Why the world hates us, another fine example
Virgil Goode, a Virginia congressman, is a deplorable human being. Go read the information at that link. I’ll wait.
For those of you that just want to get to it, Mr. Goode says this:
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 use of the Koran.
This was in a letter to one of his constituents, singed by him, on Congress stationery. He takes issue with Minnesota representative Keith Ellison’s wish to swear in on the Koran instead of the Bible. He takes this and makes it an issue of having “many more Muslim’s in the United States.”
First of all, what’s wrong with having more Muslim’s in the US you racist, religious zealot? Secondly, there is this thing called THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. That means no one should be forced to swear in with ANYTHING. If you want to swear in on a bible because it’s your faith, fine, but forcing others to, and ridiculing those that wish to do otherwise, is truly fucked up.
For this self-righteous religious prick to go on like he does is really what is wrong with religious zealotry. It has no place in our government. The fact that this redneck fuck actually represents people of this nation truly scares and disappoints me. What happened to messages of love and tolerance and peace?
Thanks to Mike for the heads up…
December 21, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
GAAK! Must…control…urge…to…smack…congressman…upside…head!
I’d try to say how I feel about this; but you have pretty much covered it.
Grr.
December 22, 2006 @ 10:56 am
That’s why we get along so well Devin. I know you are a very spiritual dude, but you are for the right reasons, and don’t force anything down anyone’s throat. That’s the way it should be, and I would love to see someone like YOU in office any time.
December 22, 2006 @ 2:09 pm
I’m a nice guy now, but I have waaaaay too many skeletons in my closet to run for office.
See you at the ‘sphere!
-Devin.
December 22, 2006 @ 6:45 pm
Yeah, I guess it’s pretty stupid to try to force someone to swear an oath on the book of a different faith. Maybe it’s as bad as swearing by that book and then supporting laws that are against the premises of the Bible, but we won’t go into abortion, assisted suicide, homosexual marriage, welfare, etc… that (mostly) Democrats support after they swear on the Bible.
Anyway, you should also understand that there is no LAW that specifies “THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE”. There is the amendment guaranteeing freedom to worship as you please with no government-sanctioned religion. But these are two different things and there is NOTHING that guarantees the state can’t have someone swear on the Bible or display a code of ethics shared by Jews and Christians alike.
December 22, 2006 @ 9:07 pm
Hey Chris, you should read up on the actual ceremony, among other things (like the full Constitution and the history of European religious wars that molded its authors’ views on the subject of church vs state). None of those elected to Congress swear on a Bible. They all raise one hand and swear to uphold the Constitution. Notice that they don’t swear to uphold the Bible. In private ceremonies after the fact, many choose to be photographed with a Bible. But there’s nothing official or required about it.
Oh, and the Constitution explicitly forbids the requirement of any “religious test” for holders of public office. Explicitly. And the reason is very simple: the Founders came from countries where you couldn’t be part of the government unless you agreed about religion with the other people in the government, and they thought (rightly so, obviously) that the whole idea was ridiculous.
So when you say that “there is NOTHING that guarantees the state can’t have someone swear on the Bible” you are flat wrong. Requiring elected officials to take any particular religious oath is directly forbidden. Congressman-elect Ellison, the Muslim being treated with such disrespect, is entirely correct when he responds by saying:
“We all support one Constitution, one Constitution that upholds our right to equal protection, one Constitution that guarantees us due process under the law, one Constitution which says there is no religious test for elective office in America.”
Article VI, US Constitution, paragraph 3:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
You think Democrats not supporting the Bible is a problem somehow? Even if I granted that your interpretation of Scripture is correct (and I don’t – Jesus was a radical liberal pacifist, Pilate was the conservative, and I’ve studied under Jesuit priests who found justification for socialism disguised as Liberation Theology in the New Testament – and your average Jesuit knows quite a bit more about the Bible than anyone outside of the Vatican), the Bible has nothing to do with our system of government, and the Democrats in question certainly never swore to uphold its tenets. The Constitution IS our system of government in a nutshell. Why is it that so many conservatives hate the Constitution?
The fact that Muslim in question is by far the more truly American in comparison with his critic (you *did* know that Congressman-elect Ellison traces his family’s arrival in this country back to 1742, right?) makes this particularly amusing, but also profoundly sad. What is wrong with the conservative punditry, that they don’t bother to learn our own history, our own laws, and our own ceremonies?
December 22, 2006 @ 9:23 pm
Oh yeah, hi Rob – figured you would pop over here… but have YOU read the oath?
