Monique Davis needs to resign from her seat in the Illinois State Senate.

Due to social journalism, the State Senator has been exposed as a rather outspoken bigot, who scorns religious minorities without pause or hesitation. When listening to testimony given to a committee upon which Davis sat, she erupted in an outburst directed upon Rob Sherman – an atheist who was testifying on matters relating to the separation of church and state – in which she screamed, “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists,” among other things.

There are several extrapolations that can be drawn from such a bewildering statement. Most saliently, Davis has revealed that she believes free thought and expression to be dangerous and out of place in the various public spheres belonging to American civil society. She obviously thinks that some forms of speech – namely, those with which she fails to agree – should be curtailed, in order for such thoughts not to reach impressionable members of society.

There are, of course, other inferences to be drawn from Davis’ hate speech, but they all seem to reinforce a thematic congruency that can be reduced as follows: Monique Davis is not a good American.

In support this conclusion, consider the following: She is a bigot who wants to interfere with the religious practices that are predicated upon beliefs whose veracity she disputes. Further, since she obviously fails to possess the intellectual faculties necessary for her to produce arguments in opposition to a particular system of beliefs, she is reduced to cruelly shouting at those whose beliefs she denies, citing hysterically fabricated consequences that will ensue if her opponent’s abilities to publicize his or her arguments are not curtailed. Therefore, her only recourse is to fear monger in an attempt to illicit the censorship of her adversaries.

At the very least, Monique Davis must be censured by her legislative colleagues. The venomous hate that she spews must by rebuked, and she must face public humiliation. If there is anything dangerous to which children can be exposed, it is the bigotry and the hatred that Davis embodies. This does not indicate that we should curtail her ability to speak publicly. However, responsible members of the political body, in which she has procured a seat, need to clearly state that her speech – which is at odds with our most fundamental values as Americans – is not demonstrative of the guiding-principles that instruct the Illinois State Senate as it deliberates over public policy.

Russell Cole

Tags: atheism, freedom of religion, government, illinois, illinois legislature, journalism, monique davis, politics, religion, Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, Russell Cole's Blog, Politics, Religion, Atheism, journalism
No Comments »

An Article by:

Russell Cole

After listening to Mitt Romney’s speech, where he explained his reasons for withdrawing from the Republican Primary as well as his concerns over the struggles America will face in the Twenty-first Century, I was reminded why I have suffered from an antagonism toward this outwardly seeming gentile man to such a poignant degree. Indeed, after listening to Romney speak on most any occasion, I would become temporarily consumed – and, thus, debilitated – with my anger and outrage; unpleasant emotions whose inculcation were directed upon this excessively pandering, 1950s adaptation of the popular Mattel Toy Company’s Ken Doll. Despite my unwavering animosity toward Romney – feelings that would spike from observing him on television; no matter in what capacity he was portrayed during these painful episodes – his concessionary remarks on the 7^th of February incited anger and disgust whose severity reached levels previously unattained during past instances when I was struck by the symptoms associated with my underlying disorder; an ailment that I suppose can be referred to as Romneopathy.

The severity of the attack I suffered was not brought about so much from listening to him declare that a Democratic President would unvaryingly surrender to terror.

I am not even sure what he means by this. I fail to understand to whom – or to what agent – one would surrender, because surely one cannot militarily capitulate to an emotion; and, (assuming Romney was invoking the other possible meaning of “terror,” in this context,) one, additionally, cannot surrender to an abstract political tactic.

It was not the slander Romney committed against liberal politicians who happen not to be entirely consumed with obsessive war-mongering. Rather, the acute surfacing of the symptoms concomitant with Romneopathy was incurred by his remarks in which he stated that Europe was facing a demographic crises due to the Europeans failing to believe in their Lord, or Creator.

I suspect that Romney was indicating that the rapid decline in religiosity among Europeans has created social situation where people are less inclined to have children.

According to Romney’s explanation for staling population growth, it is as though one needs to be presented with an incentive, such as the expectation, in the Afterlife, that one will receive his own celestial body, which he would, then, populate and reign over as a patriarch, in order for one to elect to have the divinely mandated children and family.

Well, then, if it requires subscribing to some belief-system, such as Romney’s Mormonism, for one to be motivated to have children, I think that society is ultimately better off if such people did not elect to have children. The offspring could possibly inherit the same utterly baffling – and properly mocked – insanity leading to such religious beliefs.

Russell Cole

Tags: atheism, Mitt Romeny, politics, religion
Categories: Commentary, Politics, Religion, Atheism, Mitt Romeny
1 Comment »

I am rendering this an open letter since I seem incapable of soliciting a response from Barna Group, who were responsible for the publication of a study:

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=272

The purpose of the study is to draw comparisons between Christians and atheists on a slate of behaviors and attitudes related to community interactions and relations. The reason I felt compelled to write to the group expressing my concerns over their presentation of the research they had conducted is I noticed it had been cited in op-ed pieces published by individuals arguing that believers are more likely to positively interact with their communities than non-believers. However, as I point out in the letter, the findings are misleading since there is an absence of any indication that standard tools of statistical analysis were used in order to determine, if indeed, the relationships pointed to between faith and one’s conduct in community affairs are reflective a relationship between these two variables, (faith or lack of in relation with community engagement).

