Well, it's something. After her crazy tirade against atheists, now Monique Davis has apologized.
…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.
Ugh. She would have been better off if her friends hadn't made that stupid excuse for her. It's tragic that a student was killed, but it has nothing to do with Rob Sherman, or atheists in general, and it does not excuse her attitude in any way.
- Log in to post comments
I'm actually impressed that she apologized; it's a rare enough thing that she deserves credit.
I'll give her the benefit of the doubt about frustration making her a bit irrational as well - I know I've snapped at things I really should not have, when under a lot of stress.
I'm not sure why a public insult to a whole class of people should be ended with a simple private apology. It's a step in the right direction, but too much is missing.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
And her knee-jerk reaction was to blame atheists? What a total tool - I'm sure she's a credit to whatever district she represents...
Well, it's definitely nice that she gave an apology. That's difficult for a lot of people to do. And we all have our moments where we snap because we're having a rough day...but, that doesn't mean she doesn't believe what she said. Nowhere did she state that she didn't mean it, that she didn't think atheism was really bad, that she was just trying to find some easy shot. She's sorry because this brought negative attention to her. She's sorry because she said something she believes that she probably should have kept to herself. If an atheist were to snap and say equivalent things to a Muslim or Christian, no amount of "I was just in a bad mood" would be tolerated. You may have been in a bad mood, but it exposed bigotry that is always there and needs to be dealt with.
Again, I'm glad she said something, and I'm glad Sherman accepted instead of blowing it up like I am. However, it really doesn't address the real issue in the long run.
First:
I'm actually impressed that she apologized; it's a rare enough thing that she deserves credit.
Very true. She personally called Sherman to apologize. That is a good thing, a responsible thing.
But, the knee-jerk reaction to atheists? That's more than a bit troubling. I see the excuse of someone acting out of frustration; we've all probably lashed out in some way that flowed from exhaustion, frustration, whatever. We're humans. Why connect that to atheists, though? That's a connection that makes no sense.
Indeed, as I far as I can tell, there's no statement of attempting to "make right." Why does she think we atheists are such a threat? Has she thought about thinking about that? The outburst indicates, shall we say, "some issues" that she needs to resolve, issues beyond just a frustrated lashing out. There's some deeper shit she--and, seemingly, a majority of Americans--needs to deal with.
Sherman did the right thing though - which was to graciously accept the apology and forgive her. He seized the opportunity to take the moral high ground in this one and should be commended for it. Either way, he comes out of this looking good.
I'll be more than happy to accept the apology without condition. After all, the religious aren't the only one's capable of forgiveness.
"I'm actually impressed that she apologized; it's a rare enough thing that she deserves credit."
Bullshit. She apologized after a WEEK of people calling her an idiot. It doesn't change the fact that she's an irrational tool who doesn't deserve her post. It doesn't change that she obviously feels that way, any more than with any other foolish bigot.
"I'll give her the benefit of the doubt about frustration making her a bit irrational as well - I know I've snapped at things I really should not have, when under a lot of stress."
So, because she's under stress she gets a free 'i'm sorry that I'm an intolerant bigot who would do away with the constitution if I could' pass? That's also bullshit; any stress she was under had nothing to do with kid shootings and EVERYTHING to do with that she is under suspicion of illegal funds-wrangling.) The fact that she used a kids death to try to excuse her now-confirmed ignorance and hateful attitude is as inexcusable as the outburst, if not more so. AT least Sherman is still alive to defend himself.
Were I that kid's father, I'd march right into her office and tell her to fuck off, and commit the rest of my days to destroying her career, and the ridiculous institutions that made her the shitty person she obviously is.
Oh, sure it does, haven't you heard? Atheists are scum of the Earth and do not deserve any rights. Oh wait, shit, this may become an actuality soon.
One last thing. If anyone thinks that her apology is in any way a sincere feeling of guilt and not a too-late attempt at political damage control then you're as deluded as theists.
Seriously, does anyone think that a week later, a person who a week before showed the most stunning display of irrationality and idiocy suddenly got introspective and thought "you know, I was a bit hasty. Maybe those folks are right. You know, they WERE right. Atheists are really just one more step removed from my view on other religions, and deserve the rights of the first amendment too. I think I'll call and offer my sincere apology and repudiate my statements (nah, I won't go THAT far)."
Nope. After the Sherman call, I am sure she spat invective again at how the bad atheists won again and are taking over the world and OMG THINK OF THE CHILDRENS, but hopefully my career is safe now!!
I actually thought that I couldn't dislike ANYONE as much as Ann Coulter, but at least she's a clown with a waning star. This idiot is actually in a place to make policy decisions, and with that responsibility and privilige she squanders it. She disgusts me on so many levels its nearly unbearable.
The best thing I can see that's come out of this is that politicians may be starting to learn that insulting atheists has consequences. I'd wager there are a few officeholders tonight who are thinking we have more political clout than they had realized.
An apology to Sherman is all well and good, but it took being named the Worst Person in the World to make it happen. What is more telling, in my opinion, is nobody else on the committee cut her off in mid tirade to object, and some people seemed to agree with her sentiments.
If she made the same statement to anybody of the Christian faith, she would have been asked to resign an hour after the meeting adjourned.
Gee... It's another scum-sucking, intolerant, pseudo-Christian bigot with a surprisingly convenient excuse?
I'm not going to believe for one second that this woman is sincere in her apology, and I have no doubts that should this situation present itself again, she will act in the same deplorable manner.
I've heard it too many times. These zealots puke out some sort of hate-speech, and a week later, they puke out a hollow apology.
I wonder if the people in the recording who shouted "Amen!" When Mrs. Davis went on her tirade, will also call Sherman and apologize.
And I wonder what their excuse will be for cheering her on like that.
They couldn't have all been in the same emotionally unstable state as she was that day.
Sorry, but I don't buy her apology. All of that vitriol was not invented on the spot. Just like Mel Gibson's anti-semitic rants did not come out of nowhere. If he had started raving about how the Swiss rule everything and keep him from getting work, I would say he was bat-shit loony. Her apology is like the apology that crazed bounty hunter offered a few months ago on Larry King. He was recorded making all sorts of racist statements, but he just apologized for using the N-word. Like what he said would have been perfectly acceptable if he used the terms African-American or Black. Saying "I would never allow an African-American in my house" is so much better than saying "I would never allow a N***** in my house."
Next we will have Sally Kern apologizing for what she said because it was her time of the month and she didn't know what she was saying.
As MAJeff (and others) has said, it only really makes the connection with atheism more puzzling. I simply can't imagine what would lead me to take out my frustration over something that wasn't related to religion, on religion and all religious believers (unless there are details that we don't know of, of course).
I don't really have anything to forgive, to be honest. Although she insulted all atheists, I felt almost exclusively for Rob Sherman. He deserved the apology, and I am glad that it has been forthcoming. I do realize that a more general apology is also necessary, if only for the sake of appropriateness.
All that I will say is that someone needs to send her the relevant statistics concerning those who "believe in something", as opposed to those who supposedly don't. She certainly needs to understand that her mode of belief makes absolutely no difference when it comes to preventing heinous crimes, and that if it does, it isn't the sort of difference that she had in mind.
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.
Yeah right. Get out the shovel...
Does she believe the things she said? What is her actual opinion of atheists and atheist thinking? Why not offer a public apology? I'm sorry, but this is lame. Her frustration about the school shooting might have upset her, but it didn't put atheist hating thoughts in her brain.
It's like someone going on a racist tirade when they are drunk. It's not an excuse for being racist. Being drunk doesn't put ideas in your head it just makes stupid ideas sound better. At best she hates atheist and does think they are dangerous, but she generally knows better than to say so in public.
Ms. Davis' private apology for a very public tirade is cowardly and insincere at best. Her apology should be at least as public as her original outburst.
If it is as she says, and another shooting was on her thoughts... it really does make a couple of things make sense. The non sequitur about guns in schools makes sense now. This sort of reaction ... kinda, sorta... makes sense. She was not really knee-jerking at atheists, but was (perhaps, arguably) lashing out at the first "opponent" that was available.
The delay in apology is sad, yes, but frankly each day's delay made an apology on the following day less likely, so this late apology was not easy for her. I do hope it was sincere.
Bullshit.
No amount of apology or excuse, short of 'I was under the control of the puppet masters at the time', is acceptable. She needs to be removed from office immediately, either by resignation or some other mechanism.
re #3: "And her knee-jerk reaction was to blame atheists? What a total tool - I'm sure she's a credit to whatever district she represents..."
I agree. She is such a tool, i'm going to start referring to her as "Home Depot" Davis.
re #3: "And her knee-jerk reaction was to blame atheists? What a total tool - I'm sure she's a credit to whatever district she represents..."
I agree. She is such a tool, i'm going to start referring to her as "Home Depot" Davis.
bah. stupid comment thread. stupid inability delete posts. bah.
When public figures say something indefensible and get called on it, they were always 'under the influence' of something. "I was tired" or "I was upset" or "I was misinformed" or "I just snorted four lines of coke and watched six hours of C-Span".
Horseapples. The thing she said when she was frustrated and upset (assuming that is really the case) is what she really thinks but usually restrains herself from saying.
You're making our state look bad, representative. Wanna show you're sorry? Step down. It's a little late for anything else.
I'm assuming all of the "what was she thinking?" questions are outraged rhetoricals, because we all know why she said it. People like her actually think that atheists are evil. Period. I have no doubt in my mind that that small-minded woman actually thinks we're a danger, just as Sally Kern before her thinks gays are a danger. My biggest surprise came from the fact that she can hold such paranoid fundamentalist views yet still vote democratic on issues...though of course I haven't researched her voting record, so I don't even know if that's true.
A public apology to all atheists would also be nice, being that she abused her public office to make bigoted statements slandering a minority group.
On the one hand, certainly, I abhor the idea of anyone using "I was just in a bad mood" as an excuse to lash out at anyone else, and am quick to regard subsequent apologies as being suspect, if not out and out insincere.
On the other hand, I'm not terribly fond of holding and fostering a grudge, as I feel that such a thing is a poisonous waste of time. Really, what else can Mr Sherman do or ask for now that an apology has finally been wrung out of Rep. Davis?
Something tells me that she would sooner juggle flaming chainsaws while gargling Gershwin on live television than do something like that.
It's tragic that a student was killed, but it has nothing to do with Rob Sherman, or atheists in general, and it does not excuse her attitude in any way.
It sort of does if you think of her as a stupid primate (namely a human being). Nearly every crisis tends to increase what social scientists call "Right-Wing Authoritarian" scores, which means more adherence to tradition (in name) and more show of aggression towards socially acceptable targets. You should understand this. The whole point of public atheism (or public homosexuality etc.) is to make 'traditional' authorities admit you're human, thus making attacks on you seem less acceptable.
Really, what else can Mr Sherman do or ask for now that an apology has finally been wrung out of Rep. Davis?
Ask her to meet with an organization of atheists from her district to discuss the issues raised in her ridiculous attack.
One issue that arises out of this is, How can atheist and secularists make use of this situation? Part of that, as has been discussed here, is raising the issue of irrational bigotry against atheists--we have developed moral systems, that are capable of decrying killing kids in a school--that have no need for a supernatural deity. The situation presents what we might call an opportunity for atheists and secularists to draw out some of the issues (I dunno what kind of organized presence exists in the Chicago area, which would seem to be a relevant site of action, potentially including an educational meeting that can also be used as an educational moment...)
Oh, my God! The next time I act like a complete asshole and scream hateful stereotypes in my church, court, synagogue, or parliament, I'm going to blame it on the fact that I heard there was an unfortunate incident somewhere that day. Thanks for the tip!
Actually, Ms. Davis' comments suggest that she was under the influence of the classic bigotry that atheists (and evolutionists) are responsible for all school violence, since they took prayer out of the school and put evolution in. It is as bad a slander as Mel Gibson's drunk rant that Jews were responsible for all of the wars in the world. And it should be treated as such.
Oh, for crikey sake, she apologized. Put the curmudgeonly professor routine on hold for--I don't know--ten or fifteen minutes or so. Sometimes it's beyond tired.
I prefer an honest bigot with the courage of their fucked-up convictions to a coward who'll kiss their own stupid ass in the name of political expediency.
I think Monique Davis' tirade had nothing to do with her mood that day, and everything to do with both her hatred for atheists and for Rob Sherman personally. In case anyone missed it, Rob Sherman went to court to have the Illinois "Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act" declared unconstitutional. Thankfully, he was granted a preliminary injunction. Guess who was a co-sponsor of that bill in the Illinois General Assembly? You guessed it - Monique Davis. See here.
Actually, the reason given by Sherman and Franks that
makes sense. It doesn't justify what she said, but it does fill in a missing piece of the puzzle.
If you listened to the tirade, you may remember that she made a rather off topic comment about stopping guns in school. I was rather perplexed by the comment, since that was a wholly separate issue from funding damaged private schools/churches and/or atheism.
So, I believe that that was on her mind at the time. That said, what she said was inexcusable and wrong no matter what was clouding her judgment at the time. I'm glad she apologized, but the incident reflects a need to better educate people about atheism and how we're not all a bunch of evil Devil-worshipers on a crusade against God, because it's shameful that those statements got applause from at least two people and an amen.
This may seem weird, but I'm kind of excited about how this turned out. Yeah, it wasn't a public apology, and yeah, she probably has the same opinions still, but we were able to get some kind of retraction.
I can't help but think that the ferocious response to Davis' comments was unexpected. Maybe the god-soaked bigots out there will look for microphones before mouthing off next time. There are lots more of us where Mr Sherman came from, and we are not shutting up.
Victory for the noisy atheists!
Very Christian of him.