{ Link }
“So help me God” is the last sentence. What if they are atheists?
You can find any justification for anything if you dig deep enough and read into things enough. I’m not impressed by your Jesuit friends or the fact that you hold the Vatican in such high regard for Christianity. Roman Catholics have so much stuff wrong it’s ridiculous. Ever read about why there was a reformation?
Why is it that so many liberals only like the Constitution insofar as they can read whatever they want into it. Right to privacy – yeah, THAT’s in there to give 13 year olds the right to an abortion without a parent knowing about it!
By the way, if congressmen don’t have to swear on the Bible regardless, then WHY IS THIS SUCH A BIG STINK?!?
December 22, 2006 @ 10:38 pm
Chris, you know better – I always do my homework. The “God” in the oath is the same “God” that’s on our money, the same “God” in the preamble. It is the impersonal and unspecified God of the Deists who wrote the Constitution (they weren’t Christians – heck, Jefferson took an exacto knife to his Bible until he cut enough out so that he could agree with it). It is the Deist “Divine Providence” popularized by the Enlightenment and most definitely not the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible. In any event, if an atheist was ever elected (over 90% of Americans say they won’t vote for one, so don’t hold your breath) and chose to give the oath without that phrase, it would be perfectly legal in exactly the same way an oath in the US courts is legal without mentioning God.
re: Christianity without the Vatican, are you perhaps unaware that there would BE no Christianity without the Roman Catholic Church? The Protestant Reformation happened because people disagreed about religion (*shocking*). It didn’t happen because the Pope was wrong, it happened because some people THOUGHT he was wrong. Those were humans making judgments, not God or his Son speaking or sacrificing. Neither Protestants nor Catholics nor Lutherans nor Episcopalians (nor Jews nor Muslims nor Hindus nor Satanists nor atheists nor even Unitarians…) have any right to claim their version of doctrine is more correct than any other, but if any one version of Christianity was to be given the benefit of the doubt it would certainly be the original and not the Response Document.
re: privacy vs abortion, are you familiar with the term non-sequitur? We’re talking about Muslims, oaths, the Koran, the Bible, and the unspeakable bigotry of a right-wing lunatic from Virginia. Oh, and the reason this is such a big stink is that this absolute moron actually got up and said we shouldn’t let Muslims into the country, much less into Congress. He used the Bible as a prop for his bigotry, when his real agenda is to restrict immigration to Europeans only.
The incredible stupidity of a US Congressman who actually thinks the oath of office is sworn on a Bible is astonishing, but then to watch the wingnuts jump to his defence STILL USING that premise? There’s comedy, there’s high comedy, and then there’s the unmitigated joy of watching people like that prove without a doubt that they know so little about the country they claim to love so dearly.
I just hope he keeps talking. A very wise man once told me that the best way to deal with an idiot is to give him a microphone.
December 23, 2006 @ 6:43 am
Ahh Jefferson – yes we all know him and he’s your token deist for the framers. Funny how you bash him but will forever cling to his “wall of separation” doctrine…
It’s interesting that you think the Roman Catholic church is the original because they say they are. The reason for the Reformation was that the RCC was selling people less time in purgatory so they could build a bigger church. The practice was called indulgences. Find that in the Bible for me and tell me that it’s a correct doctrine. There’s a lot more, but you seem set in your ways that the Catholic church is THE Christian church. Did you know that Catholics claim theirs is the one true religion and that all protestants are going to hell? They are far from the “original”…
re: non-sequitur – can you say setting up a scarecrow. We were talking about the Constitution being the authority and I asked a simple question about the standard liberal interpretation of said document with regards to privacy.
By the way, enjoy your time off of work for CHRISTmas.
Merry Christmas to you all!
December 23, 2006 @ 11:43 am
And a Happy Holidays to you as well, Chris. See, I’d like to wish you joy of Christmas, Little Christmas, New Years and even Boxing Day – lots of holidays this time of year, and I hope Christmas isn’t the ONLY one you enjoy. I will begin my Christmas by singing sacred music from the grand Protestant traditions of Germany in a Midnight Mass at my Mom’s Catholic Church. Funny how it all comes back around sometimes.
re: Catholicism, if you’d like we can compare our respective lists of all the things we hate about the Roman Catholic Church. I assure you that my list will be both longer and more vehement. I wasn’t talking about which faith is better or worse, I was simply talking about history. And historically speaking, indulgences were a very minor point in Martin Luther’s list of grievances with the Pope. The primary motivation for the reformation was a rebellion against central authority, where Protestants wanted to be able to read the Bible and use their own intelligence to make judgments about what it means. I happen to like that particular stance, by the way, but historically it is definitely not the origin of Christianity. Sola Scriptura, all wisdom flows from the Bible, not the Pope’s interpretation as supposedly infallible heir of Peter – that is the root of Protestantism. Again, I mean that historically, I’m not suggesting that has to be your particular view (though I don’t think it’s far off, is it?).
