So, this atheist is testifying in the Illinois house when this Congresswoman says.....

[RightIsWrong]

Rep. Davis: I don?t know what you have against God, but some of us don?t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it?s really a tragedy -- it?s tragic -- when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.

I don?t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?

I?m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.? What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it?s dangerous--

Sherman: What?s dangerous, ma?am?

Rep. Davis: It?s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it?s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you?ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!

Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I?m sure that if this matter does go to court---

Rep. Davis: 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.

Yeah....take that your Christian basher! You have no right to your religious freedoms! This is Land of Lincoln after all where only Christianity is supposed to be practiced!

Source here

Audio goodness to exchange

 

[cliftonite]

Disgusting (rep Davis's rant).

 

[1prophet]

There go those Republicans again trying to push religion down everyone's throats.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=94&MemberID=909">Representative Monique D. Davis (D) - 94th General Assembly
27th District</a>

 

[jonks]

"That's right! I am...dangerous, Ice Man."

Davis needs some happy pills in her koolaid.

That's it, Chicago is now officially relegated to flyover status with the rest of em

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: 1prophet
There go those Republicans again trying to push religion down everyone's throats.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=94&MemberID=909">Representative Monique D. Davis (D) - 94th General Assembly
27th District</a>

Uh, oh... Wiki Link

Monique D. Davis is a Democratic member of the Illinois House of Representatives, representing the 27th District since 1987. She also is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, to which United States Senator Barack Obama also belongs [1]. :Q

 

[PrinceofWands]

She should be removed from government immediately, and publicly shamed.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: 1prophet
There go those Republicans again trying to push religion down everyone's throats.

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.ilga.gov/house/Rep.asp?GA=94&MemberID=909">Representative Monique D. Davis (D) - 94th General Assembly
27th District</a>

Uh, oh... Wiki Link

She also is a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, to which United States Senator Barack Obama also belongs.

HAHAHA! This story will never die! That's just unfortunate. Funny but unfortunate.

 

[SilthDraeth]

So a Democratic member of Barack's church is pushing religion?

From the excerpt I do not really grasp the context of the rant. What was the real point of the whole discussion?

 

[Excelsior]

What a worthless fucking elected official. Christ almighty.

 

[bamacre]

Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Here's the Governor's web contact form. I think we should all send a note demanding she be ordered to apologize publicly or face repercussions. Already sent mine.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

Don't blame me, I voted for Bugs Bunny.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: bamacre
Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

Don't blame me, I voted for Bugs Bunny.

Bugs Bunny was a totalitarian and a terrorist.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: bamacre
Don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul.

Don't blame me, I voted for Bugs Bunny.

Bugs Bunny was a totalitarian and a terrorist.

touche

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
So a Democratic member of Barack's church is pushing religion?

From the excerpt I do not really grasp the context of the rant. What was the real point of the whole discussion?

I posted a link to the audio of the exchange so that you can hear it. He is testifying against moment of silence in schools based on separation of church and state.

 

[kage69]

Ugh.

Rep. Davis: 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.

Christian revisionism mixed thoroughly with christian victim mentality, served with a little side of crazy. *smacks lips*

Another great example of why we need to require our officials to know something about history and the Constitution. Not being a psycho hose beast would be a bonus too.

 

[1prophet]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
So a Democratic member of Barack's church is pushing religion?

From the excerpt I do not really grasp the context of the rant. What was the real point of the whole discussion?

I posted a link to the audio of the exchange so that you can hear it. He is testifying against moment of silence in schools based on separation of church and state.

It sounds to me that they are trying to use public funds to restore a church as a historical site, you have any more audio from the start of the session?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: 1prophet

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
So a Democratic member of Barack's church is pushing religion?

From the excerpt I do not really grasp the context of the rant. What was the real point of the whole discussion?

I posted a link to the audio of the exchange so that you can hear it. He is testifying against moment of silence in schools based on separation of church and state.

It sounds to me that they are trying to use public funds to restore a church as a historical site, you have any more audio from the start of the session?

That audio was posted on a Chicago reporter's blog site. I'm too lazy to search Google for the full recording. But you are welcome to if you would like.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
So a Democratic member of Barack's church is pushing religion?

