If Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) run into each other at, like, the House Christmas party or something, it’s going to be awkward.
In a related story, Virgil Goode is a bigoted idiot.
Totally agree, Brendan. As much as I disagree with Muslims, I don’t think that more Muslims coming to the US is THE WORST THING EVER!!!! RUN!! HIDE THE CHILDRENS!!!!
Anyway, Goode’s reaction was, in a word, quite Bade.
Well, I have to at least give Goode credit for something: he’s standing by his letter and not apologizing. Bigoted and narrow-minded, but at least he’s not twisting with opinion polls.
Seriously, after September 11th, any nation that was not insane would have halted all muslim immigration. We have absolutely no obligation to let them in. They come here at our whim. September 11th was far more than enough cause to bar the whole lot of them.
God Bless Virgil Goode! I have called his office and given my thanks.
Remember the good old days when the Founding Fathers stated plainly in no uncertain terms that government may NEVER legislate faith, and if that was too radical a position for you, you could kiss their asses? Good times…
Remember the good old days when you could actually have the government acknowledge a holiday celebrated by the vast majority of the people in this country, a holiday that is only partly religious? Good times…
David, I’m not sure your point is relevant here. Petty disputes over whether the Seattle airport should have a Christmas tree, a Menorah, or neither, are one thing. Claiming that Muslims should be kept out of Congress (or should be forced to take their oath of office on the Bible, rather than the Koran, as some are arguing) is a different thing altogether. And it’s the latter thing that’s at issue here, not the former.
David, assuming you refer to Christmas, (a) it is thoroughly (and properly) acknowledged by Government (including-but-certainly-not-Limited to the substantial Shutdown thereof on the holiday), and (b) it is Entirely religious in its Derivation. Not entirely Christian of course ~ not Hardly, that’s merely the most Recent sectarian claim upon the Season, the Jesus-come-Latelies as it were ;} ~ but entirely Religious nonetheless.
I particularly liked this rather Dry journalistic juxtaposition of Quotation and Fact in the linked AP article:
[Rep.] Goode added: “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.”
[Rep.-elect] Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college. He did not return telephone messages left Wednesday.
And now, to Blockquote Myself :) ~ I posted the following comment on an official AOL Blog (that’s where I go for intellectual stimulation :) on the subject:
#38. The Congressional oath of office is administered, en masse, simultaneously to all elected members present, on the floor of the House on the first day of each new Congress. The oath is mandated by Article VI of the Constitution, and its text is set by federal statute (5 U.S.C. 3331).
Individual members’ use of a Bible, Tanakh, Koran, or other holy writ when taking the oath is not required by the law. Many members do opt to have a sacred text of their own preference with them while being sworn, including some Jewish congresspersons who hold the book of the Tanakh. Others may prefer to carry none.
It is a matter of individual free choice, you see: BECAUSE, notwithstanding the alien agenda of the fundamentalist “Christian” theocrat fanatics among us, this IS still AMERICA, where officeholders DO still swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic”.
And speaking of Domestic enemies of the Constitution, charity demands that we assume Rep. Goode, whose philosophy is profoundly anti-American, is blissfully unaware of the Irony when he swears to defend our founding document against himself.
Joe Loy at 2:59PM on Dec 21st 2006
(Note to Andrew: keep yer Shirt on buddy :>, about the “fundamentalist ‘Christian’ theocrat fanatics” reference. I just Had to fire off that blast, because there really were a Goodly number of Godly ;> exponents of a view Fairly so described, amongst my learned Co-commenters in this AOL Graduate Seminar :> and I totally Needed to piss them off. :)
Brendan, i am well aware that the significance of this and realize the christmas tree thing at SeaTac is small potatoes, but i’m also aware that Sean often takes an extreme position on government and religion and i wanted to attempt to counter-act that. However in my haste to post i didn’t do a good reading of his comment and in this case there isn’t anything i can find that justifies my ire, guess i’m tired or cranky or something.
Joe, Absolutely Christmas is religious in origin, but then so are a lot of things that we no loger strongly associate with religion. For example, most of the days of the week and many of the months are named after religious figures. The term Holiday of course derives from Holy. But in reality although there is a religious aspect of Christmas for practicing Christians, there is also a significant secular portion, that really should be acknowledged and accepted by those militant members of some minority groups who see any government acknowledgement of anything remotely Christian as some huge afront to their own religious freedoms.
Time and time again we are told to celebrate diversity, accept other cultures, etc etc. And i agree 100% that those are good and noble goals. However that same noble goal is seldom applied to celebrating the diversity represented by the currently dominant religious view. Yes yes i know Christianity is everwhere, etc etc. However that shoudl not mean we shouldn’t apply the same principles evenly?
