You Have No Right To Be Here! by Ethan Cooper

WASM

Links

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

You Have No Right To Be Here!

Ethan Cooper

The Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn has reported on an outrageous exchange at a General Assembly before the House State Government Administration Committee between atheist activist Rob Sherman and Illinois Representative Monique Davis (D). Sherman was present to protest state tax money being donated to the Pilgrim Baptist Church in Chicago correctly asserting that the act was unconstitutional. Sherman remained calm during the testimony when Davis launched into an attack against atheism and non-believers. The following is a transcript from the exchange.

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?

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---

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.

This act of intolerance and ignorance against Sherman was not only a vicious attack on atheism, but all non-Christians and has no place in our government which commands the equality of every citizen regardless of religious affiliation. We urge you to contact your local representative and demand the resignation of Davis. Provided below is Davis' contact information along with emails of every member of the council as well as the Democratic Party and a pre-written email for your convenience.

Contact the Democratic Party

Contact Rep. Davis
Rep Davis' email: mdavis2147@aol.com

Contact the Illinois State Democratic Party

Davis' Springfield Office:
241-E Stratton Office Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-0010
(217) 782-1795 FAX

Davis' District Office:
1234 West 95th Street
Chicago, IL 60643
(773) 445-9700
(773) 445-5755 FAX

Emails of Rep. Davis' committee members:
jack@jackfranks.org, lisadugan@sbcglobal.net, 70thdist@pritchardstaterep.com, repjohnbradley@mychoice.net, annazettec@aol.com, statereppaul@sbcglobal.net, staterepgordon@sbcglobal.net, repkrause@aol.com, repmyers@macomb.com, poer@housegopmail.state.il.us, statereprramey55@aol.com, jimwatson@localnetco.com

Pre-written Email:

I came across the article in the Chicago Tribune about Rep. Monique Davis' response to Rob Sherman's assertion that tax money should not be used to support local religious organizations.

Upon confrontation by a rational, respectful citizen, Davis said, "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."

I feel it is my civic duty to remind my Representative of the First Amendment of the Constitution;
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I find it painfully ironic that an African American woman would be as intolerant as Davis against the secular population, considering the long-fought battle by non-believers for the civil rights of African Americans AND women in America during a time when the Church was all so willing to accept and fight for the status quo.

I pledge to keep talking about this matter and continue to spread the word about this outburst of ignorance and intolerance until Davis is replaced by a worthy citizen. It is time that politicians realize that that non-believers make up a larger percentage of the population then any other non-Christian religion combined. We will not be made to feel inferior by our representatives, especially those as ignorant as Davis.

I hope you are aware of this situation and that you stand on the side of separation of church and state which informs our government that in the United States, all people are created equal, regardless of their religious or lack of religious affiliations.

Source

Share this Story

11 Comments

	Cognitive Dissonance Posted 02.10.10 Davis needs to re-read her Constitution. Especially Article 6 Section 3. I believe it not only refers to Federal Employees but "members of the several state legislatures" and the phrase that she really should pay attention to is "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States". So it may be her opinion - but her opinion is un-Constitutional.

	LOVELESS Posted 05.03.08 Although I see the point this article makes and understand how Davis' actions where, in fact, intolerant and irrational, I cannot dissagree with the point that she is arguing. The subject here has little to do with law or religion because there was no law that was there to violate. This has to do with the misplacement of our tax dollars - as seen currently in Iraq with hundred million dollar war contracts that have gone 'missing'. The framers of the Constitution implied that we make no laws respecting religious organizations so that our country would be exempt of religious persecution. Our country - at the time - was only concerned with the threat of European influence in government. We framed the Constitution of the United States to be the exact opposite of the country we had recently broken away from. Because we are given freedoms of speech there is no question we should raise concern when our voices become surpressed, especially when it concernes laws that are unconstitutional; Mr. Sherman is athiest and also an American, and he has every right to voice an opinion. 1 million in tax dollars was 'misdirected' from a church into a private school, wich already gets funding from those which pay to attend; this is what should raise concern. It's just about time we throw the religious argument out the window. Until the day that a Law is implemented that ties religion into our government we have nothing to fear. I have never understood the athiests plea to remove all aspects of religion from social institutions - its stupid and its pointless. If a parent does not want their child to say the pledge for reciting 'one nation under God' then don't say the pedge. We should be embracing our religious freedoms within social institutions instead of diminishing them. So, with that being said, is donating tax money to a church really harmful to our society? It's doubtful. However, 'misdirecting' millions of dollars in tax money IS, and we should have a say in that. Therefore, Sherman's argument should have little to do with the church, especially because thats not even where the money ended up; it should, instead, have everything to do with where it's being placed.

