Islamophobia on display
Posted by Moonage on 21 Dec 2006 | Tagged as: Shock and Awe
I’m fairly shocked by this one. Congressman Virgil Goode wrote this letter to his constituents:
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.
Now, I got a real problem with his attitude. Mainly, he seems to be completely ignorant of the entire history of the United States, which is not good for a Congressman. The original members of the Mayflower came to America to escape the totalitarian rigidness of the Church of England. Their religious beliefs were Christian, but a very different form of belief than the "official" religion of England. After The Pilgrims, other waves of settlers came to America to escape religious persecution at the behest of the "official" religion du jour of their governments. This desire for religious freedom manifested itself in the United States Constitution in the form of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What Congressman Goode is doing is, in his official position as a US Representative, he is punishing US Representative Ellison for using the Koran for his inauguration. This is so wrong. Congressman Goode is proposing becoming what the United States was formed against.
If Congressman Ellison wants to use the Koran, that’s his right. During the Cold War, the United States actually had a Communist Party that was more than happy to bring down the current US government. We’ve allowed extremism in this country for the entire duration of this country for a reason. That reason is above everything else, we cherish our freedoms here more than anything else. People might not be saying that when they promote extremism, but they are showing that it works by doing it. Just because Ellison is Muslem does not mean his is extremist. If we elected 100 Muslem Congressman it would not mean they all had to be extremist and desiring to destroy what it is their families came here for. If we elected every single leader of our government it would only mean the government reflected the majority of the voters. However, since extremist Islam is no different than all the other extremist entities that have existed during the 230 this country has existed, my bet is it won’t be any more of a threat than the US Communists of the Cold War or the Christian bombers of the last decade eventually proved to be. The bigger threat right now to me is Congressman Goode’s intolerance. I have a reason to feel threatened by his intolerance, I’m not a Christian by HIS definition. Goode has got to go.
9 Comments »
on 21 Dec 2006 at 11:09 pm 1.American Phoenix
said …
I don’t agree with coupling the issues of illegal immigration and using the Koran as the book on which you take your oath of office. That couples two distinctly different issues that don’t necessarily belong together.
I also don’t care for the tone of Congressman Goode’s response, both with respect to the subject at hand as well as to the particular Muslim student. There are better ways to show disagreement.
That said, I agree with Congressman Goode that the Koran should not be used to take any oath of public office in this country. The Koran talks about killing Christians and Jews just because they are Christians and Jews. Much less respect is shown to other religions by the Koran. Only the “People of the Book” are offered dhimmitude under Islam. In short, religious tolerance is not institutionalized in the Koran and it is not practiced by many, many Muslims, even if some do. To take an oath on the Koran is to take an oath on a book that preaches intolerance - which is a value that is inimical to America and Americans.
Should Americans be tolerant of intolerance? That would be to make a vice out of a virtue. This is not real tolerance. It is indifference masquerading as tolerance, since the real reason for not objecting is that most people haven’t even read a portion of the Koran, let alone the entire book. The real reason is that most people just don’t give a you-know-what. Consequently, they have no idea what they are being “tolerant” of. That’s not tolerance. It’s ignorance.
on 21 Dec 2006 at 11:27 pm 2.Moonage
said …
Whether we like it or not, Islam is a religion. Disregarding whether it’s a good religion or not, our Constitution says we have to respect that. As such, I think Congressman Ellison has the right to choose the symbol of his religion to be sworn in to represent this country the best he can. Now, although people often don’t give a rat’s patootie about the issues a candidate endorses when they campaign, often ignoring major character flaws, when that candidate becomes a politician, things change real quick. Just ask Cynthia McKinney. If Ellison goes off the radical deep end ala McKinney, it gets exposed in a red hot white light and can’t be as conveniently ignored as it was when they were just a local candidate. So, although I am often disappointed by the total lack of concern of voters, they tend to get it right over a period of time. If Ellison does indeed go off the radical deep end, then I’m sure some other candidate will become more appealing to the good voters of Illinois. If not, he proves that just because you’re Muslem doesn’t mean you have to be a radical. That’s what I’m hoping for anyway. If not, he’ll do his time in Congress and never affect anything ala Cynthia McKinney.
on 22 Dec 2006 at 2:12 am 3.mw
said …
Great post Moon. Most Americans recognize this nonsense as religous intolerance and unacceptable by our own standards as Americans. Apparently there really is a sizeable right wing fringe that really believes that this is about an inevitable Christian war agains a billion Muslims worldwide. Republicans should be as embarrased by that fringe as Democrats should be embarrased by the left wing fringe represented by the Cindy Sheehans and lunatics like the McKinney’s of the world.