Waiting a week robs the apology of any sincerity. What, it took her a week to get over her snit? Not buying it.
But boy, she's slick.
The emotional baggage of the dead student story smoothly and invisibly takes her apology beyond mere explanation, which is what the story is meant to suggest, and into the realm of excuse. Now her outburst wasn't her fault, it was her heartbreak over a dead student that made her do it. And lucky for her a dead student excuse is untouchable because if you question it, you're automatically seen as a callous dickhead.
So her insincere apology isn't even really an apology at all, it's a convenient and calculated excuse that no one can question.
But Sherman did the right thing, even though I bet he rolled his eyes.
One thing I'm curious about though, who broke the story? Did Sherman mention to the news services that he got the call, or was it announced in a Davis press release?
Here's a thought.
This is not about just one person. It's not only about Monique Davis. Monique Davis has, apparently, apologized. Rob Sherman has accepted the apology. I think that's a good move on Sherman's part; but for those who disagree... what more could be done?
One thing that could be done is to refuse to recognize the apology, give lots of reasons for thinking it is insincere or insufficient, and continue to apply pressure for a formal censure or resignation. Not my recommendation, but it's an option.
Another is to look at this not as a bigotry of one individual against another, to be handled by punishing Davis as an individual, but as a larger issue for which the State Government has responsibility as a body.
I think the constructive thing to do would be to applaud the apology, and emphasize that this is a recognition that the outburst was inappropriate. The outburst occurred at a formal hearing, before a State Government committee, and the outburst was intimidation of a citizen in the very seat of government; a government ruled by a constitution that explicitly states any citizen has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The house failed as a body.
What I would like to see people do is move on to petition State Rep. Jack Franks, who was the chair of the meeting, and also to petition the leader of the house or the governor or someone at the top. I would like to see pressure applied THERE to have a formal and public statement of support for Rob Sherman and any other citizen who participates in the civic process of government hearings and the like. I would like to see the house as a body formally recognize the apology as a laudable and appropriate response to a clear abuse, deplore the original tirade, and back that up by giving a corporate apology for letting this occur.
This should be clear, and direct from the house itself (not second hand from Rob Sherman) and addressed to the nation. As Odermann said: the apology is due to all Americans. The apology is due not because Sherman was insulted, but because of the insult to your democracy and constitution.
[i]The best thing I can see that's come out of this is that politicians may be starting to learn that insulting atheists has consequences. I'd wager there are a few officeholders tonight who are thinking we have more political clout than they had realized[/i]
Amen!
Really, it's the best we can hope for. Of course it's an insincere apology, just as the "apologies" of Don Imus and others have been insincere. The real value of the apology is not that one state legislator had a real change of heart about atheists (she almost certainly didn't), but that all politicians have learned that there's a price to be paid for taking pot shots at us. (Some will continue to think that it's a price worth paying, of course.)
That doesn't mean I won't be happy to see her challenged in the next election.
Wait, he forgives her? The child-killing, concentration-camp building, academic career-sabotaging, Hitler-enabling atheist forgives her?
Surely not, we all know that forgiveness(TM) is a christian trait and only christians are capable of forgiving someone who trespasses against them(TM)(R)(C)
So, that has to be a typo, obviously they misspelled "put a devil-worshipping Islamic gay pagan global warming universal healthcare curse upon"
I wonder what fauxnews will do with this. She's xtian nutbar and a democrat...
Oh and Stanton gets a Molly nomination for this: "Something tells me that she would sooner juggle flaming chainsaws while gargling Gershwin on live television than do something like that.
Posted by: Stanton"
I'm laughing so hard I can hardly type...
I do not deny the irony for a moment, but the question must be asked: since when has forgiveness been an exclusively Christian trait?
The student's death may serve as an honest explanation for Davis's outburst - but not as an excuse. She directly insulted a not-insignificant minority of American citizens, but does not care to acknowledge it, and - as noted by Duae above - gave the finger to the Consitution as well. She'd make a good fascist. But who knows? Maybe this will prove to be a transformational experience for her.
Yet another mindless, vitriolic attack leading to what is effectively a not-pology, which is answered by the atheist behaving like a decent human being and accepting it anyway.
Where does she specifically say that she rejects her previous comments?
Does she anywhere say that atheists are not dangerous, that Davis' comments were not "spewing", that atheists do have a right to sit and speak, that Lincoln was in fact, not Christian, and so on?
Didn't think so.
NOT-POLOGY.
People are imperfect. Remember when you snapped at someone at home because you were angry at someone at work?
Give her a break. Once. If it happens again, then you will know what kind of person she is.
Gah, typo... in #45.
"...that Sherman's comments were not spewing..." dammit.
Since never - hence the snarky double-irony in Bob's remark.
Phil, your point about human nature is noted, but there's some backstory here: Davis has tangled with Sherman over Separation issues before.
Davis co-sponsored a bill, synopsized below, that Sherman petitioned - successfully - to be declared unconsitutional:
See comment #34.
That wasn't an apology, that was an excuse -- and a poor one at that. She was in a bad mood because of a school shooting, so decided to take it out on an atheist being questioned on an unrelated topic?
What that say to me is that she's sorry that there has been so much fall-out, and she's sorry that her ridiculous views came out in such a public manner, but - by dog - she is most certainly not sorry she holds them.
Oh, this is laughable. Come people, what do you want? A bigoted woman, (who regerdless will continue to be so) has been shown the fact that such actions have consequences politically for her. Remember, she's a POLITICIAN. We should have little care for her inner thoughts, and more for her actions. Now, being shown that such actions have severe consequences, she will be more likely to keep her animosity to herself and be less likely to act on it so brashly again. This is a plus even though may of us would rather not have her in office to begin with. Yet, if enough of us actually have the integrity to stick to our principles and not forget about this, we can even vote her out of office. FSM bless America. While I have no illusions about the fact that she's a bigot. I could care less if she's sincere! Sincerity? Laugh-Out-Loud. I want her stances to change. And so they have, and so they will if anyone here who's currently so up in arms continues to look into her actions and call her on them even if PZ doesn't post them.
This is a win for us, even if some view it as slight. If Davis didn't think we mattered politically there would have been NO apology. So why am I reading a group of people blind to the fact? Were we expecting her to change her views and suddenly approve of atheists? it seems that expectations of what could be accomplished (let alone what should be) were far too unreasonable.
Point of fact: A bigoted rep, has been forced, through major non-religious political pressure that was non-existent a decade ago, to retract her statements. It's almost like the ACLU can begin to breathe. Almost. The moral of the story is this is a point for all of us who wrote in. Celebrate and have some perspective. We'll have plenty to bitch about tomorrow.
what if we were retards instead of unbelievers?
would her apology be acceptable if she had blamed retards for all of the school shootings?
I agree that her excuse is actually worse than the origonal tirade - she is actually linking atheism to the shooting of students?
The sad fact is that atheists are still hated in America, and the reasons for it are plain - all those school shootings are pissing the good christians off, and we are obviously all to blame for putting the awfull idea that life is meaningless - their straw dog - into the students heads.
dan,
I can't see how you gleaned that from the statement. Her excuse, thin as it is, runs like this: Some student was shot. I was upset. Therefore I flew off the handle when I shouldn't have.
The point of the matter is she's APOLOGIZING. She recognizes (for any reason) that saying such things is unwise for a politician and such inanities shouldn't be repeated. The link made in the apology is not atheism=shootings, even if that's what she really thinks. The point was she was upset and therefore acted uncharacteristically. The intended message is "I don't hate atheists." And I don't care if she really believes that in her heart of hearts. She's professing it now, and won't be so foolish as to make statements or vote for bills that cross this group again without a good deal of forethought. And that's just how we want it.
An apology is an apology. It isn't private, we are reading it right now on the internet. Has anyone ever seen a creationist apologize for being a moronic lying, Death Cultist intent on bringing back the Dark Ages.
Their attitude is always, "why yes, I lie a lot and when the Dark Ages come we will have a short, touching ceremony with you and a stack of firewood and wave good bye. Now why is that a problem?"
I have to be honest though. I have seen things just as bad as what she said on the other side from this blog and the sad thing it is very common. :(
Planet Killer, that may be true, but only to a limited extent (i.e. none of us say that they should shut up and get out of the 'chair' even if we often wished it but then only on the public or political stage). I.e. keep beliefs personal and not try and impose them on others, directly or through the law, and the average atheist will simply have the occasional quiet chuckle at their delusional belief systems or simply ignore it altogether. Much as I do with a couple of my closest friends who happen to be devout xians. Because their belief system is a personal one, visible only by how they live their lives not how they try to impose it on myself or others.
Nor do we try to deny them their constitutional rights, even if we sometimes think they don't really deserve them for the way they abuse them.
But, however 'irrational' you may see some on here as being, there is one huge difference. That being that none here are representing their constituents, all their constituents, while seeing some of those constituents as being = !citizens. Not only unworthy of the protection of the constitution but actually trying to deny them that protection on a political stage.
See the difference?
I'm going to pile on to the "not good enough" responses.
She goes on a raving, bigoted rampage, and attempts to essentially disenfranchise an individual, and the best she can do is "she took out her frustrations on him". She saw him as an enemy and attacked him and his beliefs in the state legislature. A public apology is entirely appropriate, since she said that the atheist philosophy is dangerous even if kids just hear about it. Imagine if I were to say, in the state capitol, that Christianity was dangerous and that it could warp the minds of young children if they even heard about it. I'd be ridden out of town on a rail!
But this self righteous bitch gets to say that atheism is poison even if you just HEAR about it, and we should let her off the hook just for saying that she shouldn't have said it while never even beginning to imply that she didn't hold the bigoted beliefs that she'd just professed to having?
I don't believe this would really be a GOOD idea, and it would be a cheap shot at best, but I'd LOVE to publicly tell her that she and "her kind" (oh yeah, bringing out the race card) don't deserve to be able to hold public office and she just demonstrated that with her uncivil tirade, and then later called to tell her that I'd had a hard day at work and just took my frustrations out on her. I'd like to see if she'd openly accept it and be as gracious as Sherman apparently was.
Sherman has accepted it, good for him I suppose, but I'd agree that calling for some degree of censure against Davis would be entirely appropriate. Her words were not solely directed at him, as such her apology (and preferably a REAL apology, enough of this notpology nonsense) needs to be directed at more than just him as well.
So her apology is basically the excuse "the nasty thing that happened made the prejudice and bigotry jump into my head".
Wow that's fucking lame. Yet another data point in the religious freak notpology study. sorry kind hearted folks but whatever her reasons for framing her apology in the manner above, I for one would refuse to accept it (not that I count in this instance but you know what I mean). Apology it ain't, it's a whiny excuse for her actions which does nothing to hit at the heart of what she should be apologising for: her expression of prejudice.
The sad thing is that the simple fact that she "apologised" at all is an IMPROVEMENT! Although I think a better apology would have taken the form "I fucked up. I have no excuse. My bad entirely." Getting her out of office/her resigning is sadly a pipe dream. We still have extant politicians who express virulently racist sentiments decades after the civil rights movement (a far more serious disenfranchisement btw), anti-atheist/secularist sentiments will take a lot longer to decline.
Louis
Wait a sec ... did she apologize for WHAT she said ... or just for her rude behaviour? Something seemed to be missing from that "apology".
I agree with Michael X on this one.
I don't care if a politician doesn't like atheists - only that they treat atheists with respect.
We all have prejudices - personally, I can think of many nasty things to say about theists. But I wouldn't say them to their faces simply because it's rude.
I think a lot of people in the comments want to convict Davis of a thought crime, when they probably hold equally intolerant thoughts about her religion.
Her real crime is inappropriate behavior - not inappropriate beliefs.
Well, some of you want your pound of flesh, don't you?
I gotta say, this:
Followed by this:
(from the same comment: #13) does not impress me.
As Michael X said: we feeble atheists forced an apology from a state representative. Let's have a quick cheer before we turn the waters red with her blood.
What do you guys want? She dutifully worships and glorifies an angry, jealous, vengeful god...and some of his holy "love" rubbed off on her. Don't you see? She was talking in tongues...maybe that murder in the school was the latest "sign" of her god's goodness and omnipotence and her "love" for Sherman then spewed out of her but since he's atheist he just didn't understand the tongues of faith.
Not really. AIUI, Chrisitan Forgiveness requires a blood sacrifice of an innocent third party, and then is only offered to those that request it in a specific way.
Atheists. OTOH, can simply decide they are not going to burden themselves with a lifelong grudge over something.
I call Bullshit on the Abusers' Excuse. She sounds like a 6-year old bully who has learned to cry on demand to escape the punishment s/he deserves. And it's not even a clever dodge, but rather an effing typical "some trauma outside their control" that made them lash-out and abuse someone else, never their own true self.
No credit from me. The second you make excuses, you've proven your lack of integrity.
Congratulation to all American atheists and secularists! A real victory.
Since Davis has now apologised, in however limited and insincere a way, I'd agree with Duae Quartunciae that trying to get official recognition that she should have been called to order immediately, would be the best course of action. After all, she has now admitted what she did was inappropriate, as should have been evident to the meeting's chair, so this would build on what has already been achieved. If the house does not have standing orders against such outbursts against witnesses, it should have. If it does, they should have been enforced.
"But, however 'irrational' you may see some on here as being, there is one huge difference. That being that none here are representing their constituents, all their constituents, while seeing some of those constituents as being = !citizens. Not only unworthy of the protection of the constitution but actually trying to deny them that protection on a political stage."
I still do not get it. I understand what you are saying however, you still have the right to believe what you believe. She was angry and yes she was wrong in what she said, but people still believe in freedom of speech for all people and not just for Christians. That changes of course on the Internet because there isn't really freedom on forums like this (really) unless you create your own forum.