	Scottadges Posted 04.14.08 I guess Rob Sherman needs to work on his responses to public outrage, or at least, his word choice in said responses: " Now that Negroes like Representative Monique Davis have political power, it seems that they have no problem at all with discrimination, just as long as it isn’t them who are being discriminated against. ” http://thecapitolfaxblog.com/2008/04/11/rob-sherman-bigot-or-inelegant .... Also, Mr. Sherman made the Worst Persons In The World tonight (Mon 4/14) for this response, which at the time of this post he had yet to apologize for... Even when you're right... you're wrong...

	Solomon Roebling Posted 04.09.08 "And it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!" Well, Alexander, if you can't see the intolerance then perhaps we can't enlighten you. It is, however, most certainly intolerant. Additionally, it is SHE who is acting in a dangerous fashion. How one cannot see the short increment from her position to the burning of books is baffling. Perhaps, sir, it is because you share her view? But this man, if I'm not mistaken, is a citizen of Illinois, and as such is one of her bosses. SHE works for US, not the other way around. It's bad enough she's acting in a foolish and stupid fashion - what's worse is that the power she holds as an elected official makes her stupidity dangerous, truly. Finally, there's a lot of air between "expressing an opinion," (are you SERIOUS?) and telling a constituent: "You have no right to be here!" Her hyperbolic rhetoric is armed with the teeth of her position - doesn't she understand that there are likely agnostics and atheists in her district? She acts as though he were advocating for NAMBLA, or perhaps acting as a lobbyist for Krylon, attempting to legalize huffing amongst kids. It's not intolerant to be against an ideology, but it is intolerant when an elected official allows her personal religious doctrine to pollute a public hearing. She's free to rebut, disagree, even argue. But the point at which she shouted him down and told him he didn't belong was the point at which she stepped over the line. That is the PUBLIC'S house - the WHOLE public. The End. - Sorry for the shouting. Caps are for emphasis only.

	timmyblog Posted 04.09.08 Yea, what the giant negro man said.

	Scottadges Posted 04.09.08 Perhaps "...vicious attack on atheism..." is signature Ethan Cooper style... I would suggest it's more a "vicious" attack on someone who is attempting to redress their grievances with the State of Illinois - something which, while may certainly be her opinion, is exactly where the line is drawn by the Constitution. She may have an opinion, but she's an elected official, and she's held to a higher standard on tolerance and respect for the equality of people and their ideas. If she stood up and said that the Torah was "...dangerous for our children to even know..."?? She'd have more than a few people outraged - or ESPECIALLY telling the person in question they had no right to be there BECAUSE their belief in Judiasm was "dangerous" - all while trying to participate in this Government, and having a legitimate concern about State tax money, as well.

	timmyblog Posted 04.09.08 pwnd.

	timmyblog Posted 04.09.08 "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 that's not intolerance then neither is this: Fuck Christians and Relgious zealouts up there stupid asses. They're ignorant misinformed sheep who don't know the difference between their ass and elbows. They have no right to use the internet because it was built upon free speech by MMORPG D&D nerds who didn't like church cause it took place in the mornings. They believe in taking your money for their own use and raping little boys! I'm just expressing an opinion... based on bullshit mostly... pointing out what I believe to be the biggest scam based on a book of fairy tales which are "dangerous." Not intolerant in any way whatsoever.

	joshusa Posted 04.09.08 "It's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!" "You have no right to be here! We believe in something." How is that not intolerant? If the argument was flipped, Alexander would be crying "Christian Persecution." I like that it's "dangerous" to point out the obvious.

	Lupus Escape Posted 04.09.08 What if you were told by an elected official that you have no right to be at a state assembly because you are a Christian?

	Alexander Posted 04.09.08 I'm sorry...I don't see the intolerance. Davis is expressing an opinion...merely pointing out what she believes to be "dangerous." How is that intolerant? "a vicious attack on atheism"? Give me a break! And besides, since when is it intolerant to be against an ideology?