(Sidebar: The justification for the aid was apparently that the church was regarded as a landmark. However, things got a little sticky when it turned out that instead of going to the church, Gov. Rod Blagojevich did some fancy dancing to redirect the money to a private school that rented space from the church. That, however, does not directly impact the story here, to which we now return.)
Davis interrupted Sherman's testimony to deliver an increasingly-angry, anti-atheist diatribe (audio here), declaring (edited):
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 to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! ... Get out of that seat! You have no right to be here! ... You believe in destroying!Chicago Tribune reporter/blogger Eric Zorn described the exchange, adding later that other than his own report, it "received no attention whatsoever." Which was true; even the Tribune's own story on the hearing didn't mention it. This despite the fact, Zorn argued, that had similar sentiments been directed against a person of any religious faith, it would "be considered scandalously out of bounds in contemporary society." (Another sidebar: Sherman continued his testimony; however, the Committee chair denied him an opportunity to respond to Davis.)
One rarely really knows why one incident sparks a response and others don't. But after initially being ignored, for some reason, this one did catch some people's attention. It became something of a story; Davis even made Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World list on Wednesday.
Subsequently, Sherman reported that Davis had called him to apologize and that he considered the matter closed.
Personally, I think she should have apologized publicly; after all, the denunciation was quite public. It could be cogently argued that since Sherman was the one assailed, it should be entirely his call, but the fact remains that the clear meaning of Davis's statements were not that Sherman is "dangerous" and has "no right" to be taking part in civic affairs, but that atheists are dangerous and have no such right. It was, that is, more than an attack on just Sherman personally, with a meaning to more people than just him. So I remain unsure that a private apology is adequate.
Still, leave that aside and with the news of the apology, private though it may have been, I'll accept that it was a one-time outburst and withdraw any support I might have offered to calls for her resignation, such as that from the Council for Secular Humanism. I did, however, want to offer a comment on another aspect, one that is at least a little encouraging.
In initially discussing Davis's blowout, Zorn said "I know from experience that many of you will side with Davis." Sherman, it seems, is something of a gadfly and has sued or threatened to sue some towns around Chicago to force them to remove religious symbols from city property or in some cases from official city insignia, leading him to be regarded as an "outsider" and a "pest" by those more concerned with the possible cost of changing stationery than with upholding the principle of church-state separation.
However, to Zorn's (and my, I admit) surprise, the comments in response to his post were overwhelmingly critical of Davis and there were even some people who said they didn't like Sherman but still he shouldn't have been treated that way and (more importantly) that he has as much right to be there as anyone else.
Now, it's an illustration of the kind of hostility that atheists have routinely met (I still remember being told to my face that I could not have any morals because I don't believe in God) that Zorn had felt it necessary to say in raising the issue,
I ask you to consider what the outcry would have been if a lawmaker had launched a similar attack on the beliefs of a religious person.It's an indication of the continued existence of that bias that I was able to say last year that
[b]ack in the first part of February [2007], USA Today/Gallup did a poll about American attitudes towards certain groups of people as possible presidents. The question was "If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be [fill in the blank], would you vote for that person?"There were 10 characteristics mentioned, touching on race, gender, age, religion, marital status, and sexual orientation. Of those, there was one, just one single case
in which a majority of Americans were willing to say they would refuse to vote for a candidate based solely on that one characteristic: if he or she was an atheist.However, and this is the entire point of this discussion, is that it is also a measure of true progress that Zorn's expectation was wrong and his caveat, unnecessary. Perhaps the recent string of books and the discussion they've generated - despite the wildly varying quality of both - has had some impact, if only by making "atheism" something that real people actually believe in and other real people actually talk about rather than something creepily alien you've sort of heard of somewhere. I don't expect to see a time when atheism is the common fare of society - and frankly, I really don't even care if it ever is. I do care about an understanding - and about people reaching an understanding - of the difference between faith and knowledge, between the physical laws of nature and the moral laws of humans, and on a very practical level between church and state. I do care about people breaking out of the trap that morality = religion = morality, particularly because so tragically often that shifts to morality = my religion = morality.
There may be a constitutional separation of church and state, but the idea that there is a practical separation between being churched and state is a fantasy.
And I do care about the statement "I am an atheist" ultimately turning no more heads than "I am a Lutheran" or "I am a Jew" or "I am a Buddhist." It's nice to know that just maybe we're a half-step closer to that than I thought.
A Veritable Plethora of Footnotes: Start with the observation by some that Davis's reference to "the Land of Lincoln" has at least a degree of irony, as it is very unlikely Lincoln held anything like the beliefs Davis imagines that he did. Despite the attempts of some to ascribe the modern understanding of "atheist" to Lincoln, he would more properly be a Deist, a believer in some vaguely-defined form of providence. But he was by no means a Christian.
Next, a commenter on Zorn's post mentioned that
[e]ven Mother Teresa, it turns out, spent the greater part of her life with huge doubt about her religious faith. Most people who are believers spend their lives without really much examining closely what it is they think they believe. When they do examine it closely, the doubts begin.The latter part of that may be true; indeed examining my own early faith is part of what lead me to be an atheist. But the first part gives me cause to regain some of the respect I used to have for Mother Teresa (before I learned how her help for the poor often resulted in if not involved keeping them that way). It was not quite 40 years ago (!) that I said on my college radio show that
[m]aybe I'm one of those playing at his beliefs, who can't hold to them when the chips are down - or maybe I'm one of those who's trying to believe things he can't live by. I hope not, but these are doubts - self-doubts - that I have had. And maybe it's better than I have such doubts, for the one who's lying to himself can't afford the luxury of self-doubt. [Emphasis added.]Even as I reject the policies she pursued as misguided, often arrogant and condescending, and ultimately ineffective, knowing that she struggled with her faith gives me some respect for the determination she showed in trying to live that faith as best as she understood it.
Third, speaking of arrogant and condescending, there are a lot of atheists who display both qualities in reeking abundance. In February, making a comment on an atheist website, I referred to people whose religious faith enabled them to "live lives of justice and courage." In response, a self-described "freethinker" - a term I despise - made some snide remarks about my having embraced superstitions and said I should ask such people as I mentioned to explain how their beliefs could be distinguished from them. I replied
As for the people living lives of justice and courage, it was in reference to people I have known personally, in some cases for many years. You are utterly ignorant of their lives, their convictions, and their actions and so utterly incompetent to judge them - and it is you, not I, who have equated their beliefs with “not stepping on cracks” and “knocking on wood,” neither of which beliefs, to my knowledge, have ever inspired anyone to go to prison rather than violate their consciences or walk into the middle of a riot in an attempt to calm things down.There was no further response.
No, it is by no means necessary to believe in a god to live such a life, nor did I in any way suggest that it is - still, such actions, which I have witnessed, do seem to point to that “difference” about which you proposed I inquire.
Finally, if for some unfathomable reason you want to know something more of my beliefs, you can look here and here. Be aware that there is, perhaps to be expected, some overlap. Specifically, the quotes in the second half of the first (earlier) post are largely repeated in the second (recent) post.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment