HaloScan.com - Comments

No. Freaking. Way.

Is Jon Swift a new guest poster now?
Epsilon | 12.19.06 - 5:54 pm | #

Is Jon Swift a new guest poster now?

The way I learned of this letter was that someone VERY reliable e-mailed it and pasted the contents of the letter in the e-mail, but my first, second and third reaction was that it was fake, that it could not be real.

Notwithstanding how reliable the source is, I would never have blogged about it - or even believed it - had it not been for the link to the relatively credible Charlottesville newspaper reporting it.

Nonetheless, there are people who are going to not only agree with this letter, but cheer it on enthusiastically, as we will be seeing right here in our very own comment section soon enough.

How can anyone be expected to maintain a blogging hiatus when things like this land in one's inbox?
Glenn Greenwald | 12.19.06 - 5:58 pm | #

FYI, apparently Goode rhymes with food (or lewd) not with good.

Do you think this guy realizes his ancestors were immigrants? Or that Jesus was Jewish? Or that Arabs are Semites? Or that he's a bigoted hatemongering moron?
Bullsmith | 12.19.06 - 5:58 pm | #

Somebody should call him on that "Muslim student." Who was that macaca man? Sounds a lot like the mythical "black guy" who has been accused of committing so many crimes that turned out to have been fabricated by their "victims." My bullshit detector is screaming....
elle loco | 12.19.06 - 5:58 pm | #

Of course, I wasn't questioning your credibility, Glenn; it's just so difficult to believe that the letter itself isn't satire.

You're 100% right, though, that even if it were a fake, people would still align themselves behind its message. That much is evident from the comments at the original Dennis Prager column that started this whole mess. Talk about ignorance and depravity...

I almost fell out of my damn chair when I read "Bill Clinton" in that letter. Absolutely ridiculous.
Epsilon | 12.19.06 - 6:01 pm | #

EPSILON - Of course, I wasn't questioning your credibility, Glenn; it's just so difficult to believe that the letter itself isn't satire.

No, I totally understand. Like I said, my first reaction was the same as your reaction - that this cannot be real.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.19.06 - 6:02 pm | #

I read this over at TPM Muckraker and it just goes with every other post today: the Republicans are getting more out of touch with reality every day.
~ ~
zack | 12.19.06 - 6:05 pm | #

I'm wondering if any of his constituents are Muslim?
Jeb | 12.19.06 - 6:06 pm | #

I'm wondering if any of his constituents are Muslim?

Not any more, at least!
Andy | 12.19.06 - 6:09 pm | #

Goode must have a very robust speaking voice. He says, "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.'" I can't actually find an answer to the question which contains that nasty, diffficult 'why' word. So "clear" must refer to his fine diction and speaking voice.

I suspect if he'd actually have told us WHY there would be even more uproar about his moronic comments.
Sigh | 12.19.06 - 6:10 pm | #

it's letters like Goode's that make me believe that we have all fallen into that black hole that was caught eating a star. (yes, it's true; see http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/new...lease=2006-144)
just when i think the wingnuts can't get any nuttier........
psd | 12.19.06 - 6:12 pm | #

OK, seriously...the trolls can't really bite on this one. I think there is finally a troll-proof topic. Despite the paltry esteem in which I hold our regular trolls here, none of them have ever stooped quite THIS low.

Let's see if they prove me wrong. Shooter? daley rocks? Who'd a known? Bart? Gedaliya?

Care to nibble?
Epsilon | 12.19.06 - 6:19 pm | #

You know, when I read the letter, it never even crossed my mind that it might be satire or that it might not be real. That alone is sad - that I've come to expect this now and am not surprised when I see it.
Disgusted Beyond Belief | 12.19.06 - 6:22 pm | #

He won't have the Koran 'on his wall'? Why would you put a book on the wall? Does he have a bible on his wall? That would be odd.
Mark B. | 12.19.06 - 6:25 pm | #

He's the white Cynthia McKinney?