I’m sorry, but Christmas is signifcant part of American culture and our government should be allowed to acknowledge that. Doing so doesn’t threaten anyone’s religious freedom. Nobody is going to be forced to attend church service or believe in God because the White House or an Airport puts up Christmas trees (no, not Holiday tress, CHRISTMAS trees). Its patently ridiculous that it is more socially acceptable to have a christmas tree in a government owned location in Japan were less than 1% of the population is Christian.
I have no problem with the President attending a Hannukah menorah lighting ceremony, in fact i think its great because it represents a connection with an important part of our society. The same would be true if he or another official attended a signficant religious event for another religious group. No, the government shouldn’t officially support on faith and limit others but ignoring the fact that religion is part of our culture only leads to more problems, not less.
Well said, David. / I think our only actual disagreement here is that it’s my (subjective) impression Government does recognize Christmas ~ AS Christmas ~ to a greater extent than you (also subjectively) feel it does.
Btw, your Comment reminded me to belatedly light the Menorah in the window, here. All the candles today, the 8th day. See, old Joe Goy is gradually Learning these things ;). Fighting Fadduh Feeney would be so Proud :). Of course I use the terms “light” and “candles” symbolically. Little teeny electric lightbulbs :}. Pretty, and Safe. :> Don’t Rat me out to the Rabbi. ;]
“Remember the good old days when the Founding Fathers stated plainly in no uncertain terms that government may NEVER legislate faith, and if that was too radical a position for you, you could kiss their
asses? Good times… ”
Legislating faith is a strawman. Here is Virgil Goodes actual position (it involves no curtailment of religious freedom):
“RUSH: Final question from David Asman. “Would you prohibit, Mr. Ellison — would you prohibit him from bringing a Koran into that ceremony?”
GOODE: If the voters of that district want persons that are going to swear by the Koran, that’s the choice of the voters of that district, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in my district would prefer the use of the Bible if a book is used, and that is exactly what I’m going to do.
ASMAN: Well, that I may well be true, but again just to put a fine point on it: You are not, then, for prohibiting Mr. Ellison from bringing in a Koran?
GOODE: No, but I am for restricting immigration so that we don’t have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives.”
Religious freedom means the freedom of americans to worship in any way they please, including converting en masse to islam. That is how it should be. Restricting muslim immigration does not restrict the freedom of people in america to do so.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:06:03 am
Virgil Goode, and his neighbor Robert Byrd, two sheets full of wind.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:14:24 am
Totally agree, Brendan. As much as I disagree with Muslims, I don’t think that more Muslims coming to the US is THE WORST THING EVER!!!! RUN!! HIDE THE CHILDRENS!!!!
Anyway, Goode’s reaction was, in a word, quite Bade.
December 22nd, 2006 at 5:33:40 am
Well, I have to at least give Goode credit for something: he’s standing by his letter and not apologizing. Bigoted and narrow-minded, but at least he’s not twisting with opinion polls.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:13:04 am
Given Keith Ellison’s involvement with the Nation of Islam, I’m not sure exactly which of the two is more of a bigoted idiot.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:52:47 am
Seriously, after September 11th, any nation that was not insane would have halted all muslim immigration. We have absolutely no obligation to let them in. They come here at our whim. September 11th was far more than enough cause to bar the whole lot of them.
God Bless Virgil Goode! I have called his office and given my thanks.
December 22nd, 2006 at 12:40:59 pm
September 11th was far more than enough cause to bar the whole lot of them.
If you’re not being tongue-in-cheek, let me be the first person to tell you you’re a jackass, pjgoober.
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:15:00 pm
Remember the good old days when the Founding Fathers stated plainly in no uncertain terms that government may NEVER legislate faith, and if that was too radical a position for you, you could kiss their asses? Good times…
December 22nd, 2006 at 1:47:32 pm
Remember the good old days when you could actually have the government acknowledge a holiday celebrated by the vast majority of the people in this country, a holiday that is only partly religious? Good times…
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:20:16 pm
David, I’m not sure your point is relevant here. Petty disputes over whether the Seattle airport should have a Christmas tree, a Menorah, or neither, are one thing. Claiming that Muslims should be kept out of Congress (or should be forced to take their oath of office on the Bible, rather than the Koran, as some are arguing) is a different thing altogether. And it’s the latter thing that’s at issue here, not the former.
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:28:04 pm
David, assuming you refer to Christmas, (a) it is thoroughly (and properly) acknowledged by Government (including-but-certainly-not-Limited to the substantial Shutdown thereof on the holiday), and (b) it is Entirely religious in its Derivation. Not entirely Christian of course ~ not Hardly, that’s merely the most Recent sectarian claim upon the Season, the Jesus-come-Latelies as it were ;} ~ but entirely Religious nonetheless.