Seriously, does anyone think that a week later, a person who a week before showed the most stunning display of irrationality and idiocy suddenly got introspective and thought "you know, I was a bit hasty.
Oh hell, I had one guy take a year. It took him that long to find the stones to apologize. Privately... after a very public ripping of new orifice. So it's not just the public servants that have trouble in this department.
Sure, the apology sould have been public, but now she is faced with an atheist being *nice* to her, and that's gotta hurt.
SciAm has a nice audio interview with Mathis for an hour. It's relatively amusing, if you like hearing thinly veiled no true christian fallacies and such.
http://www.sciam.com/media/sound/2008-04_matthis-sciam-roundtable_p2.mp3
John says:
See the difference?
PK responds:
I still do not get it.
predictable.
If your spouse/partner beats you and puts you in the hospital someday, you gonna settle for flowers and an insincere apology?
I'm glad she apologized, but she still deserves to lose her job in the next election and never hold public office again.
I'm sure it was very easy for Rob Sherman to accept Monique Davis' apology, since he knows that her outburst may cost her the next election. Rob may have forgiven her, but hopefully the voters won't.
J. D.
"I don't care if a politician doesn't like atheists - only that they treat atheists with respect."
Do the militant athiests on here deserve respect?
That is the 1 million dollar question.
Look, I am all for what you want to believe, but when I come here day after day and see insults pounded out by people like PZ Myers it really makes me wonder.
Is it okay for you to respect people that insult you from having different belief systems than your own?
You can argue all you want about evolution or how there is no God, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter.
People are going to believe what they want to and they should not be forced either way. This is why Dawkin's fails because he tries to push science to conclusion that is backed by his own world view. At the end of the day it changes nothing, it is his own world view backed by his own point of view about science. In the end it gets us no where because science constantly changes and what was right one day becomes wrong when we get more evidence.
Even if there was evidence for God, you are never going to see it. Because if you believe in a world view that there is no God, you will ignore the obvious and look for what you want to look for.
If PZ myers and company want to do something they should use their millions to help people out. This will matter more than trying to convert everyone to a single world view.
By the way I love computers and love programming and I am always looking for the next big thing and I love science too, it has created jobs and improved all of our lives. I just can't see myself limiting myself to this narrow minded single dimentional point of view.
I just don't see science stopping global warming and even if they did they are not going to stop mankind from killing each other even if religion did not exist. That is the point here. It does create jobs and make our lives better but it does nothing to stop humans from doing themselves in.
Unlike many of the commenters in this thread, I cannot read Davis's mind and so have no idea whether her apology was sincere, calculating, or a bit of both. I would suggest, though, that it doesn't much matter which is the case.
Here's what does matter. Atheists are, famously, the most despised minority in America. Otherwise decent people who would never tolerate racial or sexual or what-have-you invective aren't bothered in the least by slurs against non-believers. Yet here, for once, is an example of somebody slagging off atheists and then, after feeling heat for it, backing down. I'm not sure that has happened before in American public life.
In a way, it might be better if Davis's apology were merely cynical and face-saving. That could suggest, you see, that we are beginning to enter an age in which bigotry against atheists, for the first time, causes one to lose face.
Not all that long ago, it was socially acceptable to make pejorative remarks about blacks and Jews. By no means was everybody a racist or antisemite in those days; but those who weren't tended to stand there embarrassed while the Klansmen and Jew-haters cracked their little jokes. Today, that sort of thing is emphatically not socially acceptable. There are still a lot of racists and antisemites, but they need to take care they are among their own before they start using the N-word and telling Jew jokes. More recently, the same process has begun WRT gays (though there's clearly still a long way to go).
So if Davis's apology was sincere and heartfelt, well, that would just be a decent person realising that she had behaved indecently, and asking pardon for it. But if the apology was cynical political manoeuvring, it might just possibly signal that we are at the cusp of the same process beginning WRT atheists that is already underway WRT other groups -- she had to apologise, because going forward there will be a social and political cost to pay for anti-atheist bigotry.
Even if I am right about that, of course, there is still a long way to go. Anti-atheism will remain socially acceptable for many, and for a long time to come. And there will continue to be positive political benefits to be gained from active anti-atheist bigotry, just as Republicans learned in the 1960s that they could win seats by appealing to those who hate blacks, and currently win seats by appealing to those who hate gays.
But the absolutely crucial distinction is that, once this process begins, tolerating or even promoting bigotry becomes the characteristic of a faction, not of society as a whole. Up till now, a large majority of non-atheist Americans of any and all political stripes has disliked, distrusted and misunderstood their atheist fellow-citizens -- or at least, has been prepared to tolerate the dislike, distrust and misunderstanding of others without being bothered by it. Davis's apology suggests that, maybe, that is beginning to change, and increasing numbers of non-atheist people will come to see that hating on the atheists is not about being American but about being a mouth-breather. The mouth-breathers have all but entirely lost that battle over Jews. They've pretty much lost it over blacks, though heaven knows they're still fighting rear-guard battles. Their position has begun to look distinctly wobbly when it comes to gays, and I'm optimistic that generational change will see them defeated on that front. And maybe, just maybe, we're starting to see their lines in the battle over atheists get permeable.
John says:
See the difference?
PK responds:
I still do not get it.
predictable.
yeah, and I posted why and it still does not help your cause and you never answered the question.
So many smartasses in here but nobody can be bothered to read and yet dismisses the entire post based on some smartass remark.
If I wanted that kind of response I can take myself back to Junior high school. Wow!
OK, where have you all read exactly what she said to Sherman?
The short news blurb there doesn't have a transcript, so we don't know all that she said, only what "someone" chose to print out of what "someone else" conveyed to them.
I believe that she was upset by a kid getting killed in a school. I sure would be, it's so unnecessary and wrong. What we don't see is whether or not she said anything else to Sherman like "I was wrong in my thinking and atheists aren't dangerous. I needed some education." That's one reason why I think she should issue a public apology. Otherwise it still looks like a not-pology (you know the kind: if she went to rehab, it'd all be good).
PK: your remarks indicate that you think we're horrible bigots to dislike religion. I hope you realise that most people here have seen the harm caused by religion first-hand, and that the most virulent remarks are aimed at people who are trying to destroy science in the name of religion. None of us want to destroy religion. The best result would be for people to realise of their own accord what a horrible thing it is, but until that happens, we can't force them, and we won't. We'll just keep up a steady stream of accurate ridicule, because that's what we feel is right. And we support it with evidence. Davis, on the other hand, made unsupported remarks aimed at stripping atheists of rights because of their beliefs or lack thereof, a violation of the constitution.
And that's why she owes us an apology and a resignation, because she tried to take away our rights based on our beliefs. We've never advocated doing that to believers.
What she did was on a different scale to what is said here. You can't equate it without providing evidence.
"If PZ myers and company want to do something they should use their millions to help people out."
Wow. I never knew that college biology professors earnt "millions".
I am on the "bullshit" camp here. She wasn't even freaking provoked! It was a government building in an official government session. IT WAS COMPLETELY OFF-TOPIC. She can apologize all she wants, and if I'd been the recipient of that stupid tirade I would accept it allright, but someone like her clearly has no place in government office. Damn, I wouldn't even hire her as a babysitter!
But in any case, the apology was clearly just for shits-and-giggles to calm down all those ACLU gay atheist satanists who complained.
It is entirely possible, even likely, that the apology wasn't sincere and was just a political move. In that case, I'm even more happy to hear about it... because it means that we've finally gotten to the point where this kind of behavior isn't profitable in parts of our society anymore.
PK
'Do the militant athiests on here deserve respect?'
I for one care not a jot about your respect; just address the ideas.
'People are going to believe what they want to and they should not be forced either way.'
Wrong; some are sitting on the fence. We don't want to force religion out of existence but we do want to combat the deliberate lies against science. This aspect is addressed by other posters as well.
'Even if there was evidence for God, you are never going to see it.'
You plainly understand nothing about us; we would assess any evidence as it arrived. You project you own blind bigotry onto us and I won't accept that; you are wrong.
'This will matter more than trying to convert everyone to a single world view.'
Wrong yet again; no-one is into conversion here, that's your side of the fence. We let people make their own minds up on the available facts; try it some time.
PK stop being a projecting dolt; you are showing yourself up.
Planet Killer@#55:
Eh... no. You've seen unelected persons, acting purely in a private capacity, ranting; the substance of the rants is, almost inevitably, to ridicule an individual's beliefs or insult that individual (say Behe, for example).
You have never seen anyone on this blog acting in an elected official capacity abuse their position to seek to deny such a person one or more of their fundamental rights.
We know that private individuals rant on Christian blogs and write stuff like what Monique Davis said and nobody cares, but it is legitimate to expect better behaviour from an elected representative acting in an official capacity.
In any of the European countries I know well enough to say for sure (Ireland, UK, Sweden), she would have been forced to resign, probably within 48 hours.
Bravo, Mrs. Tilton (#74). I agree with you 100%. And you said it way better than I ever could.
Completely off topic, just SO funny I had to share, "Who is he? Must be a king. How can you tell? Doesn't have shit all over him." Been a long time since I watched this one and just chose the most recent blog entry to share the fun. Didn't even read the blog entry, it was probably really cool, cause PZ is a great blogger, but I am tres (french, I must be smart, lol) drunk and don't care, so there (their, they're? lol) I got it right the first time, I know.
Among other things, Planet Killer,
1) It's spelled "atheist,"
2) Many of the posters at this blog happen to be neither militant, nor atheist (including myself)
3) Of course everyone here deserves respect, unless you're implying that people who either lack a belief in God, or worse yet, disagree with you should be treated inhumanely.
Among other things, sometimes it takes loud behavior before people will bother to stop and take notice, and you don't care to realize that people have used Christianity (among other reasons) as an excuse to both literally and figuratively trample upon other people and their rights to basic human dignity.
What Rep. Davis said to Mr Sherman was utterly indefensible: not even a recreation of Dachau is an adequate excuse to be subjected to Rep. Davis' odious tirade.
Evolution is a big monolithic mass of undeniable facts concerning and explaining the diversity of life on Earth, and there are people in this country who seek to commit catastrophic harm by legislating a denial of reality in order to make their version of God happy.
People must not be allowed to force other people to deny reality in order to please God (or in the case of Stalin, a political party). That viewpoints change due to the accumulation of new information is a sad fact of life and does not change the fact that science is a vital process, and must not be interfered with by people who seek to turn it into a theocracy, thereby destroying it.
Having said this, this still is not a valid excuse for Rep. Davis' treatment of Mr Sherman because of Mr Sherman's lack of belief.
Professor Myers does not look for God because he is unconcerned with that.
Professor Myers is not a millionaire, and atheists like Professor Myers are wholly unconcerned with evangelizing other people in order to "convert" them.
If you really did love science, then why did you dismiss it as being ultimately being unreliable because facts change?
Science is not a religion, and it does not proscribe behavior beyond things like "do not poison," "do not use a live rattlesnake as a sextoy," and "refrain from touching fire, poison-arrow frogs, or female wolverines suffering from PMS"
Having said that, it's hypocritical for you to dismiss science (especially since you claim to "love it") as being ultimately ineffectual, when in the previous breath, you chide us for having a one-dimensional view.
I find it hard to take this apology at face value. At what point does someone have a rough day then fall back on a hateful tirade against a group of individuals, and not really believe it in the first place?
Sort of like the Mel Gibson,"Well I was drinking that night ..." and we all know drinking makes you a raving anti-semitic catholic cult member. It seems bad days make monique davis a hate spewing christian bigot.
Stanton re #85 Science is not a religion, and it does not proscribe behavior beyond things like "do not poison," "do not use a live rattlesnake as a sextoy," and "refrain from touching fire, poison-arrow frogs, or female wolverines suffering from PMS"
Well said!
This part killed me!
do not use a live rattlesnake as a sextoy
Time to change Mrs FMCs' sex toys then eh?
What I haven't seen in the comments, unless I missed it, was that Sherman followed the teachings of Jesus better than the Christian Davis.
Yes: it's been shown that, although a rattlesnake can be tamed to the point where it can be picked up barehanded, it's also been shown that a rattlesnake never appreciates being rubbed vigorously, nor covered in another species' secretions: one guy found this out the hard way, and required much surgery and amputation as a result.
do not use a live rattlesnake as a sextoy
Yes, it's funny, but some of the odder Christian sects do just that...Well, at least they use live rattlesnakes (and other poisonous snakes) to demonstrate their fitness (check it out: I wasn't bitten--god must love me--you should too) and therefore to gain sexual opportunities. So in a way one could claim that that prohibition was anti-religious...
The vineyard called. They'd like for you guys to return all the whine. And now, for a friendly service message from Chopper, "Harden the $*%^ up!"
I mean, seriously. She apologized. Sincere or not, Let it go.
Many Christians figure that anything is excusable, so long as you do it in Jesus' name.
Davis said "What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God. 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."
If her apology had been genuine, she should have said "I was wrong for suggesting that children should not hear about atheism. Such knowledge is not a danger to them. This is a secular country, where people of different belief systems have the same rights. Atheists have just as much right to be part of the political process as Christians. This state was built upon the constitution, and I accept that atheists don't want to destroy that".
Her notpology just insinuated that atheists are responsible for school shootings, something we hear from right-wingers all the time.
Imagine if the initial rant had been against Jews, and her apology had been "I'm sorry for my language; I had just found out that someone had pilfered funds from my bank account". Would the ADL accept that?
Oh, and as her slander of a minority group was public, her apology should be too. It wasn't just Sherman that was slighted.
As for taking a week to respond? Totally inexcusable. If it hadn't been for the uppity atheists, she wouldn't have even made her notpology. If this even shows us anything, it's that when we speak up, we can make a difference.