Assuming the letter is real.
daleyrocks | 12.19.06 - 6:25 pm | #

Sorry, should be 'on the wall of his office'. Shouldn't have put quotes around 'on his wall'.
Mark B. | 12.19.06 - 6:26 pm | #

Glenn,

Two things missing from the letter that hurt its credibility. It doesn't make the case that gay marriage is causing the immigration problem and it doesn't threaten god fearing folk of losing their second amendment rights.

If they work that in (with some kind of condemnation of the UN) it's probably going to be the center piece of their direct mail work in the next election cycle.

Hopefully
Politically Lost | 12.19.06 - 6:35 pm | #

So, Mark.

A question remains, does he have a Bible on the wall of his office? and, if so, why?
Sky-Ho | 12.19.06 - 6:36 pm | #

As a congressman, presumably this guy took an oath (on the Bible!) to uphold the constitution of the United States.

Maybe someone should show him Article 6 and ask him why he's behaving contrary to his oath?
Steve Stein | 12.19.06 - 6:42 pm | #

Glenn,

get back to work! I mean it young man.

Regards,
Your publisher
Antonio | 12.19.06 - 6:46 pm | #

"because what you will see are many, many Rep. Goodes floating around."
-which brings to mind the contents of my toilet after a particularly frenzied mexican food and beer binge.
pinkobait | 12.19.06 - 6:48 pm | #

This is way out-off my comfort zone, but I have read 'thought' from Historaian, Martin Marty, about this Keith Ellison, of Minnesota, who brought a Qur'an along with him when he took the oath of office---and some howled this was outrageous in a christian country?

Who knows if Jesu-chrismo would care? I not able to keep up. I swear. But, I try.
brotherbruz. | 12.19.06 - 7:02 pm | #

This comes as no surprise to me at all. You should see some of the boilerplate constituent responses spewed on his office letterhead on topics like gay marriage and his own links to the MZM scandal.

Virgil Goode was a DINO that at least had the honesty/courtesy to switch parties. Unfortunately, this asshat can thank some very deliberate Republican gerrymandering for his seat. His district is drawn to assure that the hardcore blue Albemarle county vote is completely diluted.
technomage | 12.19.06 - 7:08 pm | #

Sky-Ho - He wouldn't put one on the wall. To achieve the right effect, he'd have a big ass lectern in the middle of the room with a humungous version open on top so he could quote scripture and thunder at visitors. IMHO.
daleyrocks | 12.19.06 - 7:13 pm | #

I have the solution.

Take the BIBLE out of government.

Have them swear in with their hands on a copy of the CONSTITUTION.

Then all of these so called "immigration" problems are no longer problems.
tularemia | 12.19.06 - 7:22 pm | #

I hate to say it but the reason he put that letter out there is because that shit actually sells. I still miss the good old days when people were at least sufficiently embarassed by their racism to couch it code language. (Freedom of Association and such)

Now the guy feels free to claim that a vote for me means you won't have any nasty Muslims as your neighbors. I keep hoping that we'll outgrow this shit eventually....
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 7:35 pm | #

Judge Roy Moore just published an excellent article on the subject of swearing in Ellison.
anonymoose | 12.19.06 - 7:36 pm | #

How is this any different than what Michelle Malkin has been saying?

Or Mark Steyn? He’s pissing his pants over brown people in Europe, saying it’s lost, and is warning America not to let it happen here.

No more brown people! That’s his message, and it’s echoed all over right-wing blogs.

Why should we be surprised when an elected representative spews stuff he reads on Powerline (Ellison Obsessive Central) or Malkin (Brown People Are All Criminals, ahem, except me) about a Muslim/Mexican Invasion?

It’s becoming the party line now isn’t it? I don’t see why anyone’s surprised. Spewing this stuff is Dennis Prager’s job description for crying out loud. That’s what they do.
~ ~
zack | 12.19.06 - 7:38 pm | #

I went to college with quite a few Middle Eastern (and I assume Muslim) people, in the 1980s. I bet that was somehow Clinton's fault, too.

Then, this one time, when I was working at a job, I failed to get a promotion I wanted... Clinton. That bastard.

Now, every time I sit in traffic, I fume at Clinton.

