Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. says a Muslum should not use Qur'an during swearing in
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 1 of 32 (371475)
12-21-2006 6:51 PM


Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va. sent a letter to one of his constituents criticizing the plan of Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, to use a Koran for the ceremonial swearing-in of members next year.
He said: "I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way."
Representative Ellison is Islamic and so wants to use the Quar'an instead of a Bible during his swearing in ceremony.
source
So should we force Muslims to use the Bible instead or the Qur'an, a Jew to use the Bible instead of the Torah (although I imagine a Jew would prefer nothing)?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 12-21-2006 8:37 PM jar has not replied
 Message 4 by Vacate, posted 12-21-2006 8:41 PM jar has not replied
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 12-21-2006 8:58 PM jar has replied
 Message 10 by DorfMan, posted 12-22-2006 11:25 PM jar has replied
 Message 20 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 9:12 PM jar has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 32 (371492)
12-21-2006 8:22 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 32 (371496)
12-21-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
12-21-2006 6:51 PM


It is interesting that Goode seems to be trying to make this an anti-immigration issue, even though Ellis is a natural born American.
Edited by Chiroptera, : oops

I have always preferred, as guides to human action, messy hypothetical imperatives like the Golden Rule, based on negotiation, compromise and general respect, to the Kantian categorical imperatives of absolute righteousness, in whose name we so often murder and maim until we decide that we had followed the wrong instantiation of the right generality. -- Stephen Jay Gould

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 12-21-2006 6:51 PM jar has not replied

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 4 of 32 (371497)
12-21-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
12-21-2006 6:51 PM


I would seem a somewhat pointless to make a person swear an oath on something he does not believe in. There is little difference if he were to swear on the latest Stephen King novel, it would imply the same gravity to the oath he would be making.
I think if a person is making an oath of such seriousness as this is meant to imply - then he should be obligated to swear on the Qur'an.
Edited by Vacate, : Spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 12-21-2006 6:51 PM jar has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 5 of 32 (371501)
12-21-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
12-21-2006 6:51 PM


The official swearing in, of course, involves no religious texts whatsoever, just the newbies raising their right hands and engaging in some repeat-after-me. Often private ceremonies afterward do feature the "Bible" in a multiplicity of flavors (Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Mormon, etc.). I've already written to Ellison to offer my support for whatever textual foundation he wants to make his oath sacred to him.
I'd rather see them all swear on the Constitution. I'd rather that meant more to their service in office than their denomination of myth.
I hope the American people can rise to the occasion as tolerantly as the people of Minnesota did in electing a representative for his positions rather than his faith.
The right honorable bigot Goode from Va. already knows all these things about the ceremonies, and he has yoked his political wagon to ignorance and hatred. I hope he chokes on it.
Edited by Omnivorous, : No reason given.

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at any time, madam, is all that distinguishes us from the other animals.
-Pierre De Beaumarchais (1732-1799)
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 12-21-2006 6:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by U can call me Cookie, posted 12-22-2006 5:59 AM Omnivorous has not replied
 Message 8 by jar, posted 12-22-2006 12:56 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 6 of 32 (371558)
12-22-2006 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Omnivorous
12-21-2006 8:58 PM


I don't see why people need to swear an oath on anything in the first place.
Maybe its just my commitment issues, but i feel one should not make such absolute statements, if one is unable to predict future events, and how one might react.
Fact is, we'd all like to think that we'll "do the right thing" when the shit hits the fan, but who really knows what we'll do until it actually happens.
What are the consequences of breaking such an oath anyway? If someone enters a job, or position, where taking an oath is unnecessary, and messes up, they are either disciplined or fired. I'd expect the same would occur in a sworn in position as well.

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 12-21-2006 8:58 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-24-2006 9:16 PM U can call me Cookie has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 7 of 32 (371631)
12-22-2006 12:15 PM


Goode afirms and expands his position.
Yesterday, Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., a Virginia Republican afirmed his position and expanded it to specifically say that we should revise our immigration laws to limit people of a specific religious belief from coming to the US.
"I do not apologize and I do not retract my letter," Goode said emphatically during a session yesterday with reporters in the southern Virginia town of Rocky Mount. Questioned later on Fox News Channel's Your World, he said, "I am for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the House of Representatives."
source
Is there some valid reason for excluding people of a specific religious belief from immigrating to the US or holding public office?
If so, would it not be equally valid to say that Christians should not hold office?
Edited by jar, : forgot to link to the source.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by fallacycop, posted 12-22-2006 10:15 PM jar has not replied
 Message 11 by DorfMan, posted 12-22-2006 11:30 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 8 of 32 (371646)
12-22-2006 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Omnivorous
12-21-2006 8:58 PM


On the Constitution.
I'd rather see them all swear on the Constitution. I'd rather that meant more to their service in office than their denomination of myth.
Actually in the official swearing in ceremony they swear to uphold the Constitution and the Laws of the land.
He will do the same in the private ceremony but with the addition of placing his left hand on something he considers sacred for emphasis.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Omnivorous, posted 12-21-2006 8:58 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 9 of 32 (371756)
12-22-2006 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
12-22-2006 12:15 PM


Re: Goode afirms and expands his position.
Yesterday, Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr., a Virginia Republican afirmed his position and expanded it to specifically say that we should revise our immigration laws to limit people of a specific religious belief from coming to the US.
I can`t even begin to say how appaling I think that is. I have stated before elsewhere that I`m in favor of eliminating any restrictions whatsoever to the imigration of anybody, with possible exception of proven fellons.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 12-22-2006 12:15 PM jar has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6080 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 10 of 32 (371765)
12-22-2006 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by jar
12-21-2006 6:51 PM