The Hopi Indians used to perform a rain-ritual where they would gather up rattlesnakes (messengers of the principle rain deity), and the priests would hold them in their mouths while dancing and praying for rain, whereupon they then released the snakes back into the wild, ideally so that the snakes would take the petitions for rain back to the rain deity.
Last I heard, the United States government banned it, citing safety issues.
Emmet #82: "In any of the European countries I know well enough to say for sure (Ireland, UK, Sweden), she would have been forced to resign, probably within 48 hours."
Indeed. If an MP had said that in the UK, they would have been forced to resign straight away, whether the slander had been against atheists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, gays, blacks, you name it. Bigotry from political representatives is antithetical to democracy.
Re #82. Not necessarily resign as an MP I think - there was a recent case of some Tory twit and ex-Army Officer making racist remarks about black soldiers (although not in Parliament) - he got dismissed from his Party post, but I think he's still an MP.
Apologies for not attributing the person who pointed me to it (I can't remember anything at this time of the semester), but Greg Laden recently posted a video of Richard Dawkins on CNN talking about atheism. It's short, sweet, to the point, entirely innocuous, and most of all, is a great example of "What exactly is she scared of? Why exactly do people like her hate us so much?". Contrast the conversation between him and Paula Zahn with that incident in the state legislature, and it's even more clear how bizarre that woman is.
Why she was probably really mad is, once again, no copy of origin of species was found, open to a specific chapter and page, in the killers house, leaving a secret message as to why the killer really killed.
We all said she owed Sherman an apology or should otherwise resign for an unamerican philosophy. She chose to apologize, so presumably what she said was said in anger and she gets how wrong it was now. Or not. Either way, continuing to harp on it now makes atheists look whiny and trvial. Time to move on.
Home Depot Davis - love it!
An apology to Sherman is more than I had any hope for. I think that her apology to him should have been private. She had the courage to talk directly to the person she insulted and apologize. Good job. But what I'm still waiting for is a PUBLIC apology to the rest of us. She should do this as a matter of honor and principle, not as atonement. It still doesn't excuse what she said. She obviously believes it. She should still "get out of that seat."
That being said, I can understand how the shooting might have caused her outburst. A kid just died in her district. I can see how discussing public funding of church renovations might seem trivial in comparison and how it would be frustrating to the point of irrationality.
Again, her reaction may be understandable, but not excusable. She's an elected official and has an obligation to keep her emotions in check and her mind on the job at hand. She denied the basic rights of citizenship to members of her constituency and implied that just because an atheist doesn't want tax dollars to go to a church they must not care about kids getting shot.
She owes all atheists a public apology and owes ALL of her constituents her resignation as she is clearly not fit for office.
Contrary to what some others have said here, I see no reason to believe that Davis will suffer the slightest bit in the next election because of this.
Attacking an atheist in this country is like attacking a communist (indeed, there is no difference in the minds of many people). The bulk of those who disagree with her aren't brave enough to say so, and the rest either don't care or are actively cheering her on.
Hell, the only reason she apologized at all is because she's a Democrat, and Democrats have to at least pretend to tolerate atheists (but never embrace them). If she were a Republican, she could stick this on her campaign literature to show how she fights for "family values."
Nick@#96: Hmmm... that's quite different. If said Tory MP had, say, verbally abused a black soldier testifying to a parliamentary committee, trotting out racist stereotypes, telling him that "his kind" should not be allowed to so testify, and ordering him from the room, then what would have happened?
Re #106. The Committee Chair would have called him to order, and his Party would have withdrawn him from the Committee, but MPs form a very cosy club for the most part, you have to be convicted of a fairly serious criminal offence to actually get thrown out. Your Party can "withdraw the whip", but you could still sit as an independent until the next general election, and stand for re-election as such.
For the House of Lords it's even more difficult - membership is for life, the "novelist" Lord (Jeffrey) Archer served a substantial prison term for perjury and is still a member, though I don't know if he ever turns up. I think a Lord could say pretty much anything they wanted in the chamber, and get away with it. The Lord Chancellor, their presiding officer, doesn't have as much power as the Commons' Speaker to shut people up.
I don't really see the analogy with blacks, etc. Atheism is an opinion or belief, albeit one with a lot of rational justification behind it. It is not a race (to the extent that the idea of race is meaningful). It is simply the opinion/belief that there are no deities. (On a weaker reading, it is merely the lack of a belief in deities, but that could be no more than apathy in some cases.)
In that respect, atheism is much like Christianity, humanism, existentialism, Islam, or anything else of the kind ... though atheism by itself has a lot less epistemic content that these other things. Still, these are all just people's opinions and are entitled to no particular respect. No more than, say, Keynesianism or monetarism.
She was out of line - badly. But the reason was nothing to do with racism or any analogous sort of bigotry. If somebody considers me evil or dangerous because of my opinions, that's absolutely fine. I'll disagree, but I won't consider the person a bigot (maybe a moron, but not a bigot).
What was not fine - and was actually outrageous, not to mention bizarre - was an elected official in a democratic country telling a citizen that he had no right to express his views, and give his testimony, to his political representatives in the appropriate forum. Even if he'd been a Nazi, he'd have had that right.
This is a very shallow analysis. I urge you to think more deeply about these issues and learn the many facts of which you are clearly unaware.
Re #106 I forgot to note - there would be a perverse incentive for an MP to hang on to their seat and contest it at the next election even if disowned by their party - MPs who lose an election get some sort of payoff that those who resign mid-term don't. Despite the fact that party discipline is quite a bit stronger than in the US, the fiction is maintained that every MP is elected as an individual, so there's no way for their party to force them to resign their seat.
That's nice she apologized to him, but I'm still waiting on the apology for every other atheist she offended.
And to resign. Because it was an accident - she accidentally revealed a bias that makes her unfit for office.
Correction:
And for her to resign.
using a dead child as an excuse? what a waste of human dna. sherman should have told davis to stuff her "apology."
Russel@#108:
There isn't one. That arose purely in the context of what happened to a British MP who made a racist remark and got away with it, which was a reply to my contention that Davis would have to resign if she'd done the same thing in the UK.
My prediction is that it'd make national news, the media would descend like a pack of wolves, Paxman would have a field-day, the MP would be disavowed by the party and condemned on all sides, and would have to resign from the party. Yes s/he would probably hang on until the end of the term without the whip, but wouldn't get re-elected as an independent. End of career.
If she's going to be that way every time a student gets killed in Chicago then I think it's safe to say that she will ALWAYS be that way considering how many are killed every year. Sometimes living in Chicago sucks.
Ok then. It's time to put this to rest.
From now on, for every death caused by religiously-motivated terrorist activity, for every homosexual who is beaten by punks for his sexual orientation, for every woman living the sit-down-and-shutup fundy christian life, for every child whose brain is warped by creationist lies and the imagined guilt of original sin and puritanical behavioral constriction, every atheist gets a pass for some kind of emotional outburst. They'd have a week to apologize for the outburst, but they'd be off the hook and there'd be no repercussions.
Fair's fair.
A few things seem fairly clear to me.
- Davis probably really does feel the way she indicated about atheists, and will probably continue to feel that way.
- She probably only apologised because of the fairly heavy levels of public flak her outburst caused.
- it was still the right thing for her to do, and kudos to her for doing it.
Re #114. Yes, about right. Whether the same would happen if it was a Davis-type anti-atheist outburst - probably, but because the MP would be considered to have simply made themselves ridiculous, rather than having done something seriously reprehensible. Which is reasonable - not that there isn't anti-atheist prejudice and discrimination in the UK, but its at nothing like US levels. Even in Northern Ireland, which is anomalously religious (though less so than 20 years ago, hence, in part, the outbreak of peace), the old joke was that if you announced you were an atheist you'd be asked "Yes, but are you a Protestant atheist, or a Catholic atheist?"
Let this go. In all likelihood, it's a face-saving not-pology from a Christofascist bigot, but it's done, and Sherman cordially accepted it.
Yes, the rest of America deserves one from her as well, but it ain't gonna get one. With a little luck and a lot of democracy, she'll be sorry enough next election.
We've got bigger fish to fry than this pig-headed loon, now that she's tacitly acknowledged that, as others have noted, publicly slandering atheists is beginning to have consequences.
Besides, I'm already at capacity when it comes to grudges. Stupid ex-girlfriend.
Planet Killer, if you can't see the difference between an elected representative, not just ignoring the constitution, but openly trashing it in an open political forum in trying to silence someone not part of her in group, compared to posters on a blog criticising her notpology, however strong their language, then there is little else left to say. I thought that part of the oath of office of any US public servant was to uphold the constitution, or do they only have to uphold it for their in group or when it suits them.
One final point. I think like a scientist, most of the time anyway :), so give me empirical evidence of god and I will accept that he exists. However, that still doesn't mean I will worship him or become a xian, muslim or whatever, i.e. depending on who the evidence shows is the real god. For if the xian, muslim or whatever god actually exists he has long ago lost any possibility of respect. I think you will find that all on here who claim to be rational would take the same stance, i.e. look at the evidence and decide from there.
And no, when we discover new evidence, the old scientific theory doesn't necessarily get discarded as wrong, instead being recognised as being limited or incomplete and is usually incorporated into the new expanded theory. An example being Newtonian Physics. In everyday use it is perfectly valid and routinely used in many fields, however, there are situations where instead we need to use Einsteinian physics to account for relativistic effects. The same is true in most fields of science, such as so called Darwinism. His original theory isn't wrong, just incomplete, as he didn't have the knowledge we now have and are adding to at an almost exponential rate. Remember, science is an is not an ought, i.e. it doesn't prescribe but describe.
I drafted Rep. Davis a public apology that would address most of the issues raised. I'm sure it could be made better, but what do you think: should we send it to her as a suggestion?
"I want to extend my sincerest apologies to Rob Sherman, to the people of this great State of Illinois, and to all Americans, for the remarks I made to Rob Sherman during his testimony before the House State Government Administration Committee. My outburst was inexcusable. I apologize to those I hurt. I reaffirm the rights of all citizens to petition their government, whether they profess a faith or no faith. And I pray that I can understand and overcome the fear that led to this regrettable outburst. Let this incident give us the opportunity to reach out to each other in understanding and in hope, and strengthen our commitment to the principles of freedom this country was founded upon. Thank you."
Okay, so it's not the bald-faced "I done fucked up, need to really rethink this whole hating-on-atheists thing, and I'm sorry I spat on my public office, y'all" that I wanted to write, but you know - one must keep in mind that no politician in this country is ever going to be that honest. ;-)
Oh and to Planet Killer:
You'd best stop assuming things like "[e]ven if there was evidence for God, you are never going to see it". It only reaffirms that you're content to blather about things that you clearly don't understand (and further, if true, it has profound implications for the nature of your God that you sure as hell won't want to face). Many of us came from religious backgrounds and tried (oh, how we tried!) to see evidence for god, all the while surrounded by people like you who were convinced (or at least pretended to be) that they had no problem seeing the same.
Anybody living in the NYC area, here's a bunch of sanctimonious lies from one of your own, Bruce Bennett, in the Sun:
Dear Bruce,
First of all, God you're a dumb suck-up to Stein's lies.
Why don't you, like, act as if you were a thinking person, and ask what fucking evidence exists that there is an "inflexible Darwinist dogma" in existence, and ask why a lying hound like Stein should be believed by you. The fact is that Stein is too damn ignorant even to know what is covered by evolutionary theory, and pretends that issues like gravity and the Big Bang can't be questioned due to the suppression by "Darwinists".
But then apparently the ignorant readily deceive the gullible like yourself. You're a disgrace to all journalism, as well as to anybody who actually thinks prior to speaking or writing. You're a pathetic waste of air. The only good thing is that you're in an area that has many people much smarter and better informed than yourself, and you will be jeered for your gullibility, lies, and general stupidity.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Anything short of resignation and a public apology is simply not good enough. Forget the fact that her outburst was directed at atheist, she should be ashamed at her total lack of regard for the first amendment, and her total ignorance of history. Having a bad day is no excuse.
Somehow that doesn't sound as an apology at all.
she's a self-righteous cunt and no amount of apologizing will change that. Her apology was a non-apology. She needs to be voted out of office at the next election and atheists need to take the lead on making this happen. Metaphorically, her head needs to be put on a pike as a reminder to all those other bible thumping extremists who use political office to further their religious agenda - it won't be tolerated. There is a separation of church and state in this country and she crossed the line. She's not fit for public service.
As far as I'm concerned you can take the gas or commit suicide in any way you care to. This crap about apologizing after that freaking outrage cuts no ice with me. You apologized because of all the nasty replies from us and across the country on line and in print and the broadcast media. But you meant what you said so therefore your bullshit apology is a phony. I never apologized for the comments I render on this site because I state them in honesty and with the hope that those I direct them to will accept them as so and perhaps dwell on them as my true and unbiased opinions. This only serves to prove that remarks fueled by religion against those who do not ascribed to their brand of insanity are bitter and meant to demean. I would not forgive you if your life depended on it. Did your god compel you to sob your forgiveness, or was it purely a political matter in the future light of reelection?
I don't forgive or forget when the action against me is totally unwarranted and offensive. Did Lincoln forgive you as you so disingenuously invoked his hoped for support? Of course your opinions will remain the same and will therefore be available for future ranting outbursts against your intelligent betters. Piss of Davis.
I think some of you have missed the point that could be made in regard to Mel Gibson's example. At least Gibson was in fact drunk. Monique Davis was not. I know for a fact that I have thoughts occur to me from whatever influence that I do not rationally believe, but if I'm drunk I might unthinkingly blurt out such thoughts even though I do not in fact seriously believe them. But Davis wasn't drunk. However, it's good to know that she has apologized - sincerely or not - for her statements. That alone tells us that when other people express such irrational sentiments they can be publicly influenced to acknowledge the error of the statements (regardless of whether or not privately they really think their statements are not in error), so public criticism of these kinds of attacks is not pointless.