My stomach hurts. Damn you, Clinton.
LL | 12.19.06 - 7:42 pm | #

"Welcome to America, and the real world of Virginia." (Senator George 'Macaca' Allen)

The number of votes Allen won this past November speaks volumes about Virginia. That Webb actually won the race is reason enough to be optimistic. Saner heads could continue to prevail.

For what it's worth, Glenn, your writing has made me optimistic about America's future. As your star rises, so might the level of discourse.

Now if only we could get you on O'Reilly's show...fairly easy, as long as you promise not to push that 'lawyer' agenda.

Merry Xmas, Hannukah, Ramadan, Kwanza, Festivus, etc., to ALL!
Redwretch | 12.19.06 - 7:49 pm | #

I'm still not convinced it's real -- there are mistakes in grammar, and parts of it are very poorly expressed. Don't people in Congress have staff that do the writing for their bosses?

But assuming that it's real -- I wonder if he realizes that at least some of the immigrants that he hates so much can express themselves in English, their second (or third, etc.) language, better than he can in his mother tongue?

Just an observation --
aghast | 12.19.06 - 7:58 pm | #

I'm sure Mark Krikorian at The Corner would agree with Goode's letter. While I also hold some criticisms of the excesses of "multi-culturalism," this rant is deranged:

The specific form of the [existnetial] threat varies — in Europe, the linked phenomena of pro-EU advocacy and pusillanimity in the face of domestic Muslim chauvinism; post-Zionism in Israel (which was Pipes' topic); and post-Americanism here, which most directly manifests itself in the push for amnesty and against immigration-law enforcement. But the will-to-power by the Other is the same, whether from Mexican illegals in L.A., Moroccan jihadists in Amsterdam, or Muslims with Israeli citizenship.

It is obviously true that the challenge to America's coherence and sovereignty is the decaf, lo-calorie version of what Israel and Europe face, both because our challengers are less alien (nominally Christian Latin Americans, many of whose predecessors we have successfully assimilated in the past) and because our own sense of self is stronger, certainly stronger than that of most European countries, anyway. But that simply means we are in a better position to prevail, not that we face a different threat.

Mona | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 8:01 pm | #

aghast -- I'm with you -- I think this letter is a fake. Goode is a dinosaur but he is not wholly ignorant of the PR ramifications if something like this is shared with the press.
AJ | 12.19.06 - 8:11 pm | #

The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office

Any room for the Constitution and The Bill of Rights?
clio | 12.19.06 - 8:16 pm | #

Jesus Christ I hate the modern republican party.
Joe | 12.19.06 - 8:16 pm | #

aghast ... that there are mistakes in grammar should give your MORE confirmation that this letter is real. Republicans are fucking illiterate. You know this.
Joe | 12.19.06 - 8:17 pm | #

I'm astonished so many doubt the Goode letter is real. I have no trouble at all believing it, and can't understand the skepticism. Seriously.
Mona | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 8:19 pm | #

Mona,
It surprises me too - how could anyone think this letter is fake? We've seen far worse than this over the past 6 years.

This is who republicans are. This is what republicans do.

They are freaks.
Joe | 12.19.06 - 8:20 pm | #

I'm astonished so many doubt the Goode letter is real. I have no trouble at all believing it, and can't understand the skepticism. Seriously.

Mona

I agree. I believe it 100%.

Is it any different than the guy sitting at the counter of a restaurant next to my dad who said, "we should just kill all the Muslims?"

People believe these things. Not only that, they believe their views are righteous and that everyone agrees with them. Their sheltered, delusional universe doesn't allow them to think about how what they say might sound.
Kristin | 12.19.06 - 8:28 pm | #

I really hate to disillusion anyone, it being Christmas 'n' all, but the sentiments expressed by Rep. Goode are quite common below the Mason-Dixon Line.