I’m sure that agreement from me does not give you any comfort, but Cap’n Ed at Captains Quarters was also taking some right wing bloggers to task (as you did)for indulging in Muslim bashing and the complete idiocy of worrying about Obama’s father and middle name: “The very statement that Obama “may think he’s a Christian” in a sense that minimizes his own choice of faith is, well, unhinged…Conservatives looking to head off the Obama Express should start here and work their way back through his public life. There will be plenty of policy points to mine in the debate, believe me. Obama is the kind of doctrinaire liberal that will find less appeal as people get to know him better — but that will not happen while some of us focus on the ethnicity and religion of his father. That path will only insulate him against proper political criticism and will almost guarantee his election to the Presidency at some point in time.”
This is where I am coming from: You know I’m an advocate for maintaining divided government in Washington. The dems have a structural advantage in the ‘08 elections for congress, so the only way it stays divided is if a Republican is elected president.
The surest way for that to NOT happen, is if the Republicans let themselves become associated with the lunatic notion that we really need to prepare ourselves for a holy war between Christians and 1.2 billion mostly peaceful muslims worldwide. Ignoring the insanity for the moment, it also happens to be political suicide. - mw
on 22 Dec 2006 at 2:48 am 4.mw
said …
AP,
Let me make sure I’ve got this right. Americans should not be “tolerant of intolerance” in religous books. Begging the question of who gets to decide which books are ok to believe in and which ones are not. I assume its you that decides, so could you weigh in on this book? I found it rather intolerant and violent and not sure whether I should beleive it. I’d hate to think of public officials taking an oath on it. Let me know what you think as the arbiter of what it is ok for me to believe.
Acts 13:6-11 “…they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus…[who] withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then…Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.”
Corinthians 10:20-21 “But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.(Paul here equating non-christians with devils)”
Acts 13:6-11 “…they found a certain sorcerer, a false prophet, a Jew, whose name was Bar-jesus…[who] withstood them, seeking to turn away the deputy from the faith. Then…Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him, And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.”(Jew as sorcerer and blinded by Paul)
Exodus 22:20 “He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”
Deuteronomy 13:1-5 “If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder, And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them…And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death…So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee.”
Deuteronomy 13:6-10 “If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die…”
Palms 139:19-22: “Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: Depart from me therefore, ye bloodthirsty men. For they speak against thee wickedly, And thine enemies take (thy name) in vain. Do not I hate them, O Jehovah, that hate thee? And am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee? I hate them with perfect hatred: They are become mine enemies.”
Numbers 21:34-35 “And the LORD said unto Moses, Fear him not: for I have delivered him into thy hand, and all his people, and his land; and thou shalt do to him as thou didst unto Sihon king of the Amorites, which dwelt at Heshbon. So they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land.”
There is a lot more, but I think I’ve already overdone it.
You look for intolerance and hatred in the Koran or the Bible and you’ll find it.
You look for love in the Koran or Bible and you’ll find it.
Damn one and not the other - says more about the person looking, than what they found.
on 22 Dec 2006 at 11:33 am 5.American Phoenix
said …
Moon - The Constitution does not require us to be blind, deaf and dumb. Neither does it requires us to commit suicide by degrees. Democracy and constitutional government did not historically develop in the context of Islam. If you think most people get things “right”, you need to ask yourself why most Muslims still don’t live in democracies. After all, they are people too. And “voting” doesn’t solely occur at a ballot box.
mw - You’re absolutely right that you can find both hatred and love in the Bible and the Koran. And you can certainly cherry pick out any passage to demonstrate whatever you want from the Koran or the Bible, regardless of the context (which says more about the cherry picker than what either religion says). I do think, however, that civilizations tend to reveal their beliefs in the institutions that they erect. Democracy did not develop or flourish under Islam. Separation of church and state did not develop under Islam. The abolition of slavery did not develop under Islam, where in some Islamic countries it is still being practiced today. Women’s rights, for the most part, do not exist in Islamic countries, where many women are still required to wear the chador/burkha etc, may not receive an education, required to accept polygamous marriages, and in some places may not even drive a car. If these two religions are the same and lay the conceptual framework for the same values, we ought to see similar institutions protecting those values develop. Islamic civilization and Western civilization are different, in large part, because their religions say very different things about the natures of God and of humanity, and therefore holds different values. You’re asking me to believe that this different historical development is all just an accident because both religions are the same. I’m sorry, but I don’t have enough faith for that.