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.
"I'm sorry for calling the cops when I saw you standing on the corner waiting for the bus, Mr. Black Man, but I just heard on the radio that a woman had been assaulted a few miles from here.... So I'm sure you can understand where I was coming from...."
What's that thing about stopping when you've dug a hole for yourself?
Oh, and qedpro, there's no valid excuse for her bigotry, but there's also no valid excuse for your misogyny.
DOn't count omn me apologizing to any evilutionist given the two decades of observation of theiur nazi methods, insults to perfectly qualified scientists, lies to school children for decades and generally taking life science in to the dark ages.
Only a few more days until the American people receive the information necessary to overturn this charade called evolution.
I recommend you start disguising yourselves as normal by wearing underwear, shaving, showering weekly, and not brownbagging brown rice and yogurt every day.
Otherwise the dobermans will find you rather quickly.
But do you believe them at all, even irrationally? I don't think Gibson's insane remarks were ONLY the product of booze. Those thoughts are his own deeply hidden racist thoughts, the ones he doesn't show day to day, lest it reflect poorly on him. The booze merely lowered his inhibitions and increased his aggressiveness, allowing the world to see a snapshot of True Mel.
Keith, your violent imaginings suggest that you've been hiding your meds under your tongue and surreptitiously spitting them out when nobody's looking. Again. By the way, did you fess up to Nurse R. about those diseased fleas you've been harboring? It's time to come clean, sweetie. You know you have to do some of the work yourself, or nothing's going to change.
What information was that again?
The information that reveals IDers that clueless and vindictive?
Seems the American people already understand that as the IDers fail and fail and fail and fail....
Thankyou Kseniya for saying exactly what I was thinking.
I guess I shouldn't be shocked that everyone is missing the point, seeing as this has to do with someone publicly insulting us, thus it's an emotional issue. But the point remains, that we're beginning to have a political presence. And of course her "apology" was crap and face saving. But again, I'll ask: Did you really think her mind was going to change? And did you actually expect her to give us any more than the very least that she had to? It would be politically foolish of her to gravel before a currently weak constituency, as we don't hold that much sway. Yet.
As for the spousal abuse analogy, I'm floored. That's horrid logic. Accepting Davis' apology is not like taking back an abusive lover, it's like backhanding a bully and having them take it. The bully remains big, but now it knows you'll hit back. Accepting the apology is frankly a no-brainer political move that can't help but make Sherman come out on top in this, after we the previously powerless, "most hated" and "like herding cats" atheists caused a public rep to back down. It's a start.
As for the rest who continue to call for resignation and public apologies, you get what you put in. You want public apologies? Organize more people next time. You want resignations? Create a powerful voting block. But don't fool yourselves into thinking that you're going to get more than what you have the muscle for, right at the very beginning.
If anything take all this continuing indignation and keep hammering away. So that the next time someone spouts off (and there will be a next time) we get public ass-kissing and resignations. But we simply don't get to begin at that level of political clout.
Thank you Keith, your paranoid rant just gave me the laugh I've been needing all morning.
A lot of these "She apologised, toughen up" sort of comments remind me all too much of what goes on when someone gets called on sexism. All of a sudden, people who give a damn about sexism are "whiny" and need to toughen up (bonus points for the misogynists in the crowd who say "whiny bitches"). Telling an oppressed group that the half-assed efforts of a member of the oppressor class to recognise their privilege when called on it is "good enough" and that members of the oppressed class are "whiny" for complaining about its shortcomings is perpetuating the oppression. Personally, I actually do think the people here who are saying her apology was insufficient have a valid critique. The bigoted remarks aren't even the point -- the attempt by a legislative member to deny a citizen his or her rights as a citizen is the point.
In the US at least, atheists (along with women, fat people, and LGBTQ people) are one of the last minorities left that it's okay to hate in public.
Attacking an atheist in this country is like attacking a communist
Yeah, and nobody ought to be doing that, either. Last I checked, neither Communism nor being a communist were illegal in the United States, and it ought not to be any skin off anyone's nose how you think society ought to be organised, as long as you're not -- as Christianists so often are -- trying to take other people's rights away by law or force.
Michael X,
I think you make a very good point.
For my part, I didn't even expect an apology. What I have said is what I'd like - a public apology of a sincere nature vice the notpology Sherman got. As you say, what we got is more than we could've expected even a couple years ago. I think the real driver for Davis was KO's Worst Person in the World segment.
a) It's grovel, not gravel.
b) Yes, I agree, hence my saying that it would be easier for Rep. Davis to go on live television juggling flaming chainsaws while gargling Gershwin.
We don't have to read her mind. We heard her words.
She's sorry she got caught. That is all.
And now you can fuck off.
Michael X,
I don't think EVERYONE missed it.
;-)
Louis
Interrobang,
That's perfectly wrong. The argument is not "She apologized, now everyone can leave her be." It's that she apologized, now we need to keep on her and everyone else to get bigger results next time. Even sexism had to be fought by beginning small and gaining political clout. It is the indignant refusal to acknowledge what we just accomplished that is being argued against. Not the fact that Davis' actions remain wrong and deserve a harsher beating. Which if we keep building, they will get in the future.
Stanton,
"Grovel". Thank you. Spell check failed me. And I can't spell. (I did enjoy the chainsaw visual btw)
Louis,
I do realize that many have cheered the fact. But they're a bit of a minority. I do think Mrs. Tilton said it well too, up thread. That said, I though the point was worth repeating.
TrueBob, I have to object... somewhat. Booze and drugs do more than simply lower the barriers - they also torpedo rationality, and distort what's behind those barriers and how those things get expressed.
Surely you know that Mel's father is a known Holocaust denier. I think it's fair to speculate on what effect that had on Mel's upbringing and on what sorts of thoughts were planted in his head when he was too young to rationally evalutate them.
Sure, those anti-semitic thoughts are in his head - but that doesn't mean he accepts them, believes them, or wants them. They're like a memetic disease he can't purge from his system. They're embedded too deep.
So, in that sense, those attitudes are part of who he is. They are in there. They are real. But the fact that Gibson didn't already have a reputation as an anti-semite suggests that he'd spent time and energy on an internal effort to clean up those memes that he rationally knew weren't valid. We all know that alcohol is the enemy of rationality, and that's what broke down - not the wall that hid his "true" feelings, but the rational defense that he himself had, over time, erected against the (perhaps passive, but still profound) indoctrination he'd suffered at the hands of his father.
The way I see it, what came out that night was an expression of part of the Complete Mel - but not necessarily an expression of the True Mel.
Mel's not the only person who suffers to bear the attitudes of his parents. Not everyone who had racist thoughts implanted in their heads as children are racists. I have talked to people who admit to having ugly little thoughts expressed by their inner voice, thoughts about persons of color, about Jews, about homosexuals - thoughts they hate and know are false, but which are impossible to completely eradicate. Ultimately they've realized that their jobs as adults, as parents, as teachers and so forth, is to treat the disease by steadfastly refusing to pass it on to the next generation.
Did you see Gibson interviewed by Barbara Walters a month or so before the release of Passion? It was very interesting. He denied any anti-semitic slant to the film. As he put it, involving Jews in the story is unavoidable: "There were Romans there. There were Jews there. There were no Norweigians there."
I subsequently saw the film. I was looking for the alleged anti-semitic slant. I could not find it. Confirmation bias? Well, frankly, I presumed I'd likely find it. *shrug*
Walters asked him about his father. Mel replied simply that he loved his father, but didn't want to talk about his father's controversial views. Didn't want to go there publically. IMO, his words and body language translated to something like this: "My dad's views are crazy, but he's my dad, and I love him. So while I'm not going to defend him, I refuse to publically denounce him. For us, it's a private matter."
I realize that Mel can be a jerk, I think his stance on Biblical Literalism is ludicrous, but I also think a more nuanced analysis of his infamous outburst, with regard to what it reveals, is not unwarranted.
andrew,
Oh, and qedpro, there's no valid excuse for her bigotry, but there's also no valid excuse for your misogyny.
It is perfectly acceptable for a woman to call another woman a cunt. Only a woman truly knows what a cunt is, and Davis is a cunt. If you're not a woman, you'll have to take my word for it.
There is nothing misogynistic in my statements.
Kseniya, I remain unconvinced. You have some pretty persuasive thoughts there, and I certainly understand those annoying inner voice irrationalities. But the actual nature of the confrontation, IMHO, goes beyond remnants of a repugnant upbringing. Face to face with someone he assumed to be a Jew, accusing the Jews of culpability in all wars? That is over the edge (again, IMHO). Very personal, in your face, with a cop no less.
And no, I didn't see his interview nor his film. Personally, it sounded just brutal. I can only assume he more or less reproduced the story in the gospels.
Unless the crowd called out "Welease Wodewick!"
I have to agree with Michael X in so far as we can not expect her actual feelings or prejudices to change, just her public airing of them. She obviously still feels that atheists are vile monsters out to corrupt the children but now she has been shown there is a political price for displaying her bigotry. I just hope every one of the members of the legislature, who allowed her outburst and then effectively silenced him when he wanted to respond to it, payed close attention.
Enabling bigots will not be tolerated either.
She insulted all atheists, but "apologised" only to Sherman.
(Since it was a private "apology")
To date she has not offered me, or any of you, an "apology".
(Since it was not a public "apology".)
It's more than a joke: I was asked exactly that question in South Armagh (he was half-joking and wholly serious). Religion in NI is inextricably complicated by politics, history, and tradition. It was never simple: being Protestant or Catholic meant a lot more than the church you went to on Sunday. If you're from Ireland (anywhere on the island), people in NI would assume "which side you're on" based on your name, if your name is even slightly ambiguous (as mine is), you would be asked questions (subtle or not) that would be considered utterly bizarre in any other context in an attempt to figure out your "leanings".
Posted by: qedpro | April 11, 2008 12:00 PM
Yay misogyny!!
Keith, is your god going to appear- again? Make sure you show it to all of us so that we can grovel and shake with
unalloyed mirth and beg forgiveness for all those years of rational thought and behavior. Will the brown bag contain it or shit? Hark, Monique Davis is calling you to serve as her advanced welcoming committee to greet the imaginary
object of both your insane rantings. Woof Woof!
Yes, it's funny, but some of the odder Christian sects do just that...Well, at least they use live rattlesnakes (and other poisonous snakes) to demonstrate their fitness
http://www.rickross.com/groups/snake.html
There is nothing misogynistic in my statements.
Yes, there is. Being a woman does not absolve you from making comments that are derogatory towards women. Holy shit, think about what you just wrote. A cunt is a part of a woman, by definition. If you choose to use a body part that is exclusive to women as a derogatory term, you are saying that women's body parts are bad, and by extension women are bad. Having a cunt is not an excuse to use it as a slur. Surely you can be more creative and come up with a more equal-opportunity insult.
Isn't it time Keith was retired to whatever primate troop he was stolen from? Between Washoe, Nim Chimpsky, Koko the Gorilla, and now Keith, the data're all in and Noam Chomsky's theory that humans are hard-wired for language has all but been validated. Keith's rantings, though a form of communication unto themselves, do not constitute human language. I don't doubt that Keith is a very clever primate with a sincere desire to please his handlers, but all we've seen from him so far is an ability to parrot overheard phrases, likely produced through operant conditioning.
I don't mean to start another animal testing flame war, but I think it's pretty clear that our ethical and compassionate duty is to hand him a banana and send him to a nice, cozy zoo.
If I wanted that kind of response I can take myself back to Junior high school.
well, that does seem to be about where your education left off.
off you go, then.
Carlie, by your logic if I call somebody a "dick" I am being misandrous and insulting all men. If I call somebody an "asshole" I am insulting all animals with a complete gut.
qedpro's epithet was explicitly directed at one individual, not all women. I am willing to take her word that it was not applied in a misogynist fashion.
Ich, when my mom was in grad school (FSU), she studied a church of snake handlers as an anthro assignment. Kooky.
Ich, when my mom was in grad school (FSU), she studied a church of snake handlers as an anthro assignment. Kooky.
did she happen to gander at whether child abuse charges were ever leveled by any local DA against any of the various individual pentecostal cult groups?
Yes, Sven, you are correct. Dick is a misandrous term, and it really ought not to be used, either. Asshole is different, because with regard to the words associated with reproductive functions, it's a direct reference to the gender itself as being something bad. You might as well say "you're such a girl". It is directed at all women, because it implies that being a cunt is a BAD THING. All women have them, therefore, they're all bad. Taking out dick, cunt, and bitch from one's insult word list is really not a huge imposition, especially not from people the likes of which we have here who have come up with some amazingly creative and clever insults that don't demean entire groups of people. (And just in case you're wondering, no, you shouldn't use retard either. Sorry to limit the vocabulary by SO MUCH.)
That is truly all I'm going to say about it, because I'm really, really, really not going to get into another language derailing war like what happened the last time insults were questioned on this blog.
You get points for consistency. It's not something I'm willing to argue about either; connotations are in the, uh, mind? of the beholder.
Ding dong! Women can be misogynistic too! And whether you are male or female (or haven't yet made up your mind) you are apparently a misogynist. There is absolutely no reason to use a sex/gender based insult to describe this deplorable person.
"The bigoted remarks aren't even the point -- the attempt by a legislative member to deny a citizen his or her rights as a citizen is the point."
Exactly. That's my problem with this person holding public office. Next election time, that's the issue that should be harped on "Monique Davis believes in liberty and justice...for some."