Catholic doctrine does say that salvation comes from the Church, rather than directly from Christ. The Church no longer says that non-Catholics automatically go to Hell, though. Rather they say that their salvation is dependent on the mercy of God. It’s not radically different from evangelical Protestant doctrine, though, which holds that people who have not been Born Again (they don’t use that term anymore, but it’s still accurate) are damned. That is their justification for trying to intrude on others’ beliefs – they are trying to save us (darn nice of them). And Muslims also believe their faith is the One True religion. Don’t get me started on Mormons (Hi, Mitt Romney, absentee Governor of my state!). Only Unitarians – crazy liberals that they are – cheerfully accept every faith as equally legitimate and worthy of respect.
re: Jefferson, if you don’t like him, look up Madison instead. He wrote 90% of the Constitution. Jefferson primarily added the flowery parts, Madison wrote the nuts and bolts. Madison was Episcopalian, but firmly supported the principle of Separation of Church and State. His summary of the First Amendment, which he wrote, as given during the Congressional debates that led to its approval: “Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.” It would be pretty clear that he did not want the family of Christian religions exalted over (by the government, not his personal opinion), for example, Judaism, right?
He also said, “The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity.”
We could go back and forth on the Church v. State issue for centuries, and I’m well aware that some of the founders (like my home state’s legendary Adams family) were devoutly Christian and did not particularly agree with Madison and Jefferson. The fact remains, though, that Madison especially, and Jefferson to a great extent as well, prevailed in the Congressional debates about the Bill of Rights. That doesn’t mean everyone agreed with them. It just means they were able to pull together enough votes. It also doesn’t mean they were necessarily correct (I think they were, you almost certainly don’t). It just means they won. People who think they were wrong are welcome to Amend the Constitution, and we do occasionally get an attempt to make Christianity part of that document. It hasn’t succeeded so far, though, and until and unless it does the US is not officially a Christian nation (we are a nation comprised primarily of Christians, but that’s not the same thing).
The original question, can a Muslim be sworn in without the Bible, is clearly BS because they’re all sworn in without the Bible. Congressman Goode’s real agenda is keeping Muslims (he said Middle Easterners, but we all know he’d cheerfully admit Israelis) out of the country, because if we’re not careful they’ll (*gasp*) elect more Muslims. That’s bigotry, plain and simple, and Congressman Goode will and should take a great deal of heat for it.
December 23, 2006 @ 3:29 pm
My simple question here Chris, without bringing up any other aspects of religion, is this:
Do you support Congressman Goode and his letter?
Simple yes or no, no “kinda.”
Because you came into this discussion to bash Democrats that you think go against the Bible (that they never really had to swear in on), but you really didn’t let us know what you thought of Goode.
Your initial snarky comments might lead one to believe that you admire Goode for sticking to his principles in his bible.
Although… I’m not sure in the bible where it says that having more Muslims in the United States is a bad thing… Wait, didnt the bible come out before the United States even existed… hmmmm
Goode: “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.”
Strange, my fear is that we’ll have more close-minded, bigoted, basically racist people trying to run things, and using religion as a shield to support their ignorance.
December 23, 2006 @ 8:27 pm
@10 – Dude, did you not even read the very first thing I wrote here? By your “snarky” comment about me, I would suppose not. It was pretty obvious how I feel about Goode’s thoughts, so let me reiterate it:
“Yeah, I guess it’s pretty stupid to try to force someone to swear an oath on the book of a different faith.”
The constituents voted in a Muslim and those constituents wouldn’t (logically) expect said Muslim to swear on a Bible. It’s pretty simple. Since there is no actual tradition of swearing in congressmen with the Bible, then it’s really all a moot point and Goode is just someone giving “Christians” a bad name. And all the anti-Christianity crowd jumps on it and says “See I told you they are stupid!” No, we have a bigot here (from all that we can tell).
Do I think we should have people of all faiths in America? Yes. Do I feel that we should have legal immigration? Yes. Do I feel that we should let terrorists in our country? No. Do I feel that we should have a wide-open southern border? No.
