Christians and atheists, what do you think of this rant from a public official?

Monique Davis, a member of the Illinois House of Representatives, went off on an atheist who was testifying in a hearing against the donation of a million dollars in tax money to a Baptist church.





Do you agree with her? Disagree with her? Do you think this woman should still have her job?





Why or why not?





Here's the audio - it's not very long.





http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_col鈥?/a>Christians and atheists, what do you think of this rant from a public official?
I think that what she said was completely out of line. This had nothing to do with his opinions of God or the religion of the church are, but whether the church deserved such a large grant for its restoration.





There was simply no need for that rant, and I believe that in the end it hurt her cause rather than bolster it.





There are plenty of arguments for the donation of funds to restore a historic African-American church that have everything to do with the general community, the preservation of historical buildings in general and their value, and that have nothing to do with religion.





She had no right to attack him personally. She had no right to make ridiculous assumptions and accusations against this man. If she felt the need to confront him on such a level an official hearing was NOT the place for it. Frankly her rant made it seem that she was the one with the ';agenda'; not him.


In the end they were the same old accusations hurled at those that are either ';liberal'; or support the idea of the separation of church and state. Really unfortunate.





I'm not sure that she should lose her job, unless her constituents decide to impeach and remove her, and frankly its not likely you'd find many of them that disagreed with what she said or how and when she said it. But I do think that some disciplinary action should be taken.Christians and atheists, what do you think of this rant from a public official?
I think she was making a biased accusation and trying to shut the man down and throwing her religious views in his face to gain anger and support from the possible fellow christians in the room.





In reality, what is dangerous is a woman like this with religious conviction to go around and persecute people simply because they don't believe in the same faith as her. I didn't hear the atheist yelling or being belligerent back to her even after she told him to ';shut-up'; something I would not have tolerated.





She seemed to think she had a pulpit in front of her.





I think she should certainly be penalized for obstructing the meeting and shifting the focus to a religious perspective and therefore a religious dispute where one was not necessary.
I think her behavior is a bit appalling, it is obvious she became very offended by whatever it was he was talking about ... sorry, but I didn't catch the first part, it wasn't audible.





While I do understand her angst, here is a guy opposing the God she believes in and he is using up time in the meeting discussing that rather than what she deems most important, kids in school with guns.





But she seems to be a bit weak in her faith, because she should know that everyone has a different calling, a different battle to fight (so to speak). As a public servant, she should have listened and remained silent, she's supposed to be representing us.
I am a Christian (however, non-fundamentalist/non-evangelical). I do not attend church because the churches destroy people's chances at having a real relationship with God. Therefore, I agree with Monique Davis and I applaud her for her beliefs. She is right, in the notion that churches should NOT be tax exempt. I am a Christian, but I think churches should be taxed.
Public officials are not there to ';chastise'; anyone. They are supposed to do their jobs they are being paid to do with public money.


They can disagree or agree on any subject and vote, but never chastise anyone. She should be fired or removed from office as she let her emotions get in the way of doing her job effectively.
There is no mention of the seperation of church and state in the United States Constitution. It does however say that there shall be no establishment of a state religion (chruch).





In England people were forced to pay tithes to the church of England and the founding fathers wanted people to be free to attend whatever church they wanted.
She's yet another deluded moron who lives off taxpayers' money...





';This is the land of Lincoln where people believe in God';





';What you believe is dangerous for the progresssion of this state...';





';It's dangerous for children to even know that your philosophy exists!';





';You believe in destroy...';





What a noob....
from her voice i heard hate. god doesnt teach hate.


i feel her concern and i agree with her words. but she should have spoken them in a much more loving mannor. god is love. and if we are to spread gods word and his love....we must act in love as well.





she should have acted in a much more loving and gentle way....
Yeah, I don't believe in god and I pack a 45 in my kid's backpack every morning.





This is not a fact, report monkeys. I am illustrating the fallacy in her logic with hyperbole.
No, she should NOT have her job, as she clearly has a very severe problem understanding the concept of separation of church and state.
Shocking to hear anyone shout such drivel at a public hearing.





Say that 3 times as fast as you can.
This is old news.





Ms. Davis is a disgrace.
Ms. Davis sounds like a baptist preacher.
What about the millions of tax dollars used for abortions in the us and africa? The question is... what was the donation for?
Do I agree with what she said... yes.





Do I agree with where she said it....no.