Rep. Goode is more forthright about expressing them than many Southern-born urbanites, who have had corners rubbed off by the more cosmopolitan 'New South' but, believe me, the old South is right there under the surface. In more rural areas this letter would elict approving nods, not raised eyebrows.
clio | 12.19.06 - 8:29 pm | #

Mona | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 8:01 pm

I agree. That rant is appalling. It is also such a classic piece of projection is is a wonder that the author dares to right it. What sinister "will-to-power" do pro-EU advocacy, Muslim chauvinsits and "nominally Christian Latin Americans" have in common? Nothing, except that they are all targets of the author's xenophobia.
Enlightened Layperson | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 8:37 pm | #

You're all just ducking the issue! No one of you will go on record disavowing any intent to decorate their offices with the Koran, making you objectively pro-terrorist. One of you in fact is probably the soon-to-be-ubiquitous Muslim student.
sniflheim | 12.19.06 - 8:38 pm | #

I really hate to disillusion anyone, it being Christmas 'n' all, but the sentiments expressed by Rep. Goode are quite common below the Mason-Dixon Line.
clio

I hear similar things right here in suburban Northern California.

It's everywhere, and it's bubbling back up now that the racists think they have a socially acceptable target.
Kristin | 12.19.06 - 8:40 pm | #

A bit off topic, but I'm hoping there will be post about the hysterics which must be going on in the right wing blogsphere (I don't have the stomach to look myself, but it's not exactly hard to predict) over the Libyan death verdict. I can just imagine the outrage at such backwards uncivilized people who would not only dismiss, but show contempt for, conclusive evidence and valid science, preferring (or at least professing) instead to believe in absurdity driven by hate, bigotry, religious ignorance, or simply the need for scapegoats and bogeymen to manipulate an emotional and easily duped populace. The intolerable injustice of confessions to nonexistent crimes tortured out of innocent people and used as the basis to hold them forever, or kill them. Such things must surely be beyond the pale, when anyone else does them.
Dread Scot | 12.19.06 - 8:43 pm | #

I think this letter is about the best pr available for bringing around swing voters. In talking to them, I keep repeating the mantra - "Hey, have you had a good look who you're in bed with when you vote Republican? - look again; and again, and again!"

The more these guys' true colors are shown, and highlighted, and emphasized, then pointed to again, the more likely they're going to be relegated to the dust bin where they belong.
JimLanc | 12.19.06 - 8:50 pm | #

Glenn, when you pop your head back in for a quick commentary it's like someone telling us we have to go on a diet and the comes back and hands us a fresh right off the froster Krispy Creme doughnut. Thanks for your time. Good Luck.
the Fly-Man | 12.19.06 - 9:01 pm | #

Kristan,

You are right, of course. It is everywhere. While I think it may be a bit less common in other areas of the country, I have been appalled by the recrudescence and open expression of intolerance and bigotry, as well documented on Orcinus, since Bush took office.

It is interesting that since a single expression of the need for tolerance just after 9/11, Bush has not used his bully pulpit for repeated and forceful denunciations of bigotry. It does not play well to his base...and the continuing neglect of New Orleans by his administration speaks for itself.
clio | 12.19.06 - 9:08 pm | #

Sadly I have a couple of relatives who send out crap like this on a regular basis. I have no trouble believing it's quite real. Heck look at some of the things Santorum has said in the past.

Santorum on The Record
SoulCatcher | 12.19.06 - 9:10 pm | #

Sorry about the double post. If anyone can fix it I would be grateful.
clio | 12.19.06 - 9:16 pm | #

Virgil Goode : http://dailyprogress.com/servlet/Satellite? pagename=Common%2FMGArticle%2FPrintVersion& cid=1149189905280

"He said I got nearly $100,000 in illegal contributions.
Not so.
It was about $46,000."

U.S. Rep Virgil Goode, defending himself
Charlotesville, Va.
Wednesday, August 9, 2006

sysprog | 12.19.06 - 9:20 pm | #

If Ellison can substitute his own religious standard for an oath, can he substitute his own religious law for our secular one?

Or, put a bit differently what is the feeling here about the possibility of Sharia court in Ellison's district?
shooter242 | 12.19.06 - 9:25 pm | #

Actually, while Goode's stance is appallingly narrow-minded and bigoted, blaming Clinton's more open visa policy is not inconsistent, and to say he shouldn't blame the policy just because Clinton has been out of office for six years doesn't address that (hateful) logic.