Her apology was pretty lame even by apology standards, but at least she's not hiding behind her Christofascist supporters like Sally Kern. So I agree with Michael X., although I think some reprimanding from the legislative body is still in order.
and p.s. I am in complete agreement about "retard," which really bothers me.
fucktard is still ok, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfYENNup27k
Ah, keith. Wanking off to dreams of the time you get to kill everyone who disagrees with you...
...wait...
...who was supposed to be the nazi again?
Sven,
(Ok, so I said I'd shut up...) I think you're right, that connotations are important with regard to the intent of the person using the terms. However, I guess what I've come to see in the last couple of years (after being heavily schooled by people who were insulted by what I was saying) is that it's not really appropriate to defend using offensive terms by saying well, that's not what I meant. Ok, I didn't mean it, but it still hurt someone, and it's not decent to use words that hurt someone else as collateral damage. So, once I realize that it's a term that insults a whole group of people I didn't mean to insult, it's better to say sorry and try and find an alternate insult rather than keep saying that I didn't mean it that way, so you shouldn't be offended. It's the word choice that's being criticized, not necessarily the person using those words, so the easy way to avoid it is to choose different words. And there are so, so many other good insults to choose from that it's not a huge loss to remove a few of them.
Davis didn't apologize for what she said about atheists, or for her bigotry. She apologizes for her outburst and for taking out her frustration on Sherman. Sherman graciously accepted her apology, and it was well made. However that Davis owes more than just an apology to Sherman. She blasted him for his atheism, which by extension includes everyone who shares his beliefs. If she truly was angry about the shooting, and didn't intend to malign atheists, if she believes that atheists have as much right to speak up as theists, then she needs to issue a public retraction of her statements, and apologize for her bigotry.
If she stands by her statements, as Sally Kern did, then she's nothing but a bigot, and needs to be unseated by another worthy Chicago resident.
And there are so, so many other good insults to choose from that it's not a huge loss to remove a few of them.
Erm, I don't know about that. Seems our list is dwindling. 'Retard' is off for good reason, but I'm having some trouble coming up with suitable replacements to describe some of the creos that enjoy wanking here (honestly, I'd never personally encountered anyone as stupid as some of them before I began reading this and other blogs). Also, how cut & dried are these rules? For instance, can we refer to sexuality indirectly by referring to acts, such as calling someone a 'jizzlobbing felcher'?
C: Fair enough. Don't think I've ever called anybody a "cunt" anyway.
(I still think Dick Cheney's a dick, though.)
Re #150 Emmett. Sorry - insensitive of me. Of course when I heard it, being at that time English in England, it sounded like a joke.
Planet Killer @ 76
Can we call ourselves god killers? Note the lower case for your nonexistent crap. No, to say god killers presupposes that there was something to be killed. You cannot kill something that never existed. I have always been peeved at the statement of Nietzsche when he said 'god is dead". I wish he had said, "there is no such thing as a god, only in the minds of the deranged", There Friedrich, I said for you. And this dumb statement that "even if there is a god,you are not going to see it". Why not? Oh come on let us see it! And that second part is a doozer: "Because if you believe in a world view that there is no god, you will ignore the obvious and look for what you want to look for." Wow, that part does not even qualify for obfuscation! What insane prattle! You can rant all you want with deranged obfuscation but you will never prove that your imaginary god is out there. Get the crap out of your brain, smarten up and do some sensible reading and try to redirect your life to one of sane fulfillment.
It's not rules, Brownian, I'm not standing here with a ruler ready to smack people over the head. I don't know about the sex terms - do you think sex is insulting? I guess I could see where some people would think it is, others wouldn't. There was a discussion about cocksucker recently, for instance, wherein people who enjoy that particular activity were quite upset by the use of it as a derogative. I kind of enjoy sex, so I don't think there's anything bad about it that would make sense to use as an insult.
(I still think Dick Cheney's a dick, though.)
..and he was voted more evil than Paris Hilton on Lewis Black's show last night.
(they also called him a dick, btw)
Ooohh, I get it now. All this time I thought "Dick" was his title.
Ooohh, I get it now. All this time I thought "Dick" was his title.
it's that, too, but you forgot to put "King" in front of it to complete the official title.
this administration makes Jesus cry.
I think the worst implication in this entire event is in Davis' apology; it implies that she feels as if Atheists are responsible for school shootings!
Huh. And now that I've said that, I realize I use the term fuck an awful lot, which flies right in the face of me just saying that sex isn't a good topic for insults. Damn it all to hell.
Any term involving douche, however, is fair game, if that helps. Douches, although an exclusively female-oriented product, were designed around the idea that wimmen's parts were naturally rotten and dirty, which of course isn't true, and in fact the douches themselves caused countless infections and irritations. So that's completely on-board.
Christians should not be allowed to hold public office!!!!
Oops, sorry, I was just thinking about that demented cult of child-raping fuckwits.
My bad!
I have to admit, my first reaction to seeing the headline was to feel vaguely dirty, and to think "We really don't want an apology from the likes of someone who thinks what she said the other day". But having thought about it a little, I think this is a very good thing--it may signal a coming of age for us in a way, a sign that we're just on the cusp of starting to win some acceptance.
Public figures make over-the-top statements occasionally, and the ritual is to follow that with a public apology, which generally closes the matter. This has happened on a number of occasions where someone has made a mocking statement about religion or a religious group, and then had to publicly eat crow for it. But this is the first time I can think of where someone has made a statement against atheism and been made to publicly apologize for it. So I'm thinking that this may be the dawn of a new era for us. I'll drink to that (tonight)!
It could be time to pull out the Shakespearean Insult Generator.
True Bob: You have a point, there. I realize that I failed to review what it was that Mel actually said that night, so my analysis - though I believe it is legitimate as far as it goes - is woefully incomplete.
Perhaps Mel Gibson is, after all, nothing but a froward fool-born gudgeon.
LOL!
Nick #171:
No, don't worry, I wasn't in any way offended at all, I just thought the explanation might be interesting or amusing. I laughed my ass off when I was asked and the guy said it with a wry smile: he understood the irony of the question taken at face value, and he knew well that I both understood the subtext, and had been a bit of a smart-arse in telling him that I'm an atheist ... but he still wanted to know :o)
#97 - how do you pray with a snake in your mouth?
"Mnph! Mmrrph!!" *points at clouds*
I think the real question would be how do you do anything other than pray when there's a snake in your mouth? I know I'd be thinking something along the lines of "Oh holy jesus christ get it out help help!"
Re #182 Emmet (I even spelled the name right this time) - I thought that was probably the case but (usually) I'd rather apologise unnecessarily than not apologise when I should. Comes of being middle-class southern English, perhaps.
I know I'd be thinking something along the lines of "Oh holy jesus christ get it out help help!"
I think I'd be trying to get someone else to call Samuel L. Jackson.
[Samuel L voice]
It's snakes in yo mouth muthaf*cka!
[/Samuel L voice]
*Grr*...Must...restrain...inner...14-year-old...*unghh*...
with...mind...in...gutter....*urk*...can't do it!
Traditionally Carlie, that question was binary: spit or swallow.
*Sob!* I'm sorry everyone, I-I, I couldn't help myself....
#3, 8, 23 (and many previous threads) - Stepping away from the Davis bigot - why is "tool" an insult now? Some decades ago, a "tool" was an MIT nerd, "tooling" was studying, a "toolbox" was a study carrel, etc. It wasn't any kind of praise, but it wasn't an insult, either.
And at Wesleyan Univ., those nerds were "squids"!
Actually, no, you can't point, as in one hand, you're holding a rattle, and the other, I believe you're holding a sprig of cedar, while dancing.
Amongst the tent revivals, you're in such a crazy, hazy daze that you don't notice that you happen to be handling live snakes (it helps that the ministers tend to use tamed snakes that are trained to be handled by frothing crazies, too)
People who are questioning Davis's sincerity are completely missing the point.
The point is that Davis's remarks were not allowed to go unchallenged, and she was (essentially) forced to apologize by the court of public opinion.
This is a good thing.
Whether or not Davis's apology is sincere (and it almost surely is not) is irrelevant.
I don't want the fake public ritual. I want her to actually feel ashamed of her bigotry.
Maybe at MIT this was so, but to my knowledge a 'tool' is someone too stupid to realize he's being used. Like the rank and file creationists, f'rex.
Re #189 "Tool" is, or used to be, a British synonym for "dick", though I don't remember it being used as an insult.
Brownian, I think it would depend greatly on whether it's the kind of snake with one eye or two!
That might account for a few of the cases in a stratified analysis I saw of rattlesnake bites reported in Arizona, but I doubt there are enough practicing Hopi religious leaders to totally skew the stats their way.
Basically, what it came down to was this: for females of all ages (before and after puberty) and for pre-pubertal males, the cases of rattlesnake bite were predominantly on the feet and ankles, implying they were incurred when a rattlesnake was inadvertently stepped on. For post-pubertal males, on the other hand, the number of bites above the waist and on the face (and lips!) were significantly higher than in the other groups.
The study's implication is that there is a positive correlation between testosterone and thinking that picking up a rattlesnake and bringing it close to other body parts is a good idea.
Nick #193:
Same in Ireland, but (at least in the part of Dublin where I'm from) it was often used as an insult, although I've no idea whether it's used much any more: particular insults tend be "in vogue" for a while and then go out of fashion. Funny to think that, in time, "asshat" and "fucktard" may go the way of "bounder" and "blighter".
Not good enough. She needs to apologize for her bigotry, not just her volume.
It's used as an insult here in the States, too, but it's one you don't necessarily have to censor on polite Web site. It can also be used as a straight biological euphemism, of course.
Here in Sweden the standard offensive insult is to call someone 'djavla fitta' - the translation of which is 'cunt of the devil' - and he's still considered male!
I'm not sure I agree with some on this thread who want to remove all the offensiveness from insults - isn't that sort of the point behind them?
I agree that calling someone a cunt is just as sexist as calling someone a prick or a dick etc but we unfortunately are in an environment where we have a limit number of appropriate words to use in such a manner (and remember the whole point of the manner is offense).
Or maybe I'm just talking out of my Dembski.
And it still is so. :) But current MIT students also use "tool" in the sense it's being used in this thread, also.
Okay, now I am really angry. (I've come back late to the thread and things have moved on but this comment - and a few others like it - pissed me off so much I'm not going to let it go. Sorry)
Rant ON.
Well, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. Who the hell are you, spiritual heir to Stalin? We're telling people what to think now? It's not enough we tell them they are ignorant and deluded, it's not enough we tell them to keep their god out of our schools and our government, we tell them to keep him out of their own heads? Why don't we tell them what they can eat and what they can wear while we're at it? Hell, let's send 'em to re-education camps, why not? Up in Siberia maybe?
Or am I wrong? You're not telling her what to think. Just telling her to lie. For the good of the party, comrade? Get this into your head: she has every right to believe whatever the fuck she wants to believe, and she doesn't have to lie about it to please you. As a lifetime non-believer I am ashamed to share a platform - hell, ashamed to share a planet - with anyone who thinks that she does.
What can we demand?
We can demand an apology.
We can demand her resignation.
Hell, we could even demand her prosecution for abuse of power.
But we cannot demand she says she is wrong when she believes she is right.
It's your first fucking amendment. Read it. Now, live up to it.
Rant OFF
Mrs Tilton #74. If I say that was good enough to have been written by Sastra, will you accept that as the highest compliment I can pay you?
Yes, we probably should coin new insults that actually reflect our values.
It's depressing sometimes, when I look into their etymology, to see where some words came from -- e.g., "villain" originally meant, basically, "peasant". Once I knew that, I didn't want to use the word any more.
A public apology is absolutely appropriate. Her tirade, like any bigoted tirade, had a chilling effect on the targeted population. She made it clear that we atheists are not welcome to voice our concerns to our own elected officials!
Until she clears that up publicly, I'm going to go ahead and assume her government does not tolerate me or my views.
Sigmund, re: 'cunt of the devil', perhaps this is a translation issue, but in English it's ambiguous as to whether this possessive would refer to an anatomical feature of the devil's incarnate form itself, or a minion, hench(wo)man, servant, etc. of said devil, along the same lines as a 'Gangster's Moll', if you take my point. Also, at least in "Mr. Deity" episodes, the devil is portrayed as female.
I have learned the hard way to google any new insult that I'm thinking of incorporating into my lexicon. I was much surprised to find that the British insult 'berk' is cockney slang for 'cunt', e.g. Similarly, the seemingly innocuous 'git' is derived from an old slang term for 'bastard'. I'm sure half the people who use these insults aren't aware of their origins, as the common usage is as a substitute for the more generic 'idiot', 'fool', etc.
As an aside, I am greatly indebted to Brownian for expanding my sexual slang vocabulary immensely, as I have to google nearly every term he deploys in that category (e.g. 'felcher', just in this thread alone).
As to the Davis issue, I'm with Carlie on this one, again. Her seething spectacle of anger toward Sherman had nothing to do with the fact that she's a woman. Hence, using female-specific slurs to denigrate her would seem imprecise, as well as inappropriate. The pedants among us should aim higher.
Who the hell are you, spiritual heir to Stalin?
well, I'm not sure I know who he is, but I sure as hell recognize an idiotic strawman when I see one.
sure your handle isn't more appropriately "peddler"?
Unlike christians, I don't enjoy thinking I'm being persecuted for my beliefs, so I give her a pass this time. The apology was lame, but she tried, and I think she was genuinely embarrassed upon reflection. While we are at it we should see is we can get states with anti atheist laws on the books to rescind those statutes, even though there are so unconstitutional that nobody would dream of trying to enforce them.
So, please tell us where in the First Amendment that allows an elected official to rant at an atheist about how utterly disgusting and irredeemably evil she finds him and all other atheists?
