Spewing and Spreading a Dangerous Philosophy
Gus Van Horn (OBlogger) and Eric Zorn (Chicago Tribune) both write about Representative Monique Davis (D) and her behavior toward Rob Sherman in the Illinois General Assembly last Wednesday. Part of the transcript is reported on Mr. Zorn’s blog, and can be heard here. Ms. Davis made the following statements to Mr. Sherman, while he mostly did not respond, except to ask what was dangerous and to thank her for her perspective:
“I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln.”
“What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous—“
“And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!”
“I am fed up! Get out of that seat!”
“You have no right to be here!”
Now, you may rightly ask, what “philosophy” would cause a congresswoman to act so violently toward a citizen testifying before the House State Government Administration Committee? Is he endorsing slavery? Self-sacrifice? Pedophilia (not so much a philosophy as psychosis, but you get the point)?
Nope. Mr. Sherman merely wanted to testify that the Governor’s plan to donate $1 million to the Pilgrim Baptist Church was unconstitutional. Mr. Sherman’s criminal philosophy, which is not so much a philosophy as an apparent affront to all Illinoisans? Atheism.
Now, I’m not so concerned that she got all excited and spouted some crap (though that killed Howard Dean’s bid for the Presidency, so you'd think any politician would be wary of the ramping rant) but rather that the crap was so incredibly vile and anti-American! That she had the audacity to invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln as a poster child for religion, rather than individual freedom! That she actually seems to believe that she is righteous in the eyes of the Lord for such a harangue from the floor of the State Congress! That she does not understand the fundamentals of the Constitution which she has sworn to uphold.
It matters little to me that she is a Democrat as opposed to a Republican from whom we have come to expect such blatantly religious drivel except that there seems there is no safe political place to land – something this rational atheist laissez-faire capitalist has felt for a long time. In fact, this may be a good thing. It may expose the threat of religious ideology in the government not merely as a “Republican” problem, but as a serious threat to the real philosophical foundation of the United States: the necessary separation of church and state in a rational government.
“I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln.”
“What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous—“
“And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!”
“I am fed up! Get out of that seat!”
“You have no right to be here!”
Now, you may rightly ask, what “philosophy” would cause a congresswoman to act so violently toward a citizen testifying before the House State Government Administration Committee? Is he endorsing slavery? Self-sacrifice? Pedophilia (not so much a philosophy as psychosis, but you get the point)?
Nope. Mr. Sherman merely wanted to testify that the Governor’s plan to donate $1 million to the Pilgrim Baptist Church was unconstitutional. Mr. Sherman’s criminal philosophy, which is not so much a philosophy as an apparent affront to all Illinoisans? Atheism.
Now, I’m not so concerned that she got all excited and spouted some crap (though that killed Howard Dean’s bid for the Presidency, so you'd think any politician would be wary of the ramping rant) but rather that the crap was so incredibly vile and anti-American! That she had the audacity to invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln as a poster child for religion, rather than individual freedom! That she actually seems to believe that she is righteous in the eyes of the Lord for such a harangue from the floor of the State Congress! That she does not understand the fundamentals of the Constitution which she has sworn to uphold.
It matters little to me that she is a Democrat as opposed to a Republican from whom we have come to expect such blatantly religious drivel except that there seems there is no safe political place to land – something this rational atheist laissez-faire capitalist has felt for a long time. In fact, this may be a good thing. It may expose the threat of religious ideology in the government not merely as a “Republican” problem, but as a serious threat to the real philosophical foundation of the United States: the necessary separation of church and state in a rational government.
Comments
I wonder if she gets a special pin or ribbon when she reaches that milestone? It must be a special club like the Masons. "Here you go. Wear it proudly. Now everyone knows that you can be trusted to say absolutely anything, free from the bounds of critical thought and evaluation. You are special."
I thought Gus made a great point on his blog, when he said that he didn't want to hear an atheist response to her crap. It's like listening to a Libertarian try to justify capitalism as an ideal political system. They have nothing fundamental to back it up.
And while I wish I shared your optimistic take on this -- namely that it was such an obvious break from reality that people must notice it -- I'm afraid that far too many people will look at what she said and say "you tell that Godless bastard!"
Now I am mostly beginning to fear what my optimism about the general population of America says about my rational faculty. Hmmmm.
No! I will not give way to such pessimism!
(I've started speaking that way in everyday life thanks to Horatio Hornblower.)