State Representative Monique Davis, publicly attacking Rob Sherman, a local activist who she knew to be an atheist:

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. […]

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 […] 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! [… ]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.

Wow, what an asshat. (Via Friendly Atheist).

After a week of criticism, Davis phoned Rob Sherman, the man she attacked, and apologized. She still hasn’t apologized publicly (we only know of the apology because Davis reported accepting the apology). In my opinion, that’s not good enough. Rep Davis owes a public apology to all atheists — and a public recanting of the substance of her statements, as well.

Have I mentioned that Rep. Davis is Black? No? That’s because it’s not fucking relevant. What a shame that the atheist she attacked disagrees, and wrote:

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.

Wow, what an asshat.

In the subsequent discussions, Sherman removed the word “negro” from his website, but also justified it like this:

[”Negroes” is] what the group was called when they were being discriminated against, but now that this same group has political power, discrimination is OK, as long as it’s not them that’s being discriminated against. That’s the reason for the use of the term.

Sherman later walked back even further. Oh, and did he mention that he has black friends?

I still thought, today, that Negro and Black were completely interchangeable with identical context, just as Caucasian and White, and automobile and car are. So, I called Jesse Jackson at his office at Rainbow/Push headquarters in Chicago to ask him about it. He and I have had several conversations over the years at VIP events […] Rev. Jackson wasn’t available when I called, today, so I then called one of my many Black friends to confirm the validity of my perspective. […] Clint told me that the only people, besides me, who still use Negro are racists who are trying to sound polite. Now I know. There was certainly no intent to act like a racist. I was mistaken when I thought that the words were fully interchangeable and have removed that word from this web site.

Did you catch that Rob has black friends? I think he wanted you to catch that point. And did he mention he knows black people?

A few points:

1) Rob’s backtracking makes no sense. If he specifically used the word “negro” because it is “what the group was called when they were being discriminated against,” then he clearly doesn’t think that “Negro and Black were completely interchangeable with identical context.” So that’s just bullshit.

2) Ridiculous, too, is his use of the phrase “when they were being discriminated against,” as if blacks don’t still face discrimination today.

3) Even if he had said “Now that African-Americans 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,” that still would have been asshatish. Both because there’s no reason to bring up Davis’ race at all, and because Davis does not represent all black people.

4) Note that Sherman, unlike Davis, has refused to apologize.

I’d also recommend reading Mike Estes’ comments, quoted at Friendly Athiest.

(Curtsy to Doug and Ron, who discussed this issue briefly in an open thread.)

The recently posted Carnival of the Godless is your source for all sorts of atheistic joy.

Visit! Comment!

Apparently they are fighting over a nativity scene.

The problem erupted after a Columbus man apparently complained about equality of religions in displays at state parks.

After a letter to the business manager of Ohio State parks regarding symbols of religion, an order came down to remove the nativity scene which the Garden Club has provided. the letter told all start parks in the state to take down their nativity decorations.

On Friday, Dec. 7, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland intervened.

Under current law, government entities (city halls, courts, public schools, etc) can generally acknowledge religious holidays so long as they do not create an impression of endorsement of religion by the government, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Strickland issued an order mandating that Shawnee and all state parks continue their traditional nativity displays.

And he appears to be well within the law, according to the ACLU. “Just because a nativity scene or other religious display appears on government property does not necessarily mean that it is owned or is being displayed by the government, using tax dollars. Many local and some state governments have within their boundaries public areas whereby citizens are permitted to erect displays, including those of a religious nature, of their own choice” says the Ohio ACLU web site.

This is right in my parents’ backyard. This lodge is really fancy (at least by southern Ohio standards), and most of the folks who stay there are upper middle class folks, who come from places like Columbus and Cincinnati to explore the wilderness in the luxury of fancy hotel.

I wish somebody I know would go up there and put up a Menorah, and see how the locals respond. In my experience, a very large majority of southern Ohio folks are all for freedom of religious expression, when it in involves Christianity. But if somebody went up there and put up a Menorah or any other non-Christian symbol, they’d throw a fit.

I remember around the time I graduated from high school when there was some court decision about prayers at graduations. The administrators and students really wanted to have a prayer (of the Christian variety, of course), so they decided that the graduating seniors could vote on whether or not to have a graduation prayer. I bet I was the only person to say that I didn’t want a prayer. Of course, this was a school was everyone was a Christian or person like me, who was tired of Christianity. Nobody was Muslim; nobody was Jewish,;and if anyone was an atheist or any other religion, they wouldn’t say it publicly.

This is one nice thing about living in a town with a noticeable non-Christian population. There seems to be a great deal more tolerance.

Via the delightful Bean:

I’m not sure whether to read this as real propaganda, parody, or clever fake propaganda.

Also, I’ve given up coffee, but that cup looks pretty good.

OK, the image seems to be from Objective 4 Kidz, home of Lambuel who is apparently hearted by Jesus. Can you help Lambuel through a maze so that he can reach church while avoiding temptation along the way?

My OBJECTIVE is JUST 4 KIDZ! The “Z” is for “ZEALOUSNESS,” ’cause Jesus wants us to be hot for Him, not lukewarm. I read in the Bible that He said: “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”… Let’s do that!

Based on the front page, I would tentatively guess the site was real — but then there’s a page called draw Lambuel featuring a smirking, loincloth-clad Jesus:

A drawing of vegetarian dinosaurs worthy of Scalzi:

Jesus as superhero, burning atheists with fire that shoots out of his palm:

And finally, Jesus as pedophile:

I’m going with my original theory — Mr. Gruff is clever fake propaganda created by atheists with the hope that people will read it, believe it, and stop trying to convert us.

(IMO, the funniest thing here is the video of Scalzi’s. Hop on over and check it out if you’re frustrated by creationist imagery of vegetarian dinosaurs rampaging through Eden.)

–

UPDATE, because I realized I hadn’t said this expressly: For the record, I really dislike the images that suggest Jesus is a pedophile. They’re problematic and not funny.