From the excerpt I do not really grasp the context of the rant. What was the real point of the whole discussion?

I posted a link to the audio of the exchange so that you can hear it. He is testifying against moment of silence in schools based on separation of church and state.

Are you sure about that? I can't access the audio at work, but Rob Sherman's own website says that he was speaking against having the state of Illinois give $1 million in taxpayer money to Pilgrim Baptist Church (so they can rebuild after a fire gutted their historic church in 2006) as Blagojevich wants to do. Is this church also in Davis' district? That might explain her reaction.
Anyway, I support Sherman on that position. Government should not be funding churches, or giving grants to churches, no matter how historic their buildings might be or how impoverished their congregation might be.

OTOH, there is nothing genuinely religious about having a moment of silence, so I can't support Sherman on that, although I agree that Davis' outburst was more than a bit out of line under any circumstances.

edit: oops, looks like this has already been commented on.

 

[RightIsWrong]

No, I'm not sure. In the audio, she mentions it so I assumed that it was related. I guess that's what I get for doing that. I'll take your finding as a more definitive reason for his testimony.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: SilthDraeth
So a Democratic member of Barack's church is pushing religion?

From the excerpt I do not really grasp the context of the rant. What was the real point of the whole discussion?

I posted a link to the audio of the exchange so that you can hear it. He is testifying against moment of silence in schools based on separation of church and state.

Are you sure about that? I can't access the audio at work, but Rob Sherman's own website says that he was speaking against having the state of Illinois give $1 million in taxpayer money to Pilgrim Baptist Church (so they can rebuild after a fire gutted their historic church in 2006) as Blagojevich wants to do. Is this church also in Davis' district? That might explain her reaction.
Anyway, I support Sherman on that position. Government should not be funding churches, or giving grants to churches, no matter how historic their buildings might be or how impoverished their congregation might be.

OTOH, there is nothing genuinely religious about having a moment of silence, so I can't support Sherman on that, although I agree that Davis' outburst was more than a bit out of line under any circumstances.

edit: oops, looks like this has already been commented on.

I basically agree, except that if the state is generally subsidizing the restoration of historic buildings, and a church (or temple, or house of Satan) happens to meet the criteria for the subsidy, then I don't see that as running afoul of the establishment clause.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: shira
I basically agree, except that if the state is generally subsidizing the restoration of historic buildings, and a church (or temple, or house of Satan) happens to meet the criteria for the subsidy, then I don't see that as running afoul of the establishment clause.

There should be a criteria disallowing for-profit establishments - and most churches are money making institutions even if they are declared otherwise.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: shira
I basically agree, except that if the state is generally subsidizing the restoration of historic buildings, and a church (or temple, or house of Satan) happens to meet the criteria for the subsidy, then I don't see that as running afoul of the establishment clause.

There should be a criteria disallowing for-profit establishments - and most churches are money making institutions even if they are declared otherwise.

Then by definition they wouldnt be disallowed...right?

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: shira
I basically agree, except that if the state is generally subsidizing the restoration of historic buildings, and a church (or temple, or house of Satan) happens to meet the criteria for the subsidy, then I don't see that as running afoul of the establishment clause.

There should be a criteria disallowing for-profit establishments - and most churches are money making institutions even if they are declared otherwise.

Its a historic site.

It was deemed a landmark by both the National Register and Chicago itself.

Its the place where gospel started.

Of course they are going to fund it. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with preserving american history and culture.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: shira
I basically agree, except that if the state is generally subsidizing the restoration of historic buildings, and a church (or temple, or house of Satan) happens to meet the criteria for the subsidy, then I don't see that as running afoul of the establishment clause.

There should be a criteria disallowing for-profit establishments - and most churches are money making institutions even if they are declared otherwise.

Its a historic site.

It was deemed a landmark by both the National Register and Chicago itself.

Its the place where gospel started.

Of course they are going to fund it. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with preserving american history and culture.

Interesting. I can see how the debate could get so heated then. And the necessity of keeping it all in context, which it doesn't look like Sherman wants to do.

As for the comment about disallowing for-profit establishments... it certainly sounds good, but as long as we're still paying for major league ballparks and handing out corporate subsidies, I don't think that holds water.