Congressman wants to use the Qur'an when sworn in

[julianw]

Story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061222/ap_on_...o/ellison_quran

 

ROCKY MOUNT, Va. - A congressman said Thursday that he will not retract a letter warning that unless immigration is tightened, "many more Muslims will be elected" and use the Quran to take the oath of office.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

Republican Rep. Virgil Goode (news, bio, voting record) triggered angry responses from a civil rights group and some colleagues with a letter this month to constituents concerned about a decision by Rep.-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress, to use the Quran when he is sworn in.

 

"I will not be putting my hand on the Quran," Goode said at a news conference Thursday at the Franklin County Courthouse.

 

Goode, who represents Virginia's 5th Congressional District, said he is receiving more positive comments from constituents than negative.

 

"One lady told me she thinks I'm doing the right thing on this," he told Fox News. "I wish more people would take a stand and stand up for the principles on which this country was founded."

 

Goode also told Fox News he wants to limit legal immigration and do away with "diversity visas," which he said let in people "not from European countries" and "some terrorist states."

 

In his letter, Goode wrote that strict immigration polices are necessary "to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America."

 

"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," he wrote.

 

Ellison said Thursday that Goode and others had nothing to fear about Muslims.

 

"They are our nurses, doctors, husbands, wives, kids, who just want to live and prosper in the American way," Ellison, a Democrat from Minneapolis, said Thursday on CNN when asked what he would say to Goode if they met. "All of us are steadfastly opposed to the same people he's opposed to, which is terrorists, and so there's nothing for him to be afraid of."

 

Asked whether he thought Goode was a bigot, Ellison said, "I don't know the fellow, and I'd rather just say that he has a lot to learn about Islam. ... I don't want to start any name-calling."

 

Virginia's senior senator, Republican John Warner, said in a statement Thursday that he respects the right of congressional members to freely "exercise the religion of their choice, including those of the Islamic faith utilizing the Quran."

 

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (news, bio, voting record), an Illinois Democrat who is Jewish, said Thursday that he hoped Goode would meet with Ellison, saying he would "see what I saw: a good American with good values of a different faith who's trying to do right by the people he represents."

 

The Council on American-Islamic Relations had asked Goode to apologize, saying the remarks sent "a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office."

 

Ellison was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college.

 

Interesting story worthy of discussion or am I beating a dead horse here?

[mkreku]

[Sand]

Months old and yes, its beating a dead horse. If I was to become part of congress i would use a 1st edition Advance Dungeons and Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide.

[astr0creep]

I would use The Lord of the Rings Collector's Edition which comes with a cloth map of Middle-Earth and leather bindings and stuff.

 

(w00t)

[Kaftan Barlast]

I would use a copy of "Winnie the Pooh and Piglet and the big blowy storm"

[Hell Kitty]

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to swear on a book if that book means nothing to you. Unless it means I can get away with lying in court...

 

Anyway, if muslims can swear an oath on the Qur'an then everyone will have to convert to Islam and marry homosexuals and go to prostitutes and have abortions so yeah, dead horse.

[~Di]

I've always been annoyed that any religious text is used when swearing to uphold the constitution of the United States. If our congress-critters need to touch anything while taking their oath of office, it should be a copy of the constitution itself.

[Hurlshort]

I've always been annoyed that any religious text is used when swearing to uphold the constitution of the United States.  If our congress-critters need to touch anything while taking their oath of office, it should be a copy of the constitution itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm a big fan of separation of church and state, but I'm also very respectful of the symbolic nature that any holy book, whether it's the bible, torah, or Qur'an, has in our society. I expect my elected officials to respect the nature of those books whether they believe in God or not. Those books aren't just about religion, they are a foundation for living a humble and charitable life.

[Sand]

I've always been annoyed that any religious text is used when swearing to uphold the constitution of the United States.  If our congress-critters need to touch anything while taking their oath of office, it should be a copy of the constitution itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can go along with that.

[Wistrik]

True, but since few of the elected politicians bother to follow the book's guidelines (rather, they prefer to 'interpret' them in a way that's convenient for their own aims, like most people do), I figure they could eliminate the book altogether. They aren't fooling me when they swear on the Bible one day and then send troops to kill some of their neighbors the next day.

 

The D&D book idea is funny. "Swear me in as Chaotic Neutral, please."

Edited December 22, 2006 by Wistrik

[WITHTEETH]

I'd like to swear in on the Star wars FIRST Trilogy DVD Remastered Special Edition Set. The only trilogy ever made.

[Aram]

Republicans secretly swear in with a copy of the Necronomicon anyway during a later meeting at the Republican headquarters two miles below the earth's crust.

[kirottu]

They should make them swear on their ****.

[WinterSun]

I'd swear on a Harry Potter book.

 

And by "swear" I mean wipe my crack.

[Sand]

You really should use some ointment on that. It will heal it up right quick.

[Guard Dog]

Allow me to pass on a little "inside info" since I have been involved in politics. Substance accounts for very little in Washington D.C. Style is everything. This whole mess was engineered to grab headlines and get a little rise out of everyone. It sets an agenda and makes talking points during a time when there is really nothing going on. It also gives the pols a chance to strut and preen, liberals for it, conservatives against it. So it is a big deal but only in that context. That is just for the US. I do not know how they act in Europe or Canada, or elsewhere.