It’s pretty simple. And at no point did I say that all Muslims are terrorists or that we shouldn’t allow Muslims into America. That would be ludicrous and Goode represents a small minority, IMO. Do you actually KNOW anyone who holds to his belief? Me neither. But you CANNOT DENY that the VAST majority of the actual terrorists have been Muslims or converts. It’s a sad fact that there are so many in the “Religion of Peace” who are wanting to rid the world of the infidels (Jews and Christians). I say “so many” because I know you will say that people of other faiths do some bad things in the name of their religion and I agree. But the random acts of a few bad apples are a far cry from the rampant hatred and violence of the Islamic terrorists. You don’t just have a handful of people wanting to do harm, you have a large segment. I’m afraid that our open-door policy has let way too many of these bad apples into our country (remember 9/11?). We shouldn’t stop immigration, but we should curtail it and try harder to let the good apples come over.
I hate bigotry and racism. I absolutely hate it. It’s sad that America is still struggling in some areas to overcome it.
Well that’s enough for now. Perhaps I should have taken the time earlier to strictly address this issue instead of ranting about other side-issues…
December 23, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
The very next sentence (in the same paragraph) you bashed Dems that swear on the bible for supporting things like abortion.
I’m highly trained in sarcasm, and that sure came off as such to me. As such, I took the whole paragraph to be that way. Thus, I wasn’t sure if the “pretty stupid” comment was in fact for real or not. In discussions like these you have to be much more clear of your intentions.
This post wasn’t an anti-Christianity post by any means. I said that he is they type of thing that is wrong with “religious zealotry.” I also said “If you want to swear in on a bible because it’s your faith, fine, but forcing others to, and ridiculing those that wish to do otherwise, is truly fucked up.”
So, I said that if because of your faith you wanted to swear in on a bible, fine. My point, by the same token, a man who wants to be sworn in carrying a Quran should be able to as well. For this nutbag to say otherwise, and then attack all immigration is nuts, ESPECIALLY since the guy that sparked it can trace his family back in America to the early 1700’s.
And make no mistake Chris, I’m not anti-Christian. I’m more anti-organized religion in general, there’s a distinct difference.
Lastly, no, I don’t remember this 9/11 of which you speak. Can you tell me what you are talking about, because I haven’t a clue…?
December 24, 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Was that last sentence sarcasm?
Interestingly, nobody has asked this Ellison if he is for Sharia law as that is what much of Islam is for. I don’t care if he swears on his Quran, but if he’s a follower of Sharia law, just remember that is completely against any separation of church and state. It would be just like a Christian who believes a Theocracy should be set up. Either one is dangerous… As I’m sure you would agree.
Merry Christmas!
December 25, 2006 @ 7:00 pm
@11:
“But you CANNOT DENY that the VAST majority of the actual terrorists have been Muslims or converts.”
Timothy McVeigh
Terry Nichols
Eric Rudolph
Theodore Kaczynski
Luis Posada Carriles
Félix RodrÃguez (a.k.a. Félix Ismael RodrÃguez Mendigutia)
Orlando Bosch
Feel free to look them up at wikipedia if you do not know who they are. None of them are muslims, I think they all are christians. The last few even worked for “Christians In Action” (a.k.a. CIA).
December 26, 2006 @ 7:22 pm
@14 – See the rest of my comment following that Karl where I (sort-of) pre-emptively address your post:
“I say “so many” because I know you will say that people of other faiths do some bad things in the name of their religion and I agree. But the random acts of a few bad apples are a far cry from the rampant hatred and violence of the Islamic terrorists. You don’t just have a handful of people wanting to do harm, you have a large segment.”
So you named 7 people that were terrorists who aren’t Muslim. There were 19 Muslims on planes on 9/11 and countless others involved in just that single attack.
{ Link }
We’re talking vast religious organizations bent on the destruction of Western Civilization, Jews, and Christians (to name a few…). So let’s not really start counting.
December 30, 2006 @ 4:32 pm
We can hopefully all agree that there needs to be much more love and acceptance in the world. As the bumper sticker on my car states, “God is too big to fit inside one religion”. My personal hope is that we see MUCH more religious and cultural diversity in this country. My dream is of a time when we don’t know the religion – if any – to which a candidate or elected official subscribes.
We must all use our brains a little and, if we decide to be part of a religion, we must still think about what makes sense and what does not. The ‘reformation’ was due to Martin Luther and others deciding that they did not agree with what the Catholic church was doing at the time. I’m not saying that was right or wrong, but I do admire people who will make their own decisions.
Virgil Goode has a right to his opinions. I would think, however, that it would be a misuse of public funds to send messages of religious hatred to his constituents using Congressional stationary.