Virginia Rep. Goode Warning of Muslim Immigration

[ParanoiA]

Saw this story this morning. Good controversial letter from Rep. Goode to his constituents:

 

WASHINGTON — Letter written by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) in response to constituents commenting on Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) using a Koran to take the oath of office:

 

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.

 

The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office." Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

[ecoli]

Why is being Muslim such a problem for this guy. So, a mulim got elected, why is that such a big deal. And, why would he expect to get sworn in over a bible, if he's not christian.

 

I personally don't like the idea of a public swearing in over a religious text anyway, but this guy seems like he has a serious islamo-phobia. It's kind of sad.

[the tree]

This was always going to come up eventually. I always wondered why, considering America's national flag-fetish, they didn't just have their hand on the "stars and stripes".

[YT2095]

I`de persoanly trust a Muslim that swore an oath on the Koran over one that swore an oath with a Bible!

 

not only that but Muslim`s aren`t the enemy, the islamofacists/terrorists are!

[CPL.Luke]

yeah the point of the oath is to swear over something you hold sacred, because the vast majority of people hold god sacred (at least in 1783) it was a logical choice as a method of swearing someone in. Its an oath that you can't break as it would damage something sacred to you.

 

If someone is a muslum and believes in allah than they should be sworn in under the koran, same thing for peoples of the jewish/shinto/hinduism/etc.

 

As for the flag bit, whats in a flag, if you were willing to break the oath you swore to your country, than what would the flag do to hold you to your oath?

[ecoli]

I would say that an increase use of the Koran to swear officials into office is the least important problem we have to worry about when in comes to illegal immigration.

[Sisyphus]

Hehe. It's not often a politician will let his PC guard down and say something openly, unambiguously racist (religionist?). Idiot.

[ecoli]

I don't know... is he taking media heat for this?

[ParanoiA]

I don't know... is he taking media heat for this?

 

Oh he's taking some well deserved heat on it alright...

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,237987,00.html

[Airmid]

I'm curious... how do non-religious people take an oath in the US?

 

Airmid.

[Saryctos]

I'm curious... how do non-religious people take an oath in the US?

 

Airmid.

 

The almighty dollar?

[Pangloss]

I'm curious... how do non-religious people take an oath in the US?

 

Airmid.

 

The atheist politician is almost unheard-of in the US, where the formula for electoral success is a wife, two children, and Sunday services. So ingrained into domestic politics is it that exceptions really stand out. Florida's new governor-elect raised eyebrows because he's -- *gasp* -- divorced! Former NYC Mayer Rudy Giuliani has been divorced *twice*. Oddly enough, both are Republicans. But a-religious candidates and office-holders do appear from time to time, particularly in local politics (city councils, county government, law enforcement, etc).

 

I don't know the answer to the question, but I can add one additional element of consideration, which is that of tradition. In the case of the President, for example, a specific "Masonic" Bible is used, which is a tradition that dates back to George Washington. I believe a number of states (particularly the original 13) have similar traditions. It's unlikely that a new governor/president would throw out that particular tradition.

[ecoli]

well, what do atheists do when testifying in court... they don't swear over anything, right?

 

edit: and doesn't the bible say something about not swearing any oaths, anyway?

[john5746]

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/202700/3/

 

Basically, the bible is a prop, not required at all.

 

Maybe we should require muslim immigrants to swear on the Koran to be loyal to the US?

[Sisyphus]

Pastafarians swear on the Jolly Roger.

[ParanoiA]

http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/202700/3/

 

Basically, the bible is a prop, not required at all.

 

Maybe we should require muslim immigrants to swear on the Koran to be loyal to the US?

 

That's a good article, John. I haven't heard Rush's take on it yet, but I'm sure it's similar to Goode and all these jokers that seem to have little logic other than appeals to tradition to support this position.

 

An appeal to tradition is pathetic. This is just as mindless as when my co-workers reply to questions on method with "we've always done it that way". That's an answer? We've always done it that way? We've always used a bible? We've always had christian politicians so...??

 

When you hear words like "traditional amercian values" - or hell, any argument with the root word "tradition" used to support its validity - you know right of the bat it's bullshit. It's old white men scared of change. That's all. Scared of losing their precious status - which is mainly just in their heads in the first place.

[jackson33]

swearing in of congressional members is done in groups and only to new members. rarely if ever is a bible used. the president is publicly sworn in with his hand on the bible, but this has not always been the case. in court there is no bible, but you are sworn to tell the truth. what faith or no faith is in general not relayed.