Let him not swear on
any book, but let him swear he will uphold the constitution of the United States and let him prove he understands what that is. Let him swear that he is an American before he is a muslim, the latter being the most critical part. I support Goode and will let him know so in a letter.
To swear on the Bible is just as incorrect, etc. When a man serves caesar, he ought to serve him well. It is important for Christians to be exemplary citizens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by jar, posted 12-21-2006 6:51 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 12-22-2006 11:40 PM DorfMan has not replied

  
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 6080 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 11 of 32 (371767)
12-22-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by jar
12-22-2006 12:15 PM


Re: Goode afirms and expands his position.
Public service is just that and should not suffer interference from religious belief regardless. Other than a decent man may be influenced by certain standards. That's why it's called public office and not religious office. The two do not mix and should not mix and should not even be intimidated to mix.
How's it going, Jar? Hope you are well. Merry Christmas!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by jar, posted 12-22-2006 12:15 PM jar has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 12 of 32 (371768)
12-22-2006 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by DorfMan
12-22-2006 11:25 PM


Re: Let him not swear on
Let him not swear on ...
any book, but let him swear he will uphold the constitution of the United States and let him prove he understands what that is. Let him swear that he is an American before he is a muslim, the latter being the most critical part. I support Goode and will let him know so in a letter.
Actually, during the official ceremony as Goode well knows, all of the members swear with their right hand raised that they will support the Constitution and uphold the Laws of the land. Goode, having been through the ceremony himself know that and so his objection is simply nonsense from the very beginning. It is another example of "Lying for Christ."
And if you wish to support Goode, fine, but plese understand that he knows well he is misrepresenting the truth when he fails to point out the FACTS of the official Swearing In Ceremony.
Why should Ellison have to swear he is an American before he is a Muslim any more than a Jew or a Christian or a Roman Catholic? You do know also that bringing up immigration as an issue is another example of Goode's dishonesty. Rep. Ellison's family has been in the US and US citizens since the 1700 so immigration is just another example of misdirection and misrepresentation.
To swear on the Bible is just as incorrect, etc. When a man serves caesar, he ought to serve him well. It is important for Christians to be exemplary citizens.
If, during the unofficial private ceremony someone wishes to us a symbol to accentuate the seriousness of the oath they are taking, how can it be other than complimentary? During the private ceremony they still raise their right hand and swear to uphold the Constitution and the Laws of the Land.
Is it possible that Goode really is as ignorant of the facts as it seems or is it that he simply thinks his constituents are really that ignorant and that it is really that easy to hide the pea while he switches the shells and cons them?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by DorfMan, posted 12-22-2006 11:25 PM DorfMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 12-23-2006 6:18 PM jar has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 13 of 32 (371870)
12-23-2006 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by jar
12-22-2006 11:40 PM


Re: Let him not swear on
quote:
Is it possible that Goode really is as ignorant of the facts as it seems or is it that he simply thinks his constituents are really that ignorant and that it is really that easy to hide the pea while he switches the shells and cons them?
What I find very telling is the fact that, AFAICT, not a single Republican in Washington, has denounced Goode's bigotry. When directly questioned, a couple of them have said that they "support multiculturalism" an whatnot, but have not actually said that the Republican party does not support Goode's attitude or anything even close.
My personal belief is that the bigot vote is too important of a constituancy to the Republican party for them to risk alienating them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by jar, posted 12-22-2006 11:40 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 12-23-2006 7:01 PM nator has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 14 of 32 (371878)
12-23-2006 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by nator
12-23-2006 6:18 PM


Re: Let him not swear on
My personal belief is that the bigot vote is too important of a constituancy to the Republican party for them to risk alienating them.
I'm not sure bigot is actually the right term. I think it is more a matter of fear and that so many Republicans realize that they probably could not compete against people that grew up is a less sheltered environment. The Republican Party today is trying to attract the weak, ignorant and fearful.
What is interesting though is that Rep. Goode is using exactly the same tactics that the ID and Biblical Creationists use, misdirection and misrepresentation. He misdirects the audience's attention by not explaining the difference between the general official ceremony and the private unofficial ceremony as though the Qur'an was part of the official ceremony, then when their attention is diverted, he palms the pea and moves on to immigration even though immigration is TOTALLY unrelated to the issue and COMPLETELY unrelated to Rep. Ellison.
Rep Goode is simply being dishonest, but as we have seen, he will likely get away with it. The fact is that his audience is simply not bright enough to see that he is pulling the old Carny trick and conning them.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by nator, posted 12-23-2006 6:18 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Monk, posted 12-23-2006 8:06 PM jar has replied

  
Monk
Member (Idle past 3924 days)
Posts: 782
From: Kansas, USA
Joined: 02-25-2005


Message 15 of 32 (371888)
12-23-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by jar
12-23-2006 7:01 PM


Re: Let him not swear on
..he palms the pea and moves on to immigration even though immigration is TOTALLY unrelated to the issue and COMPLETELY unrelated to Rep. Ellison.
Rep Goode is simply being dishonest, but as we have seen, he will likely get away with it. The fact is that his audience is simply not bright enough to see that he is pulling the old Carny trick and conning them.
Goode is using the occasion of a Muslim being elected to a position in our government to push for legislative changes. The fact, that Rep. Ellison has nothing to do with immigration, is irrelevant for Goode's purposes. He is making the connection. He is doing it to arouse fear. Once aroused, fear can be used to push for changes in immigration policy regarding muslims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by jar, posted 12-23-2006 7:01 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 12-23-2006 8:16 PM Monk has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024