most part, I try to live my life by the golden rule and I think that's all that really matters in the end anyway. Either way, I'm covered...

smussy

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:14:33 -0600

ah, religion and politics. fun.

ezfinn

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:07:58 -0600

Is it being agnostic when you really don't care one way or the other since all you're really trying to do is be a good guy? I never could understand why that concept was never enough for people. Maybe I am just a pussy. I need a beer.

thirdshiftdave

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:57:59 -0600

Hey self-proclaimed agnostics, quit being such pussies and get off the fence already. It's like walking into the voting booth undecided. The facts are in. If you're holding out for some kind of physical evidence, it ain't coming.

frp

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:50:34 -0600

Anyway I agree with the larger point. Screeching Atheists can often end up looking similar to their fundamentalist opposites. @Navin -- Thank you, thank you, thank you.

dan l

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:48:15 -0600

I know you were trying to simplify to make a point, Dan, but can you not characterize all Christians as people who are against gay marriage? Cos there are plenty of us who are, and aren't. Mr. Smith: I know. As there are plenty of Muslims who don't care when a political cartoon of Allah shows up and plenty of atheists who don't care that you put "in god we trust" on a dollar bill. But there are wingnut, zealous factions of all of these groups and while the details of the fundamentalism and the degree might differ, the context is shockingly similar. And, for the record, I'm Roman Catlick' and I full support SSM. The pope making a bad call does not warrant me to follow.

Navin

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:43:57 -0600

I think he's trying to point out extremes on *both* sides.

Not_another_username

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:40:59 -0600

I know a guy who, like Sherman, has a cause that he's very passionate about. It's a good cause, I throw money at it occasionally. This guy is a complete PITA to be around. I would assume Sherman is too. I would assume Ghandi wasn't easy to live with either. It just goes with the territory.

Mr_Smith

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:38:39 -0600

Christian: "Gay marriage offends my religious sensibilities, therefore it should be illegal". I know you were trying to simplify to make a point, Dan, but can you not characterize all Christians as people who are against gay marriage? Cos there are plenty of us who are, and aren't.

Navin

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:36:56 -0600

"In God We Trust" wasn't on U.S. money to begin with, wasn't even on bills until the late '50s. Like many things (see 'under god' in the pledge) they've crept their way into somehow become official. I don't think the founders would have been down with it. E Pluribus Unum kicks much ass over "In God We Trust" anyway. Anyway I agree with the larger point. Screeching Atheists can often end up looking similar to their fundamentalist opposites.

Slaphappy

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:27:25 -0600

Zealotry of any kind is bad for discourse, because it guarantees that emotional interests supersede logic. (Damn, I'm slapp happy this afternoon) No, I'm Slaphappy this afternoon. =)

A2

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:11:57 -0600

To be plucked from infinity for a moment and then tossed back into infiite and then presume to make a judgement in the negative about what it is you're experiencing is crazy to me. For those who like to paint those who believe in God as simple-minded: The man with the highest IQ in the world, Chris Langan, believes that we "exist in the mind of God." End of Stephen Hawking's book: "...for then we would truly know the mind of God." Nietzche is dead!

dan l

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:11:39 -0600

@matilda: I see what you're saying. We all know the differences between atheism and theism. I think there is irony in some of the similarities between the theists political rhetoric and the atheists rhetoric. Christian: "Gay marriage offends my religious sensibilities, therefore it should be illegal". Muslim: "Pictures of Allah offend my religious sensibilities, therefore they should be illegal" Atheist: "'in god we trust' on a dollar bill offends my non-religious sensibilities. It should be illegal." Granted, that's a horrifically simplified example, but I think there are some contextual similarities between the loud mouthed groups on both sides.

I_h8_toyota_and_BT

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 16:06:45 -0600

fed up: when you put it that way... well, where's the next revival meetin'? I want to get me some good old fashioned church!

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:28:21 -0600

FRP: I do see what you are saying. I guess I just define religion as a belief in some supernatural force, whether Christ or Allah or the countless gods humanity has followed. That's all.

witchyflickchick

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:23:03 -0600

Actually, she was named "Worst Person in the World" by Keith Olbermann last night on Countdown. So, at least one person in the MSM was doing their part to get this story out there. That's certainly how I first heard about it.

frp

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:22:57 -0600

@matilda -- I agree with you in part. But, for Sherman, atheism goes far beyond what a reasonable person would consider a passion or a philosophy or a moral code. He has made it well known that atheism is the only way, that God does not exist, and those of us that believe in God are wrong and quite ignorant. I don't think that Pinko, and myself for that matter, is intimating that Sherman HAS a religion, but rather that his athieistic extremism is in effect a representation of a belief system that borders on religion. His belief (or non-belief?) system is wildly distorted, and his admonishment of organized religion is reminiscent of how extreme religious fanatics admonish those who don't accept Jesus as their savior. Do you see the parallel? Either way, both he and Davis are cuckoo....