 

the issue of Koran or Bible should not have been an issue, but the fact it is makes the issue, one of acceptance of tradition. the requirement of the Koran or the bible is not, but to require it as has been done, makes it an issue.

 

the gentleman from Virgina has politely said the general acceptance of the American Traditions, will not be accepted by Muslims in general. his comments have been preceded by incidents around the country that also infer these traditions will not be followed by Muslims in general.

 

as cultures, religions and nationalities have migrated to the US, traditions have been followed. this is not to imply any religion should change or culture not maintained but if they do not conform or submit to tradition or try to change these accepted practices by the majority, they inevitably will break a law.

[CPL.Luke]

also as pangloss said the president is sworn in over a "masonic" bible. There is alot more than religious tradition behind that practice.

 

For those in the UK who may be unfamiliar with the free mason society, it was and still is a society that was extremely dominant in early american politics. Particularly because the society had alot of ingrained ideas about being a good person and all that. The only way into the society is to have another free mason vouch for your character.

 

All of the early american poiticians were free masons partly because people knew that free masons were supposed to be men of character, and so these politicians were able to gain the trust of the voters alot more easily than there opponents. Part of the intention in using the masonic bible is that you were swearing an oath to the free masons as well as to the country, and they'd cme by and break your legs if you didn't keep that oath.

 

to see the prevalence of free masonry in early american politics, just look at the american dollar bill.

[Sisyphus]

also as pangloss said the president is sworn in over a "masonic" bible. There is alot more than religious tradition behind that practice.

 

For those in the UK who may be unfamiliar with the free mason society, it was and still is a society that was extremely dominant in early american politics. Particularly because the society had alot of ingrained ideas about being a good person and all that. The only way into the society is to have another free mason vouch for your character.

 

All of the early american poiticians were free masons partly because people knew that free masons were supposed to be men of character, and so these politicians were able to gain the trust of the voters alot more easily than there opponents. Part of the intention in using the masonic bible is that you were swearing an oath to the free masons as well as to the country, and they'd cme by and break your legs if you didn't keep that oath.

 

to see the prevalence of free masonry in early american politics, just look at the american dollar bill.

 

It's more than that, even. The Freemasons were dominant because Freemasonry embodied all the ideals of the Enlightenment: reason, the fraternity of man, humanism, enlightened skepticism, and, yes, secularism (though also a vague Deism). All of the educated, liberal elites of the day would have been members. The United States itself was and is a grand experiment in applied Enlightenment philosophy, so of course all the people who got the ball rolling, and would be in a position to be in charge, would be Masons. So, yes, that tradition represents quite a bit more than just "Christianity," and really doesn't even represent that.

[ParanoiA]

Incidentally, I believe Dan Brown is writing a book on the Freemasons. I don't know that I'll buy this one though...

[Pangloss]

Not many people realize this, but Dan Brown is actually on the Bush payroll as a spin doctor. His job is to write about popular conspiracy theories, but to do so in the most literarily pathetic way possible, thereby undermining any credibility those theories may have within the intellectual community. This helps to improve support for government.

 

Don't tell anyone!

[swansont]

Congressional members don't place their hands on anything. They are sworn in en masse. Some have chosen to carry Bibles in the past and undoubtedly will in the future. Whatever they want. I suppose they could carry a comic book or a skin rag, if they wanted to.

 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/ellison.asp

 

I think Ellison was talking about the recreation he would do in his office, for the cameras.

 

I saw a piece on CNN where they interviewed people from Goode's district. Nobody objected to his views. In fact, they were befuddled that someone wouldn't be using a Bible for an oath of office. I don't think there's much of a Muslim population there.

[KLB]

Oftentimes, the very same people who wrap themselves in the American flag, preach "American values" and vocally scorn any who would dare tread close to the second amendment of the Constitution fall silent when it comes to protecting the first amendment rights of others. The Christian conservative movement would have us believe that this country was founded as a "Christian nation" and that the first Amendment's freedom of religion only pertains to Christian religions.

 

Yet the Constitution never mentions the word Christian and Article VI is very clear about there being no religious test to serve in congress. Further more the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which was signed in Tripoli in 1796 and ratified by the Senate (full of founding fathers) and President John Adams (a founding father) in 1797 states in article XI (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm):

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslim],-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

If anyone knew the principles upon which this nation was founded it would have been our founding fathers and ratifying a treaty with this wording is a very explicit statement of their intentions in the form of a legal document.