 

Di, if you actually knew how little the congress critters knew about the constitution I don't know if you would laugh or cry. I know two congressmen personally. One is a well meaning idiot with a smart chief of staff that keeps him in office. The other is an arrogant @$$ who honestly believes the law is what Congress says it is. I got into a conversation with the latter last year about Imminent Domain being a 10th Amendment issue (I argured Kelo v New London was a disgraceful decision). About 5 min into the conversation I realized he had no idea what the 10th amendment actually said. In November he was reelcted for the 5th time. I would not vote for him and I consider him a friend.

 

Both are democrats for those who are wondering. Having a philisophical slant does not make you smart.

[Weiser_Cain]

I'm an atheist, this is all crap to me.

[Walsingham]

I'd swear on an elephant. Just to be awkward.

[steelfiredragon]

I'd swear on an elephant. Just to be awkward.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you and me both.

 

while i dont discreminate i think its a load of BS both the fact that he wanted the quran, and the fact just how bad the media has taken it.( though he being muslim, i can see why he did the quran.)

 

 

waht is the correct spelling of it anyway.

Edited December 23, 2006 by steelfiredragon

[Walsingham]

Relax, it's just some senator playing up to his extremist supporters. I do find it funny that senators seem to find it difficult to grasp the nature of freedom of religion. If the swearing in is going to mean anything surely it has to be on something the individual takes seriously.

 

As for the counter argument that the founding fathers were christian, this is firstly inaccurate*, and secondly going to lead down some interesting paths. Principally, many of them were slaveowners. Does that mean slavery should be reinstated?

 

 

* My impression was that while everyone in those days said they were christian, many of the founders were sceptical to say the least.

[Guard Dog]

Relax, it's just some senator playing up to his extremist supporters. I do find it funny that senators seem to find it difficult to grasp the nature of freedom of religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

See my preivous post for an explanation. But those who see this and worry are not extremists. They are average people. America learned all it needs to know about Islam on 9-11-01.

 

As for the counter argument that the founding fathers were christian, this is firstly inaccurate*, and secondly going to lead down some interesting paths. Principally, many of them were slaveowners. Does that mean slavery should be reinstated?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Straw Man

 

* My impression was that while everyone in those days said they were christian, many of the founders were sceptical to say the least.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison could be described as Deists. The rest I would not call them anything but Christian.

[alanschu]

I'm a big fan of separation of church and state, but I'm also very respectful of the symbolic nature that any holy book, whether it's the bible, torah, or Qur'an, has in our society.  I expect my elected officials to respect the nature of those books whether they believe in God or not.  Those books aren't just about religion, they are a foundation for living a humble and charitable life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Was the US actually founded on a separation of religion and the state? Is the "church" in "church and state" literal, as in keeping the official bureaucracy of the churches (the Pope for example).

 

 

I'd be surprised if the Founding Fathers were truly thinking on keeping the government secular, as I'd also be surprised if any of them weren't fairly religious chaps to being with.

[Guard Dog]

To answer Alanschu's question. The First Amendment states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. This has become what people refer to as the "Establishment Clause" and has been used (wrongfully) to argue that the US government must be totally deviod of religion. It does not say that at all. It does not violate the first amendment to place a Christian symbol (such as the Mt. Soledad Cross) on public property. Nor is it wrong for Ellison to swear on a Quran however little I may like it. The thing about freedom is, you must take the good with the bad. Personally I find Mr. Ellisons religion incomprehensable but he has every right to practice it as he pleases where he pleases. If that means he swears his oath on a quran good for him and I will defend his right to do so.

 

The first amendment is often used by anti-religious groups such as the ACLU to attack religious practices everywhere. The are quick to point out the first part of the establishment clause but totally ignore the second part.

Edited December 23, 2006 by Guard Dog

[Walsingham]

Islam can certainly be hard to understand, but i think it often stems more from the rift between European culture and Arab culture that the religion itself. I have met and been variously been inspired/annoyed by Muslims in much the same ways as I do with most cultural groups. I stand (as I think has been made very clear) against Islamic fascism, but not against Islam.

 

As for the statement about 9/11, it's as nonsensical as saying that Britain learned everything it needs to know about Roman Catholicism on 27th August 1979. No religion is that simple, even something as extreme as Aum Shinri Kyo has complexity.

 

And my point about the founding fathers is essentially a ripoff of Warren Ellis/Spider Jerusalem. God forbid that we might have learned something since the ineffable light of truth was granted us by the founders.

[Guard Dog]

I would strongly suspect that your statement 'vile and incomprehensible' stems more from the fact of your incomprehension than any vileness on the part of the religion. I stand (as I think has been made very clear) against Islamic fascism, but not against Islam.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You were right, I was wrong to say that. Apologies offered to anyone offended.

 

As for the statement about 9/11, it's as nonsensical as saying that Britain learned everything it needs to know about Roman Catholicism on 27th August 1979. No religion is that simple, even something as extreme as Aum Shinri Kyo has complexity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sticking to this one. No other religion instructs it's followers to kill non believers. The principle tenent of Christianity is to love one another. Those who practice violence in it's name are in violation of it's tenents. Those who practice violence in the name of Islam are following it's tenants. I spent quite a bit of time in Saudi Arabia in 1991-1992 and saw that first hand.

 

And my point about the founding fathers is essentially a ripoff of Warren Ellis/Spider Jerusalem. God forbid that we might have learned something since the ineffable light of truth was granted us by the founders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was not debating your point, just pointing out a few things that you said were a little wrong.