UTV

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:19:14 -0600

Though I respect his right to religious choice and think that Rep. Davis is an un-American jerk for saying what she did, we must all agree that Rob Sherman is just a little too in love with himself.

fed up

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:18:51 -0600

Come on toyota you dont think there is some guy up in the sky watching us who had his own son snuffed, and was willing to destroy whole citys for immoral behavior. What about flodding the whole world and putting 2 of each animal on a boat. This stuff had to of happened.

Navin

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:13:39 -0600

At any rate, Pilgrim Baptist was considered a historical structure, so I would think that government funds could be diverted to its restoration based on that fact alone without any controversy... I was wondering about that myself and I hope that church can be saved. Regarding her comments. Shrill Atheists may be annoying but her rant was beyond the pale. Scary thing is there are probably so many politicians like her who can't come to terms or accept the fact that there are people who don't believe in God.

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:08:48 -0600

"But as frp pointed out, Sherman has in fact made atheism his own religion." I disagree. Yes, Sherman is passionate, and even zealous, but atheism is not religion--maybe a philosophy, or a moral code, but not a religion. Perhaps I'm just sensitive to the increasing use in our culture of calling one thing or that a person's religion. I think such use cheapens the word.

frp

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:04:27 -0600

@dan l -- When it comes to Rob Sherman, he is the zealousiest of zealots out there when it comes to atheism. Dude is cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Pinko

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:01:58 -0600

I wonder if Sherman ever considers that every time he purchases something with U.S. currency, he's affirming his belief in God (if you don't believe me, check all your bills and coins)... Seriously though, I'm a survivor of twelve years of parochial school who is now a non-practicing Catholic (ok, technically I guess I'm still a C and E Catholic, but that's more for Mom's sake). It's not that I've necessarily rejected Catholicism outright, so much as my beliefs today have gravitated more towards some vague spiritualism than any organized religion, so I guess that makes me more of an agnostic... But as frp pointed out, Sherman has in fact made atheism his own religion. As long as the state isn't forcing him to practice a particular religion or any religion at all, he should relax and take up a hobby instead. As I understand it, "the separation of church and state" was put in place to prohibit the government from designating an official state religion, such as England had done in those times... At any rate, Pilgrim Baptist was considered a historical structure, so I would think that government funds could be diverted to its restoration based on that fact alone without any controversy...

dan l

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:55:47 -0600

Her comments were out of line. Though, as somebody who regularly mocks religious wingnuts, I do find it entertaining that atheists are so....zealous.

I_h8_toyota_and_BT

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:51:36 -0600

I'm sorry...I can't resist.... just...can't... A2: Because God is a figment of your imagination.

fed up

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:50:07 -0600

It's amazing that such behavior is pretty common in springfield. Which is why most state reps get ignored. It's nice to see Dems can be as intolerant religous nuts as Repubs.

Spav1

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:49:22 -0600

Also: I stole that point from "The Contender" with Joan Allen.

whet

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:47:04 -0600

I'm with simplecreature--bring back Deism! It's much more interesting than "spiritual, not religious." It hasn't made a splash because local politicians say crazy stuff all the time. It's also not that uncommon a sentiment, just phrased more honestly and crazily. She deserves to be called out on it, but the Loop Lab School story's a lot more important. Or at least the smoke suggests an interesting fire.

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:46:45 -0600

Spav: I agree with what you think in post 21. I was merely making a point about what the founders thought, based on my readings of primary documents, and why the republic was set up as it was. That's all. I think your earlier idea need a finer point.

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:43:22 -0600

Nicely put, simple: "That sort of simplification is exactly the ugly mindset that pervades all manner of human endeavor." I'm probably more agnostic than diest (there are important differences, I think, especially about the level of skepticism and cynicism), but I see your point. Yeah, I know, I ridicule super-religious types, but I find those people borderline totalitarian sometimes.

frp

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:40:55 -0600

Just commenting/joking on the 'why isn't this bigger' comment. As for CNN,Fox or whoever either they're not hip yet or are deliberately avoiding it, which would be unfortunate. Looks like MSNBC has picked it up. Rob Sherman is going to love this -- he's on the national stage now that MSNBC has picked this up. Some politican Davis is....NOT. We have a state government run by monkeys. Wait, that's a whole other argument. "Five little monkeys jumping on the bed. One fell off and bumped his head. Momma called the doctor and the doctor said. No more monkeys jumping on the bed."

Spav1

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:40:04 -0600

Matilda: Respectfully disagree. Take a look at a country like England, where they have a logn established national church. I think that in the case of religion mixing with government, it is far more dangerous to have leaders in power who all subscribe to the same narrow set of beliefs. It is far more exclusive to other groups, and I think that has been evident with the rise of evangelical influence on the government. To use another example, France is a totally secular country and has insane problems with relgious intolerance due in part to racist, narrw-minded laws passed by a few politicians.

celerysalt

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:36:48 -0600

It's dangerous that our children even know that your philosophy exists. i don't even know where to start with that statement. but it's an instant classic - that's for sure.