In fact, it makes perfect sense that a well-enacted policy will have repercussions for years. So, blaming Clinton for what is in effect a greater emphasis on multiculturalism is racist and bigoted, but at least internally consistent.
Hateful logic | 12.19.06 - 9:28 pm | #

Mona, Enlightened, etc.:

I don't doubt the sentiment is genuine -- I grew up with racist Dixiecrat politicians who expressed themselves like the ignorant rednecks they were.

But nowadays, doesn't a Representative in Congress have some staff member that would polish up his/her boss's utterances?

I can see the hill-billy coming out in impromptu settings (cf. GFM Allen) but not in official communications....
aghast | 12.19.06 - 9:31 pm | #

Stupidity + bigotry + awful grammar. Tasty.
Tagliabue | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 10:02 pm | #

It's about time someone spoke up about those damn Muslim illegal immigrants sneaking into our country! Soon we will all be forced to hear the muezzin give the call to prayer 5 times a day in Spanish. When will it stop?

Seriously: does Krikorian not know that the Other is not real? That the other is constructed? That WE construct it?

The Other is not out to get us. Some of us are out to destroy it.

And as for shari'a operating in a county courthouse . . . someone just won the prize for boob of the day.
Baldie McEagle | 12.19.06 - 10:03 pm | #

Don't you people know people are not sworn in to the House on a Bible?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/11...prager-ellison/
Baldie McEagle | 12.19.06 - 10:07 pm | #

If Ellison can substitute his own religious standard for an oath, can he substitute his own religious law for our secular one?

shooter, its not his own religious standard, it's the nation's. Our Constitution was written with the knowlege that there is more than one religious faith among citizens and was crafted to specifically be neutral on the subject for that very reason.

The fact that people like you routinely ignore that fact is exactly why it was so important in the first place.
Paul Dirks | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 10:08 pm | #

Shooter,

Ellison has not subsituted his own religious standard for an oath. Both the constitution and House tradition allow him to deliver his oath in the manner his conscience dictates. But of course he can't substitute a religious law for our secular one. Unless you can present any evidence that Ellison has indicated a desire to do this, yours is a stupid, bigoted question.

I think is goes without saying that nobody here wants to see Sharia applied in the USA as a legal code. Nor do I see much danger of that. However, I don't think Sharia would be any less unAmerican than imposition of Levitical laws, or even imposing the Ten Commandments as a legal code.
Observer | 12.19.06 - 10:11 pm | #

Minuteman Project :
http://www.minutemanproject.com/default.asp? contentID=188

North American Union Threat Gets Attention of Congressmen
October 2, 2006
...Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va., has introduced a resolution – H.C.R. 487 – designed to express "the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada."

"Now ... we are moving out of the realm where critics can attempt to disparage the discussion as 'Internet conspiracy theory,'" explained Jerome Corsi, author and WND columnist, who has written extensively on the Security and Prosperity Partnership – the semisecret plan many suspect is behind the efforts to create a European Union-style North American confederation..."

In case you're not following the logic, here's the argument:

1. The Bush administration is secretly planning to abolish U.S. borders and U.S. sovereignty.

2. How do we know this plan exists?

3. Because Virgil Goode introduced a resolution condemning the plan.

sysprog | 12.19.06 - 10:11 pm | #

The Islamic faith rejects our God and believes that the state must mandate the worship of its own god, Allah. Last week, the Associated Press reported that the Islamic Court in Bulo Burto, a small town in southern Somalia, had ordered that residents would be beheaded "according to Islamic law" if they failed to pray five times a day. Sheik Hussein Barre Rage, chairman of the Islamic court, stated, "As Muslims, we should practice Islam fully ... and that is what our religion enjoins us to do." In other regions of Somalia, Islamic courts have introduced flogging, public execution and other punishments for those who deny Quranic law or refuse to worship Allah.

Poor moose doesn't know ANY history. And as usual, the bigot Roy Moore gets it backwards. It's Christians who forcibly converted Muslims and others. Muslims historically have left Christians alone---left them secons-class citizens, to be sure, but let them worship freely.

If the above quote contains any truth at all, it's because the Islamic extremists in Somali are ignorant of their own religion and law. Which is why we oppose al Qaeda: because they don't realize their "jihad" is no jihad at all. You don't kill civilians to advance the cause of Islam.