 

Going through the debates in regards to ratifying the First Amendment it is very clear that those involved with ratifying the First Amendment understood what it meant for example:

 

From Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention for the First Amendment of the Constitution 30 July 1788 (http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions52.htm):

Governor Johnston:

It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men's consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow. It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans [Muslims], pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States.

 

Mr. Iredell:

Upon the principles I have stated, I confess the restriction on the power of Congress, in this particular, has my hearty approbation. They certainly have no authority to interfere in the establishment of any religion whatsoever; and I am astonished that any gentleman should conceive they have. Is there any power given to Congress in matters of religion? Can they pass a single act to impair our religious liberties? If they could, it would be a just cause of alarm. If they could, sir, no man would have more horror against it than myself. Happily, no sect here is superior to another. As long as this is the case, we shall be free from those persecutions and distractions with which other countries have been torn.

 

Mr. Spaight:

No sect is preferred to another. Every man has a right to worship the Supreme Being in the manner he thinks proper. No test is required. All men of equal capacity and integrity, are equally eligible to offices. Temporal violence might make mankind wicked, but never religious. A test would enable the prevailing sect to persecute the rest.

 

Another problem with this issue is that some Christian denominations actively preach how evil and violent Islam is and that it is a false religion. This leads to stereotyping of Muslims in a very negative way, an exceedingly distorted view of Islam and islamaphobia (since long before 9/11). I got embroiled in a debate in another forum on this issue where the venom against Islam is so hateful that it is nearly a blind rage and even suggesting tolerance is attacked with scorn and pointing out what the Constitution states and what our founding fathers wrote is attacked as hiding behind the Constitution.

 

Some people really believe that Muslims deserve no protections under our Constitution and that they should be stripped of their U.S. citizenship and deported. Some of this anger and hatred reminds me very much of what we saw focused against another religion in another country 60 - 70 years ago.

 

An extremely scary example of this can be found at http://www.reformed.com/pub/polytheism.htm. Among other things they espouse (and I'll quote):

In a Christian nation people are not forced to go to church or to believe in Christ, but, the open practice of idolatry is forbidden. It is a capital offense.

This is a very serious threat to everyone. Who would definition of idolatry or "open practice"? Where would it end?

 

Here are some other choice comments from their manifesto:

Civil authorities are to use their power for the welfare of the Church. This was the common, standard Protestant interpretation. Calvin wrote, “He compares ‘kings’ to hired men who bring up the children of others, and ‘queens’ to ‘nurses’, who give out their labor for hire. Why so? Because ‘kings’ and ‘queens’ shall supply everything that is necessary for nourishing the offspring of the Church.

....

.... a covenantal nation would require church membership in a Trinitarian orthodox Christian church for all judges and office holders.

....

..... This passage no more forbids the use of sword by a Christian magistrate to punish idolatry, than it forbids a stick to Christian parents to spank their disobedient children.

 

What is really scary is that this 20,000 word manifesto is on a website for a congregation of Reformed Presbyterians. So we aren't talking about some racist nut case website, we are talking about a school of thought that is infiltrating conservative Christian denominations. Now granted it is a minority of Christian denominations that preach such hateful teachings, but their numbers are growing and if people do not stand up to this kind of hateful teachings and islamaphobia we could see a repeat of what we saw during WWII just against a different religion.

 

Here are some really good quotes by Thomas Jefferson on this issue:

All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. [

http://london.usembassy.gov/ukamb/tuttle033.html,

http://www.uis.edu/journal/2k6mar8/opinion.html]

.....

Peace and friendship with all mankind is our wisest policy, and I wish we may be permitted to pursue it. [

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1475.htm]

[JHAQ]

Anybody familiar withe Umma should be very wary . It is a system which has no tolerance of the infidel & which teaches exaction of all sorts of penalties from unbelievers in Islam -- including death .

[KLB]

Anybody familiar withe Umma should be very wary . It is a system which has no tolerance of the infidel & which teaches exaction of all sorts of penalties from unbelievers in Islam -- including death .

 

On the other extreme people should make themselves aware of the teachings taught by "Reformed Christians" and "Christian Reconstructionists". Extremism in all its forms is a very dangerous thing that all moderate and peacefully minded people must guard against.

 

---

I've always thought of becoming and extreme moderate.