More to the point, where does the 1st Amendment allow an elected official, in his/her official capacity, to expel (or try to expel) an individual from the stand on the grounds of the person's religious beliefs? It's legally and constitutionally the same as if she had done that to a Catholic or a Jew, for instance.
Last I heard, "freedom of speech" does not give a person, especially not an elected official, the right/privilege/duty to discriminate against another person because of that other person's (lack of) religious beliefs.
In fact, last I heard, it's (supposed to be) illegal to do so in this country.
"cunt of the devil" sounds kind of intriguing, since it seems directed more at religion (a changeable opinion) than women (an intractable trait you have no control over), unless it is indeed referring to a girl lackey. Sure, the point of insults is to be offensive, but only to that particular person you're aiming at. The problem with sexist and racist and mental capacity-based insults is that they do a lot of collateral damage by implying that the entire group referred to in the slur is just as bad as the person being insulted in the first place, even if it's not originally meant that way.
I will say a huge thank you that the little diversion this caused was entirely civil and calm, regardless of how differently we all might feel on the issue.
Nice one, Sig! Second biggest laugh of the day.
The first was this (Star Trek fans only; h/t Grrlscientist).
I would accept her apology, as long as it included her resignation.
Pedlar said: Or am I wrong? You're not telling her what to think. Just telling her to lie. For the good of the party, comrade? Get this into your head: she has every right to believe whatever the fuck she wants to believe, and she doesn't have to lie about it to please you.
Well, she does have every right to think what she likes, but sorry, as a public official, she most certainly should lie about it, or more realistically, just keep her mouth shut, when what would come out of it otherwise would go against the very principles our government officials are supposed to uphold. Aside from the ideological argument, it's just simple common sense. And it's for the good of the country Mr. Builder of Straw, not of any party.
"Many Christians figure that anything is excusable, so long as you do it in Jesus' name."
I really hope you are joking because this is a really ignorant statement.
How so, PK? Abraham was willing to murder his own child because he thought God told him to, and that's about as cruel and evil an act as I can imagine. Yet that story is held up as a prime example of perfect faith, Abraham being the example everyoen should follow.
"well, that does seem to be about where your education left off. off you go, then."
You are kidding right? I thought about not posting a response to this, but look at your above post for a while and then say that again.
I don't know whether to feel pleased or embarrassed.
I'm going to boldly defend my comparison between this and a statement of racism. Race gets a special protected status because of collective guilt issues, but in the end it's still a matter of judging someone based on things we're not supposed to be judging them on. Don't try to put words in my mouth, I'm not defending racists, racism IS still a problem in this country, I know. If it wasn't it wouldn't have been such a potent example. Discriminating against a religious group may differ because you have the ability to change your beliefs while people generally don't have the ability to change the color of their skin (Michael Jackson excepted), but it's still a form of discrimination.
She actively discriminated against an atheist, specifically because of his atheism. If it had been a more politically popular group that she'd spoken out against she wouldn't still be in office. If you don't like skin color, pick another group. What if she'd been an atheist who said the SAME THING, only in regards to Christianity? Out on her ass in a day. It's lot easier to show Christianity being destructive than atheism, but the repercussions of saying it about Christianity would have been far worse.
I want to believe what some are saying, that this apparently forced apology means that there was significant pressure and that means that atheism is gaining some political traction and support. Perhaps that's so. But you don't stop and rest on your laurels once you make one step in the right direction. The response is still far less than would have been accepted had she spoken out against any other religion, with the possile exception of Islam (which is also fashionable to bash).
The fact remains that she was not the only one involved in this, either. There is still that other voice clearly staying "Amen" after her tirade.
Oh, you should definitely feel pleased! I feel wickedly and surreptitiously gleeful in supposing that I may be the only 40-something soccer mom in town who knows what a 'Dirty Santa' is, and I'm secretly dying to use 'bukkake' in a conversation with said soccer moms and watch it just sail right over their heads (figuratively speaking). Imagine how they would clutch their pearls in horror if only they knew! It is truly delightful to contemplate. :-D
PK, here's two words for you:
Pious Fraud
>It only reaffirms that you're content to blather about
>things that you clearly don't understand
So if you think you know everything then you can tell me so I will know everything there is to know. You are really arrogant and we know where that leads. Titanic was not supposed to sink and it was impossible to sink, but it did and thus the arrogance of people will always tend to be their downfall. But hey, if you know everything let me into what you know.
>(and further, if true, it has profound implications for
>the nature of your God that you sure as hell won't want to
>face).
All I know is this, based on research studies done by near death research foundations(you can find this on the Internet) hundreds of thousands of people have reported back after dying with zero brain activity that there is a world beyond this one. If you want to deny that, be my guest, but it isn't really going to help you to ignore the obvious.
However, according to you, I am ignorant. So please enlighten me. I promise I will read what you have to say. I might not be brainwashed by it, but I am learning to look into it.
>Many of us came from religious backgrounds and tried (oh,
>how we tried!) to see evidence for god, all the while
>surrounded by people like you who were convinced (or at
>least pretended to be) that they had no problem seeing the
>same.
In other words you went to church because your parents told you to go to church and you didn't believe. Well you do have that choice, but please do not say you are educated on what the Bible says. Yes, I really do believe there is a God and I don't hide the obvious truth by acting like a five year old kid where he hides under a blanket so that nobody can see him. I am looking for the truth. PZ Myers and Dawkins can only show scientific evidence from their Godless point of view of the world which is actually totally useless for me anyway.
I do want to learn though, but I want to learn in an environment where there is no bias. Most people of religion do not have any problem with science except evolution (gee, I wonder why that is). It isn't so much that it is in confict with Genesis, they could always just say that God Created everything and it evolved. The reason is that the evidence clearly is biased towards a single world view.
Intelligent Design is not science. Evolution is not real science either. Neither of them should be taught in schools.
Yet, Evolution which cannot be observed and is not proven and is shown from people with ONLY one world view with an extreme bias is not science. Sorry, it's complete crap.
Too many people have been brainwashed by dawkin's and the rest of his world view of no God and bias.
I think for myself. I don't just believe PZ Myers or Dawkin's because they have a degree. That doesn't matter when they take the evidence and they twist it to meet their world view.
Some of the people on this blog are just lemmings. They think because someone has a degree on the subject that they must somehow know what they are talking about. Well, when you have an extemely limited point of view with a very limited world view and all the scientists are from the world view you get tainted evidence with a specific world view that is taught.
The other people that have shown some balls and that don't agree with that world view might find the evidence in another light (and I am not talking ID here). However, they are simply discredited by the rest of the community.
It's crap and it has become like political correctness in the scienctific community. That is why it is not real science. So again whatever evidence is found they will make up some other theory to protect it and the people here will fall into the same trap and agree with it.
So, in the end it is more of a protection of the theory and thus preserving that world view. There is a lot more effort that has gone into this protection of this theory than anything else in science.
No, I wasn't joking. Many Christians really do say and do horrible things, and justify what they have done by saying it was done in Jesus' name. Or, are you not aware of all the times Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have spat and prayed and wished for horrible curses upon the United States because it currently isn't illegal to be gay in the United States?
Furthermore, why is my statement ignorant, whereas your statements dismissing all of science as being ultimately useless because theories are adjusted according to new data, and that people will still find ways to kill themselves even without religion are not ignorant?
"PZ Myers and Dawkins can only show scientific evidence from their Godless point of view of the world which is actually totally useless for me anyway."
Well, then I guess we can just completely write you off then because you've completely written us off. Bye bye, have a nice life.
Tell me why this isn't an ignorant statement even though the evidence for Evolution is so appallingly apparent, that National Geographic has produced literally hundreds of articles relating to Evolutionary Biology for decades?
Or, do you say that Evolution(ary Biology) is not a science because you're too lazy to make an attempt to understand it?
I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be a dirty Sanchez, unless there's something else I don't know.
Planet Killer,
So what then? Make up your own shit as you go along? Never make observations on behaviors? Believe in snakes talking? How about this: Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. -- Genesis 19:36? Now think about Warren Jeffs and his twists on life. Go ahead, apologize for that. Make something else up. Sounds like you've found Neverland...yikes! I want some of that shit you're smokin'.
I am so SICK of all this GODLESS evidence for gravity! When will there be room for my point of view, that objects fall to Earth because demons are pulling them toward Hell?
To turn the witless PK's dumb question on its head, then, why do fundies only have a problem with evolution being supported only by "godless" evidence?
I should note that many theists are much, much smarter than PK and have long since realized that in realms of science -- particularly where their health is at stake -- employing "godless" evidence is far superior to shaking magic sticks and going ooga-booga.
*reaches for bible, kept upside down on bookshelf to negate its evil power...*
Holy incest porn, Batman!
Also, the next chapter features god lying to some random dude, then taking it back...
Heh--DanioPhD, you remind me of a very bittersweet memory.
A few years ago, I attended the memorial service for a brilliant young woman in our graduate program. She was a Goth, and many people from the community attended her service, as well as the academics from that part of her life. The service was an interesting intersection of two very different sub-cultures that clearly did not have a lot in common apart from her.
People were getting up to share stories, and one person recounted a story about a most memorable Halloween costume she had worn to a party, one that still was talked about years later. I was laughing through my tears at the story, yet at the same time totally dreading the possibility that--after the service--any one or all of my department chair, program head, or professors might ask me afterwards to translate for them what a "bukkake princess" was. :)
I have to say that for me, bukkake sounds like a turkish dessert...
well, wazza, in the right group of people, it could be.
PK, this is just nonsense, and I am trying to be kind. Please explain why MET (Modern Evolutionary Theory) is not science? Before you do, first read about the scientific method, and then tell us why evolution does not qualify.
Nothing in science is ever proven. How's that for humility? Science can only falsify, because no matter how sure we are, it is always possible that we will begin to uncover evidence that cannot be explained by the current theory. But that simply hasn't happened with evolution. It is probably the most tested theory in all of science.
If you are serious about learning, please take some time to read some of things on this site: Talk Origins.
My Swedish sucks (just ask any of my Swedish friends), so I'm open to correction, but as far as I know, djävla is the adjectival form of the noun djävul, so it might directly translate more like "devilish" or "devil-like" than "of the devil". The genitive/possesive is formed by adding "s", so both "cunt of the devil" and "devil's cunt" would translate as djävuls fitta. All that said, djävla is usually translated into English more idiomatically as "bloody", "damn" or "fucking", so a less literal translation of djävla fitta would be "fucking cunt".
Actually, Damian, the most tested theory is Gravity...
but evolutions has to be the most tested in Biology
PK, would you mind very much moving your spoutings of ignorant bullshit over to this thread instead of here, please?
'cause we're going for 3K comments over there and you're juuuust the kind of dumbdembski we need to get over the hump.
Thanks!
This is pure speculation, but she may be just now getting her first taste of actual atheists, as opposed to the evil stereotype taught in her church. Many believers associate only with other believers, which makes them susceptible to preachers who demonize and scapegoat outside groups like atheists.
If this is the case, her clumsy and incomplete apology might be a sincere step in the right direction. It takes time to change an entrenched attitude. I think the apology she gave was the best we could realistically expect from some one who harbored so much hatred just last week.
That said, until she publicly accepts atheists as respectable citizens she is unfit for public office.
"... it has nothing to do with Rob Sherman, or atheists in general ..."
But it will serve to plant in the minds of ignorant people the idea that there is a causative connection between atheism and murder.
It cracks me up when believers call atheists lemmings who can't think for themselves.
Emmet@225: A variation on a theme.
Innoculated mind,
Ding dong! Women can be misogynistic too! And whether you are male or female (or haven't yet made up your mind) you are apparently a misogynist. There is absolutely no reason to use a sex/gender based insult to describe this deplorable person.
So by your "logic", and i use that term loosely here, a black person calling another black person "the N word" is racist - against him/herself no less.
Yeah "whatever" in my best valley girl accent.
Davis is the epitomy of cuntdome - Nay the poster child for cuntship. She's a cunt. I chose that word because it best describes my feelings for this particular person. I don't use this word loosely. It does not reflect my feelings for woman in general. It is reserved only for a few select people. For instance - Ann Coulter is another cunt. I'm sure we can all agree on that one.
FYI - just so we have a starting point for your inane rebuttal
According to webster...
Main Entry: mi·sog·y·ny
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈsä-jə-nē\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek misogynia, from misein to hate + gynē woman -- more at queen
Date: circa 1656
: a hatred of women
I do not hate women. Ergo I am not a misogynist.
quedpro, exactly what is a "cunt", in your definition?
carlie,
very hard to describe. its more of a feeling.
but definitely Monique Davis and Ann Coulter fit that word to a tee. And Ann isn't even a woman!!!!
That is why its not misogynistic.
LOL
But if you think about the description in your mind, it most probably has nothing to do with actual cunts and everything to do with being a horrible person. So why use a word that describes a very nice body part in association with something terrible?
re: "Yet, Evolution which cannot be observed and is not proven..."
Neither is the Civil War. What, you were there? It's out of living human memory; it must have never happened. Just a myth made up by northern liberals to try to make the south look bad by claiming they'd go to war to defend a disgusting institution like slavery.
The last U.S. WWI veteran is 107 years old. When he's gone, then WWI never happened either. What... you were there too? No? Scratch WWI. Never happened. Just a myth of a horrible pointless war made up by liberal propagandists to try to prove war is a bad thing.
We're going to lose a lot of history this way.
all body parts are nice. I can't think of one i would prefer to lose over the one you worship.
but nice try though going for the emotional angle.
Come on qedpro, surely Ann Coulter is a prick.
Re #219
"... watch it just sail right over their heads ..."