While it is possible for the values we cherish (democracy, women’s rights, religious tolerance, etc.) to develop under Islam, I’m not at all certain that the necessary conceptual framework for such a development, let along flourishing, exists within Islam. Historically, Islam has proven just the opposite. I am aware that there are Muslim scholars who are now attempting to lay such a conceptual framework, but they are not in the majority, tend to receive death threats by other Muslims, and it remains to be seen whether they will be accepted by Islamic civilization as a whole. These scholars need our encouragement.
JH - America has only existed for 230 years. Islamic civilization has been making war on the West since Mohammed, with only a relatively brief lull after WWI. You can read about this in any history book. While America does deserve blame for some things, Islam has not suddenly become antagonistic to the West since the beginning of America’s existence on the planet. (I note in passing that your list is very one-sided; there is nothing in it about the USSR’s several attempts to gain a southern seaport through Iran, for example.) Such oppressive regimes have existed throughout the history of Islamic civilization. What’s different about modern times is the marriage of Western technology and the ideology of statism married to Islamic theocracy. I’ll agree with you that democracy can devolve into plutocracy, which in turn devolves into tyranny, but that’s not a Communist/Fascist idea because even the ancient Greeks and Romans knew that. So did America’s founding fathers.
on 22 Dec 2006 at 6:05 pm 6.Stormwarning's Counterterrorism said …
Democracy and Religious Freedom
I’ve sat by recently and listened and read some of the commentary relating to the election in Minnesota of Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minneapolis who in college coverted to Islam. The fear expressed over Ellison’s election in certain circles
on 22 Dec 2006 at 11:41 pm 7.mw
said …
Yeah, well - that was exactly the point of my comment, now wasn’t it? To make a statement like this…
… you had to pick a whole bushel of cherries out of the Koran. I can construct an identical statement based on cherries I pick out of the Bible. To whit:
Goode is a prejudiced intolerant bigot, his statement is incompatible with American values, he is an embarrasment to the Republican Party and the State of Virginia, and he needs to be called on it, just as Moon did here.
on 24 Dec 2006 at 12:47 am 8.mw
said …
I was only using the word “bigot” in the sense of religious bigotry, which seems amply demonstrated by his letter and subsequent lack of contrition. I don’t know enough about Congressman Goode to comment on whether he also holds racist views. I never heard of him before this flap, but his letter and subsequent defense of it is all I need to know. Hopefully, the voters in his district are smarter, more tolerant, and better Americans than he is, and get rid on him in ‘08. He is their problem - I’m done with the topic.
========
While I am here - I’ll take this opportunity to wish all in the Moonage community a Merry Christmas and to all a good (not Goode) night. - mw
on 24 Dec 2006 at 4:38 pm 9.American Phoenix
said …
mw - I don’t have to cherry pick anything from the Koran. All I need to do is to look at history to see what values have been institutionalized by Islamic government. Slavery still exists under Islamic governments. Dhimmitude still exists under Islamic governments. Women’s rights are virtually non-existent under Islamic governments. Democracy has not developed in Islamic governments. Now, you’re certainly entitled to say that this is all just one big accident, but as I told you before, believing that this is all just an accident requires more faith than I have.
As to your “cherry picking” from the Bible, that was a nice try. You get an A for effor, and an F on substance. The problem is that it’s the direct opposite of what Christianity teaches.
Thou shalt not kill. This commandment doesn’t allow for any exceptions for different religions. The only exception is self-defense or defense of others, since it’s just as bad to allow yourself to be killed as it is to kill anyone else.
Christianity teaches that salvation is offered to all of God’s children - whether they are Christian or not. Humans have a free choice as to whether to accept it. Most people think this vastly preferrable to having something you don’t want pushed on you at the point of a sword.
Not so choosing is not an excuse for violence or murder to those who don’t. Reference the commandment above.