Navin

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:35:20 -0600

If you already saw it, why on earth do you care that Chicagoist did not cover it in a timely fashion? I don't care. Just commenting/joking on the 'why isn't this bigger' comment. As for CNN,Fox or whoever either they're not hip yet or are deliberately avoiding it, which would be unfortunate. Looks like MSNBC has picked it up. She should be exposed for making such a crazy rant, a crazy rant that shows an amazing ignorance of U.S. law.

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:34:13 -0600

"That clause was put in not to protect Religion from Government, but to protect Government from religious extremists." Actually, it was both, if you go by primary documents--letters, diaries, essays, etc. I think the latter was the prime reason, but let's not discount the first one, either. The establishment of a national church, or even various states churches, would have certainly harmed other faiths that lost out.

frp

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:34:11 -0600

Hear, hear Spav1! (or is it "here, here!"?) Separation of religion and state, baby! Boo yah! (Damn, I'm slapp happy this afternoon)

simplecreature

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:33:02 -0600

Ugh. Here come the "you believe in the invisble sky-wizard" atheists and the "we're not as bad as the fundamentalists!" religious types. Please. Stop. Look, I'm a Jeffersonian Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a Deist (you find a watch in the desert, you know there's a watchmaker) who pulled the supernatural out of the new testament and found a solid moral core. One, combined with egalitarian jeffersonianism I find very fulfilling. He even published his version of the bible. I don't think Atheists are amoral freaks, nor are all religious people lunatics and pitchfork wielders. That sort of simplification is exactly the ugly mindset that pervades all manner of human endeavor. Didactic thinking, whether it comes from Richard Dawkins or Monique Davis is simply a waste of useful oxygen. Live and let live. Keep government away from religion and you benefit both institutions. There are so many things atheists and theists can agree upon, why not focus on those. Oh and Sherman is a jackass, no matter cause.

Spav1

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:30:31 -0600

Um, little thing called "seperation between church and state", prayer in school isn't an believer/non-believer issue. Is it secular issue. That clause was put in not to protect Religion from Government, but to protect Government from religious extremists.

frp

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:30:22 -0600

Davis is a nut job. Sure. But, Rob Sherman is an even nuttier nut job. Being atheist is fine -- believe in what you want to believe or not believe. Methinks one of the reasons this country was founded was due to persecution of people due to their beliefs, religious as they may be. Rob Sherman has made it his "religion" to be an atheist -- he proselytizes and spews hatred from his mouth like water from a hose. Regardless of who is wrong or right, Davis or Sherman, Sherman is merely just a loser, atheist or not.

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:25:57 -0600

Navin: nevermind. Now I see what you were saying.

Margaret Lyons

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:22:42 -0600

I meant newspapers/mainstream stuff. No ST? No local news? I mean, BoingBoing is mainstream to *me*, but....

jmagic

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:19:19 -0600

"What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous to the progression of this state." yeah, that's really the problem in this state. atheists.

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:18:20 -0600

A2: Why?

A2

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:14:43 -0600

I've never understood how a person could be athiest.

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:13:42 -0600

"I saw this on multiple sites on the superweb all day yesterday, Chicagoist was just sleepin'." If you already saw it, why on earth do you care that Chicagoist did not cover it in a timely fashion? I am not trying to be a smart ass, believe or not, just simply curious.

Navin

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:10:26 -0600

I saw this on multiple sites on the superweb all day yesterday, Chicagoist was just sleepin'. It's dangerous that our children even know that your philosophy exists. Amazing!

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:08:37 -0600

Sparky: I also think it is pretty dangerous to even appear to defend athiests in the national media, despite how liberal those darn reporters are supposed to be.

Spook

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:03:35 -0600

Yeaaaaaaaa Chicagoist has finally discovered Representative Miss. Monique Davis!!!! Yea baby look at that mug! Watch you back Chicagoist Monique don't play Oh and now that I have your full attention Margaret........ "Where it at yo? Where it at, shortie?"

sparky

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 14:01:47 -0600

Yeah, Matilda. Wisconsinites eat their babies, too. And I speculate that this has not made a bigger splash because the media is too chicken to cover this story for risk of offending Christians, or for risk that the media is being too liberal by covering this. Could be wrong

UTV

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:59:21 -0600

Kudos for capturing a rare photo of Rep. Davis sans pitchfork or flaming torch.

Bronto

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:57:04 -0600

Athiest and proud of it, thank you very much.

matilda

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 13:55:49 -0600

Yet another dumbshit soldier in the army of god, it seems. "This is the Land of Lincoln...where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children" Yeah, because people in Wisconsin are pagans and atheists, and ritually send their kids into the woods in January without food or coats. I doubt this woman knows the first thing about Lincoln, by the way, a man of a less-than-mainstream faith.