Missives from the Department of Assinine Behavior
Behold the thoughts of Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) on Minnesota's Keith Ellison:
Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran. We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped.
If there is a more ignorant communication from an elected official I'd like to see it. Breathtaking. I'd dismiss him as a cracker, but you know, a) he's a US Congressman, and b) that'd be an insult to crackers.
posted by Chris Dykstra @ 2:16 PM |
| 
5 Comments:
Okay, who dug up Theodore Bilbo again? Johnny, I TOLD you to stop that!
And so many local Republicans pretend not to know what I'm talking about when I say the words "Southern Strategy".
For all of you who are allegedly so appalled at the idea of wanting to reduce the presence of Islam within the United States (or specifically, those who profess to believe in it), I wonder how many of you have actually read the Quran and the supporting Sunnah/Hadeeth stories of the life and sayings of Muhammad? Clearly NONE of you have read it since if you had, you’d be attacking its use in politics as much as you attack the Bible.
While I personally believe that the separation of religion and government should be absolute and that there should be no Bibles to swear upon or religious passages to be hung on any government official’s wall, this does not detract from the fact that the Quran is a completely different book from the Bible with an entirely different set of values contained therein. If you think the Bible is oppressive and violent, you should really take a look at the Quran and the Sunnah/Hadeeth which will take your dislike for organized religion to a whole new level.
That left-wing Westerners (among whom I count myself) should argue against the influence of Christianity on the American political system is admirable. That these same left-wing Westerners should so blindly defend or even advocate for an increased influence of Islam on the American socio-political system – wherein Islam strictly unifies religion and government unlike Christianity – is absolutely illogical, naïve and asinine. In fact, the defense of Islam by us left-wingers goes against EVERYTHING we stand for as Islam itself seeks to destroy the secular values we and our predecessors have fought so dearly for the last several centuries to establish and enshrine.
If you are going to lambaste Christians for promoting the rise of Christianity in our government then you MUST also do the same against Islam which is far more violent, far more discriminatory, and far more theocratic than anything the Bible and especially the New Testament ever cooked up. Do not be deceived by Islam simply because of your disdain for Christians. Contrary to popular belief, more often than not… your enemy’s enemy is your enemy as well.
Posted by: Daniel
I don't recall anyone here saying that they want more Islamic influence in our government. First of all, during official swearings-in, the Constitution forbids swearing oaths. So, Bible, Qur'an, Torah, Upanishads, etc wouldn't be allowed. They are only allowed in the private ceremony the representative holds for family and friends.
What does the relative violence of Islam and Christianity have to do with anything? Saying that one is more violent than the other is a pot-teakettle argument that is absolutely senseless. Nobody is defending Islam, especially not radical Islam. Nobody is defending Christianity, either, especially not christian-fueled-american-war-machine-hegemony of the kind that inspired Jerry Falwell to say: "Blow them all away in the name of the Lord." on the eve of the invasion of Iraq. It really is a toss up which religion is the all time greatest death dealer in history. For my money, Christianity probably edges Islam. But Islam is coming up fast.
Theocratic government is the enemy of freedom. But that's not what we are talking about. We are talking about one US congressman, freely elected in our liberal Republic. The fact that he is Muslim is completely irrelevant - it certainly was to the voters of the 5th.
One of the things that makes Virgil Goode's letter ignorant is the fact that our constitution forbids religious litmus testing as immigration policy. He also stupidly believes that if voter's don't "wake up," Americans will begin electing Muslims willy-nilly across the land. The thing that makes your post, Daniel, ignorant, is the fact that you so entirely, entirely miss the point.
From my blog...
In recent weeks much has been made about United States Representative Keith Ellison’s decision to take his oath of office on the Koran. What critics of Mr. Ellison have charged is that the United States, being a predominantly Christian nation, is insulted by his flagrant display of his religious views in taking the oath upon the book he worships. It has even gone so far as to have U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode (Republican, of course) lay claim that if immigration is not halted more Muslims may be elected to office. Wasn’t one of the founding principles of this great Republic the idea of a place where man may practice his religion free and openly without persecution?
Now I have issues with the election of Keith Ellison which stem outside of the sphere of the man’s chosen religion, but feel as though the criticism he is currently drawing is unfair and extremely un-American. Mr. Ellison has a very large responsibility as the nation’s first and only Muslim elected at the Federal level and to criticize him for taking his oath on the Koran is only going to fuel the fires that already burn towards Islam in this country. Furthermore to say that an elected official must not take his oath on any other book besides that of the Holy Bible is utterly wrong. No where in the United States Constitution does it claim that elected representatives must swear their allegiance to uphold the duties of their office upon the Bible. If we are to cross that line we might as well create a state sponsored religion, church, and set of laws based on those religious teachings; much like Iran.
We are a free Republic and our elected officials are free from their government to practice their religious views. Mr. Goode, trying to capitalize on wedge issues and insecurities, might want to read the Constitution from time to time. For all I care Keith Ellison could take the oath upon a Playboy magazine, as long as he upholds and defends the Constitution of the United States of America.
Post a Comment
<< Home