Now, to me, the really fun part would be spotting how many of these 40-something soccer mums seem to recognise bukkake etc
Jesus Christ Carlie, a little sanctimony goes a long way.
I'm actually impressed that she apologized; it's a rare enough thing that she deserves credit.
Why should she get credit for anything? She acted like a bigoted ass but she should get special points because she appologized? Appologizing doesn't change her attitude nor does it remove what she said in the first place.
Did she just say "Look I'm sorry" or did she say "Atheists aren't a danger to our childr.en". Apologizing to Sherman is fine, she directly insulted him. But she also indirectly insulted Atheists specifically and every other American indirectly because we're all supposed to have a seat at the table. Not just the people in the cool club that she likes.
I have serious doubts that she apologized because she's genuinely sorry or because she really didn't mean what she said. Over the last few days since it came into the public eye she's gotten a lot of bad publicity over it and she's up for election. From the zillion blogs to Olbermann everyone knew what she did and a lot of people emailed her. She felt the pressure and caved. Nothing more.
Not that it matters a whit, but she gets no points from me. Screw her.
@245; 246:
Can't we compromise with a nice, equal opportunity 'festering, gangrenous pustule' or 'manky mound of shit' or something? Barring any peculiar fetishes (Brownian will, I'm sure, chime in with any pertinent info here)I can't imagine anyone but the intended target being offended by such insults.
Danio, you've just reminded me of my uncle, Decubitus Carbuncle...
Ok, that makes no less than 4 references to Ann Coulter.
consider this thread "Coultered"
http://ifuckedanncoulterintheasshard.blogspot.com/
you asked for it.
besides, all this talk of refining insults needed some nastiness tossed in.
Why can't we just call her a janglere and a goliardeys, or something?
It cracks me up when believers call atheists lemmings who can't think for themselves.
It's amusing, but really it's just a symptom of an uderlying psychological malady where projection and denial are just obvious symptoms.
I'd say these people should seek treatment, but then they would have to admit they aren't thinking rationally to begin with.
not gonna happen.
Thalarctos @#229--that's a wonderful story. I hope my own memorial service will be similarly full of diversity and fondly recounted off-color stories (of which there are *ahem* one or two).
Your personal dilemma reminds me of my recent duty collecting a couple of elderly arts patrons from the airport, and getting stuck in what passes for 'rush hour' around here for long enough for these two ladies to muse at length over the cryptic message of the bumper sticker in front of us: "The only Bush I trust is my own".
Kseniya @251: Gracious! What an unfortunate name! ;)
The point is that after sobering up, the correct apology is "my racist statements were wrong", not "sorry I took out my frustrations on you". Davis should take back the things she said; if she didn't Sherman would not be blamed by me if he did not accept the apology.
But I guess it takes an athiest to actually demonstrate forgiveness and love rather than just talk about it.
Taking out dick, cunt, and bitch from one's insult word list is really not a huge imposition, especially not from people the likes of which we have here who have come up with some amazingly creative and clever insults that don't demean entire groups of people. (And just in case you're wondering, no, you shouldn't use retard either. Sorry to limit the vocabulary by SO MUCH.) - Posted by: Carlie
Oh for fucks sake! Anyone can construe ANYTHING as being offensive to someone if they try hard enough. I have been called a dick before, on several occasions in fact (probably again after I post this I suspect), yet I have NEVER once thought it denegrating to men. I just figured I was being a dick. I don't think I have ever called someone a cunt but if I did it is no poor reflection on the stupendously wonderful vagina OR its owner. There is hardly anything I revere more on this or any other world.
A cunt is NOT a body part, it is a character trait. I have yet to meet the woman who refers to her "cunt", but then I've never been on a porn set.
Wow, Eric, what word do the women use where you live? I can assure you that where I come from the word is used in a cheerful, matter-of-fact way by plenty of women (women who do not frequent porn sets as far as I know) when they want to discuss to their, um, pudenda. I do realise that "pussy", "kitty" and so on are also popular words (and also that they all have their potential problems, none of which I especially want to discuss).
I'm not interested being PC or in the peripheral debate about acceptable and unacceptable insults. I'm just saying that your experience is not universal. (Although I do cringe a bit whenever that perfectly nice word is used as an aggressive, taboo-breaking insult.)
All this talk of insults and no 's' word yet? I guess I'll take it on myself: Davis was acting more like a fetid pool of santorum than an elected official worthy of our respect.
We should all do our part to ensure that the word "santorum", used as an insult, doesn't slip (leak? ooze?) from the lexicon.
The last U.S. WWI veteran is 107 years old. When he's gone, then WWI never happened either. - Kevin Dorner
Gosh, you mean only U.S. troops were involved? The history books are full of lies! And those old frauds Henry Allingham (111), Harry Patch (109) and Bill Stone (107), who claim to be the last three British WWI veterans - someone ought to sue them! Patch even claims to have been in the trenches, and been wounded at Passchendaele!
Indeed - though I had to search my memory to remember the derivation (I grew up in London, but in the boring suburbs). It's Cockney rhyming slang, the connecting term being "Berkshire Hunt". However, most people wouldn't now know its sexual connotation, and would just take it to mean "fool". Cockney rhyming slang itself is no longer a living argot, I think, but a few of the terms remain as vestigial linguistic organs. In the 1950s, when the BBC was much more prim and proper, the radio comedy "Goon Show" introduced a character called "Hugh Jampton", whose name always produced gales of laughter, to the reported puzzlement of the higher management. I leave you to work out what "Hampton Wick" (the name of a London district) connotes in Cockney rhyming slang.
When I was a child (mid 1960s) the TV scriptwriter and proud atheist Ted Willis, who happened to play tennis with my Dad (this is how I heard about it), went to the Police and insisted on being charged with playing games outside his Church parish on a Sunday (this law was intended to encourage Church attendance). If I remember rightly, he was fined 10 shillings (there were 20 to the £), and the law was repealed shortly after as a result. Could you adopt similar tactics?
What I do not get in this entire situation is that, while she apologized to one of the surely multiple people she did offend with her very public outburst on a governmental stage, she has yet to be punished for her actions. Yes, forgiveness is a virtue that should be embraced by every last one of us, but so too must every last one of us be held accountable for the actions we take in and of our own free will. For some individuals in certain situations, a rant like this would have been harmless, but when made by an elected official at the state level, during testimony from a visiting citizen, it shows how unfit she is to represent the taxpayers of that state. What this situation tells me is that while she may say all the right things on the campaign trail, she clearly has difficulty listening to viewpoints divergent from her own. And since the field of politics is steeped with debate, it would seem to me that top be an effective legislator you must be able to listen, consider, and rebut statements made in your presence without flying off the handle and insulting someone without provocation like that.
Don't get me wrong, she has every right to her forgiveness, and she should definitely not be barred from holding office, but what this should mean is that she should lose her job for her outburst. If she somehow feels she should still hold office, let her spin up another campaign and run again in the next election.
And since when did the Constitution ever allow a legislator - in their official capacity - to insinuate that a government and its people are rooted in a common religious faith - or for that matter, any faith at all? It seems to me that this flies directly in the face of the Establishment clause, but who's checking, right?
And what really disappointed me - and further supports the need for her to vacate her seat - was her statement that it is somehow dangerous for children to EVEN KNOW about the philosophy of atheism. This is a dangerous statement, because it implies that certain knowledge is forbidden. From these statements, we can safely derive that since she believes some knowledge should be forbidden from even the slightest bit of exposure, she necessarily believes in censorship of ideas and - by proxy - speech. For an elected official of the government of one of our states to so blatantly and publicly call for the censorship of an entire school of thought - an entire worldview, actually - is utterly heinous, and should not be tolerated.
And another thing - I am tired of politicians getting away with these intolerant outbursts by using some variation of the excuse that it was a long, hard day. Either they didn't get much sleep, had just learned some piece of horrible news, or their stress level was exceedingly high. Do we not pay these people to work in a career field which necessarily deals with topics of contention each and every day they show up to work? Politics, by nature, is a contentious and sometimes confrontational field. This is precisely because it is in our nature to hold beliefs, and the closer we hold the belief, the more vehement our defense of it, occasionally even ignoring evidence to the contrary (i.e., creationists).
In light of that, it would only make sense to me that we require our legislators - at every level - to have self-control and tolerance as primary virtues. Davis can apologize, repent, and explain away her actions any way she sees fit, but one thing she cannot do truthfully is claim that she does not lose her temper and resort to petty insults in the face of a divergent opinion. This alone should justify her removal from office, no matter how contrite she seems. When I was a kid my father once told me - as many parents tell many kids - when you get stressed to your limit, your true personality comes into light. I do not see how anyone could agree with that statement while allowing Rep. Davis to remain in her current position after her conduct, no matter how many times she apologizes.
I saw the old '60s movie To Sir, With Love over spring break. The class demonstrated what must have been Cockney rhyming slang to Sir as they were all standing around waiting for the bus to the museum. It goes by pretty fast in the movie, and I wasn't sure what it was about, and figured it was just a '60s backstreet London teenager thing.
I think they avoided any off-colour rhymes, though.
Well said, Brokensoldier (263; 264). Unfortunately, Americans have been entirely too passive about letting religion creep in to official governmental proceedings (one nauseating example can be found here). It has flown under the radar for years, and now that it's been going on long enough to become 'traditional', it has apparently developed a disturbingly bloated sense of entitlement. Davis's horrifying loss of control--and the no-less horrifying outbursts of approval from her fellow representatives during her rant--is a prime example of what happens when the inclusion of religion, and of Christianity in particlar, as a legitimate 'member' of government is challenged.
Carlie @243: Because of the way it sounds. A very hard 'K' sound to start it off, the 'un' in the middle like a blow to the stomach, then a sharp sounding 'T' at the end, like a guillotine. It's a very satisfying word to emit, to express anger and frustration at the same time. It does sound a lot like the slang word for female pudenda, unfortunately, but context makes it clear that it is, in fact, a homophone.
Danio,
I can't remember if I had seen that before, but it is a PERFECT example of the largely Christian double-speak in this country concerning religious tolerance. I still don't understand how they reconcile their views on the subject with the standard definition of tolerance, specifically refraining from infringing upon anyone's ability to practice any faith they choose. For them, the meaning seems to be freedom to proselytize and openly advocate the creation of a theocracy here in the US, but only as long as it is based on Christian theology.
**And for any religious politicians (or any advocate of any of the so-called 'faith-based initiatives' currently being sponsored by our tax dollars) who will read this and claim that a theocracy is not your aim, you first need to make sure you grasp the concept of a gradual march toward theocracy. This gradual march is the exact underlying motive of any of the creationist/ intelligent design advocates, as is made clear through the ridiculously subversive documents like "the Wedge Document" and - more recently - "the Vise Document.' They undertsand, and clearly state, that the way to get Christianity installed in our government is to fist get it into educational curriculum down to the lowest levels, which will be suppported by their attempts to ppass overtly Christian legislation through our federal government. These two efforts are also suppported by the disingenuous (and currently occurring) ppractice of Supreme Court Justice apppppointments being given to individuals whpo hold a flagrant bias towards the neo-Conservative Christian cause. (And if you don't believe this, go sit in on one of the sermons of the many mega-churches run by the like of LaHaye or O'Steen and you'll occasionally hear them implore their congregations of thousands to pray for the retirement of the older judges on the court so President Bush can appoint more Antonin Scalias to the bench before his term expires.) And all of this CAN work - contrary to popular belief - because once a law is in our books, it takes a great deal of effort from both the Legislative Branch AND the Judiciary to get it removed, and if both of those branches are packed full of neo-conservative Christians, there will be exactly nothing the population of this country will be able to do about it. We are, in fact, on the way there now, because the term "faith-based initiative" (in heavy use in today's White House) is nothing more than a politically corrected euphemism for religious policy. And when you enact a "faith-based initiative" in any government, you are doing nothing more than providing governmental support to a religious idea or endeavor. And may I remind you, just because they claim that the support given to these "faith-based initiatives" can be taken advantage of by any faith, that does not make it okay. (Although the gross majority of today's current initiatives of this type are decidedly Christian , and receive such wide support solely because of that fact. The reason that a sweeping initiative in support of Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism would not enjoy the same kind of support as its Christian counterpart is that the populations in this country that follow those faiths are significantly smaller than the Christian population in the US. Looking at it in that light, you can see why the founding fathers went to such lengths to ensure that no religion of any type could receive sponsorial support from the government. To make that situation fair, you would have to ensure that your population is evenly split between faiths (AND lack thereof), which is utterly impossible. (Unless, of course we presume to dictate to our citizens what faith they shall hold - and that is too close to the Evangelical Christian mission statement to engender comfort within me.)
The safest and best way forward today, exactly as it was at the dawn of our nation, is to insulate the governance of our nation from religious faith of any kind. While this includes keeping religion-centered legislation off our books, a more important - and currently much less observed - aspect of that is to ensure that religious affiliation has absolutely nothing to do with our process of deciding who in this country dshall serve as our elected officials. This goes for both people of faith (of any ilk) AND people who do not subscribe to any kind of religious belief. As it stands today, it is extremely difficult to be elected to public office if you are openly atheistic in your beliefs, and this is a travesty. Until we can understand - as a nation of voters - that a candidate's personal religious convictions, or lack thereof, have absolutely no bearing on his morality, political competence, or intelligence, we will continue to have to put up with ignorant, belittling politicians such as Monique Davis.
--As an aside, I wish that I could see video footage of the session, so I can pick out exactly which politicians in that room were the ones cheering on Davis during her ignorant and intolerant tirade. These people, in my opinion, are no better than her. I would expect elected officials that are being paid for their supposed clarity and reason to act a little more mature than fifth-graders surrounding a fight on the playground. But hey, maybe I'm asking too much from these people.