Happy Hanukkah :),
~ Druid Joe ;>
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:32:12 pm
I particularly liked this rather Dry journalistic juxtaposition of Quotation and Fact in the linked AP article:
And now, to Blockquote Myself :) ~ I posted the following comment on an official AOL Blog (that’s where I go for intellectual stimulation :) on the subject:
(Note to Andrew: keep yer Shirt on buddy :>, about the “fundamentalist ‘Christian’ theocrat fanatics” reference. I just Had to fire off that blast, because there really were a Goodly number of Godly ;> exponents of a view Fairly so described, amongst my learned Co-commenters in this AOL Graduate Seminar :> and I totally Needed to piss them off. :)
December 22nd, 2006 at 4:23:14 pm
Brendan, i am well aware that the significance of this and realize the christmas tree thing at SeaTac is small potatoes, but i’m also aware that Sean often takes an extreme position on government and religion and i wanted to attempt to counter-act that. However in my haste to post i didn’t do a good reading of his comment and in this case there isn’t anything i can find that justifies my ire, guess i’m tired or cranky or something.
Joe, Absolutely Christmas is religious in origin, but then so are a lot of things that we no loger strongly associate with religion. For example, most of the days of the week and many of the months are named after religious figures. The term Holiday of course derives from Holy. But in reality although there is a religious aspect of Christmas for practicing Christians, there is also a significant secular portion, that really should be acknowledged and accepted by those militant members of some minority groups who see any government acknowledgement of anything remotely Christian as some huge afront to their own religious freedoms.
Time and time again we are told to celebrate diversity, accept other cultures, etc etc. And i agree 100% that those are good and noble goals. However that same noble goal is seldom applied to celebrating the diversity represented by the currently dominant religious view. Yes yes i know Christianity is everwhere, etc etc. However that shoudl not mean we shouldn’t apply the same principles evenly?
I’m sorry, but Christmas is signifcant part of American culture and our government should be allowed to acknowledge that. Doing so doesn’t threaten anyone’s religious freedom. Nobody is going to be forced to attend church service or believe in God because the White House or an Airport puts up Christmas trees (no, not Holiday tress, CHRISTMAS trees). Its patently ridiculous that it is more socially acceptable to have a christmas tree in a government owned location in Japan were less than 1% of the population is Christian.
I have no problem with the President attending a Hannukah menorah lighting ceremony, in fact i think its great because it represents a connection with an important part of our society. The same would be true if he or another official attended a signficant religious event for another religious group. No, the government shouldn’t officially support on faith and limit others but ignoring the fact that religion is part of our culture only leads to more problems, not less.
December 22nd, 2006 at 7:49:33 pm
Well said, David. / I think our only actual disagreement here is that it’s my (subjective) impression Government does recognize Christmas ~ AS Christmas ~ to a greater extent than you (also subjectively) feel it does.
Btw, your Comment reminded me to belatedly light the Menorah in the window, here. All the candles today, the 8th day. See, old Joe Goy is gradually Learning these things ;). Fighting Fadduh Feeney would be so Proud :). Of course I use the terms “light” and “candles” symbolically. Little teeny electric lightbulbs :}. Pretty, and Safe. :> Don’t Rat me out to the Rabbi. ;]
December 25th, 2006 at 11:39:39 pm
“If you’re not being tongue-in-cheek, let me be the first person to tell you you’re a
jackass, pjgoober.”
Name calling is the first refuge of those without arguments.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:51:10 pm
“Remember the good old days when the Founding Fathers stated plainly in no uncertain terms that government may NEVER legislate faith, and if that was too radical a position for you, you could kiss their
asses? Good times… ”
Legislating faith is a strawman. Here is Virgil Goodes actual position (it involves no curtailment of religious freedom):
“RUSH: Final question from David Asman. “Would you prohibit, Mr. Ellison — would you prohibit him from bringing a Koran into that ceremony?”
GOODE: If the voters of that district want persons that are going to swear by the Koran, that’s the choice of the voters of that district, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in my district would prefer the use of the Bible if a book is used, and that is exactly what I’m going to do.
ASMAN: Well, that I may well be true, but again just to put a fine point on it: You are not, then, for prohibiting Mr. Ellison from bringing in a Koran?
GOODE: No, but I am for restricting immigration so that we don’t have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives.”
Religious freedom means the freedom of americans to worship in any way they please, including converting en masse to islam. That is how it should be. Restricting muslim immigration does not restrict the freedom of people in america to do so.
December 25th, 2006 at 11:52:18 pm
That transcript above is from Virgil Goode’s appearance on the Rush Limbaugh show:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122206/content/stop_the_tape_2.guest.html