Dear Editor, 

I am a bit confused about your disclaimer [copyright notifications]. However, I intend to use your findings under the provision of Fair Use, which you cannot simultaneously publish while prohibiting against. I do not mean to be combative. However, a Creative Commons can often command more respect from a savvy audience.I have some questions concerning your methodology when assessing the differences between non-believers and believers.

You refer to differences between believers and non-believers with respect to propensities to give to not-for-profit entities, citing the increased likelihood of believers giving to such foundations in juxtaposition to the decreased likelihood of non-believers giving to such foundations. However, you also cite a tendency for non-believers to be younger in age than believers. Do you control for age when comparing the likelihood of non-believers giving to charities in comparison to believers giving in to charities? I am left to suspect that you do not, since there is no indication that you even conducted any type of regression analysis upon the data you collected.

Further, since age is positively correlated to wealth, do you control for wealth when you compare the tendencies to give to charities instantiated respectively between believers and non-believers?

I think the potential problems with your findings are transparent from the two questions stated above. However, before rushing to any judgments, I certainly wanted to give you an opportunity to correct any of my potentially mistaken impressions.

On a final note, releasing these statistics without analyzing them according to appropriate measures can have the effect of providing rhetorical ammunition to partisans with respect to issues concerning religion, who certainly do not take it upon themselves to delve deeper into the veracity of the sources from whom they cite. Perhaps, this is your intention. However, once again, I wanted to give you the opportunity to correct any incorrect impressions I might have of the research you organization is conducting.

Regards,

Russell Cole

Tags: atheism, religion
Categories: Commentary, Religion, Atheism
No Comments »

There is a term that tends to be deployed when referring to atheists in American society, who have the apparent audacity of publicly iterating their convictions. It is the referring expression, militant atheists; a phrase used to designate any instance where atheology is defended or supported by an interlocutor, who demonstrates a cognitive disposition that indicates that he or she fails to be immured in the theism that has taken a center stage in the public discourse throughout this Country’s history.

The connotative implications of using such a phrase to refer to atheists who fail to ‘politely’ remain hidden in their bedroom closets; instead, mustering the courage to openly articulate their lack of beliefs, and, further, argue against the pervasively reinforced second class position they assume in American society; is more than transparent: Atheists fall outside of the spectrum of ideological manifestations that are considered to be demonstrative of reasonability and rationality. In other words, atheists are a breed comparable to fanatical Islamists - who commit violent acts of terror - or, individual anarchists - who carry out assassination attempts upon government officials.

The ultimate effect engendered by these crude, implicit comparisons indicated by the phrase, militant atheists, is the persistent identification of atheists under a social label, which renders their skepticisms and the polemics they put forth against their socially legitimized marginalization in American society as expressions that should be interpreted as outside the rationally treatable; falling, alternatively, in the regions inhabited by the delusional madman who rants and raves on the street corner.

Despite the best attempt of religious leaders to portray atheists according to the stereoypical forms that are used as representations of cognitive illness and pathology, the looking glass could not be more transparent. I have no knowledge of any war that has been waged by atheists; although I can think of innumerable wars that have been conducted under the sanctums of religiosity. To intransigently insist upon the existence of invisibles - which cannot be demonstrated through any appeal to empirical evidence - is certainly not a criticism that can be aptly leveled against atheists; although it is by all means an inescapable aspect belonging to the discourses produced under the auspices of religion. Atheists point to reality and experience when arguing the validity of their conclusions; the pious revert to faith, dogma, and knowledge based on authority, in order to propagate their prejudices.

To take the argument a step further, Catholic Universities often insert in their mission statements a principle that serves within the institutional philosophy they stake out as a premise for all of their ensuing intellectual engagements. To paraphrase in a modality that goes beyond giving the proposition justice: Faith and reason do not contradict one another, and are, contrarily, mutually compatible and amenable to each other’s interests.

I am prepared to assert that nothing could be farther from reality. The pursuit of knowledge is never founded upon convictions of faith. Instead, it is skepticism that serves as the antecedent for knowledge. It is the ability to hold to scrutiny the narratives that have traditionally served as an explanation for the ordering of cosmos. Knowledge flows from criticality toward that which has - as its only pillars of support - legitimation based upon tradition and authority. Faith is not an extension, or co-pillar, of reason; but, rather, the antipathy to reason; the manifestation of ignorance.

Consequentially, the terminology, militant atheists, should be understood not as an expression that refers to the elements in society who possess the intellectual tenacity to hold to scrutiny the mythology that continues to dominant the worldviews possessed by the religious; the flocks of mindless followers. To the contrary, the unfortunate phrase is best understood as the projection upon the reasoned and rational, by those who lack such lucid deliberations, of the very shortcomings that impede the intellectual maturation of the faithful.

Just remember, atheists did not launch the Crusades. Atheists have not burnt people alive on the stakes. Atheists do not instruct the meager to turn the other cheek in hopes of rewards that consist entirely of invisible conditions in some posit called the afterlife.

Atheists are, in fact, the living embodiments of the temperaments that the religious claim to possess but fail to embody.

Russell Cole

Tags: atheism, power, religion, Russell Coles Blog, society
Categories: Commentary, Russell Cole's Blog
20 Comments »