Anonymoose's link displays other such jewels of idiocy.
Baldie McEagle | 12.19.06 - 10:14 pm | #

Just when you think Shooter has flattened his face on the ground floor, he manages to bash his head into the ground and wind up strewn on the basement floor.

Simply breathtaking.
Epsilon | 12.19.06 - 10:14 pm | #

Sorry:

Which is why Muslims oppose al Qaeda
Baldie McEagle | 12.19.06 - 10:16 pm | #

Everyone here knows that the right wing has never been completely honest about anything. Dennis Prager is caught in a stunning mistake and Hugh Hewitt spends valuable air time trying to spin him out of trouble. George Bush puts his foot in his mouth on a daily basis, and Tony Snow will spin it into outerspace at the next press gaggle.
Now we find that a new study shows that 95% of Americans have had premarital sex and who among us is even the tiniest bit surprised that the Christianists couldn't even keep it in their pants. Anyone who believes anything these people have to say is a fool.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 10:16 pm | #

Or, put a bit differently what is the feeling here about the possibility of Sharia court in Ellison's district?

Or, put a bit differently, what is the feeling here about the possibility of a space shuttle hurtling from orbit, colliding with a commercial airliner, and crashing into Lake Michigan, creating a tsunami that upends the Sears Tower and sends all of the denizens of Soldier Field into an intergalactic time warp to Pluto?
Epsilon | 12.19.06 - 10:17 pm | #

Hey Jim M!

I want to know about the Christians and their pants! -- And your link doesn't work!!!
come on! | 12.19.06 - 10:27 pm | #

Epsilon,

Tally so far;

Shooter oozed under the bar and, latest report is still sinking.

Anonymoose is either a comedy troll (my guess) or, like the unique Judge Roy Moore, doesn't realize that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all worship the same, original, God. Islam adopted the Old Testament/Torah and then went further, just like the Christians did.

Daleyrocks passed the test, however, with his quite good mockery of Goode. Kudos Daley. And I take no pleasure in saying that.
Bullsmith | 12.19.06 - 10:28 pm | #

This is fucking unbelievable.

America needs to decide if we are going to be a racist nation or not.

This luke warm bullshit isn't cutting it.

This pretending to be the shining beacon, the torch of liberty, give us your tired, poor huddled masses is getting a little transparent.
PoliShifter | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 10:28 pm | #

Come on! The link works for me. But here it is:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061.../ premarital_sex
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.19.06 - 10:35 pm | #

Daley isn't crazy, whatever else you might say about him.

Epsilon, well played.
Baldie McEagle | 12.19.06 - 10:35 pm | #

I hope Rep. Goode's immigration bill covers the states. Keith Ellison was born and reared in Michigan and emigrated to Minnesota in his early 20s. If the blame is to be placed anywhere it should rest with the state of Minnesota.
Claessens1 | 12.19.06 - 10:46 pm | #

Boy, if we didn't want Muslims like Ellison invading our country, we really should have outlawed the slave trade prior to 1808.
Rojo | 12.19.06 - 11:00 pm | #

"If Ellison can substitute his own religious standard for an oath, can he substitute his own religious law for our secular one?

Or, put a bit differently what is the feeling here about the possibility of Sharia court in Ellison's district?"

And we should never elect a Catholic as President, for he'll be taking orders from the Pope!

Ooops we did, and he didn't - despite the terrible fears of so many racist, scardy-cats.

You can't fix stupid.
Halteclere | 12.19.06 - 11:05 pm | #

Ooops - I meant bigoted, not racist.
Halteclere | 12.19.06 - 11:07 pm | #

Oooo, Epsilon, 10:17 pm

I want to play. When the shuttle crashes into Lake Michigan, it will probably wipe out the Freshwater Whales which were reported in a school "teaching guide". When a teacher, who lived on Lake M., called the "guide" to dispute the story an editor, who had to be related to shooter and Judge Roy Moore, stood by the story and refused to retract it. For several days, too: based on one (1) spoof website and a profound ignorance of the Great Lakes from the perspective of Arizona. They finally did retract it when every marine biologist they contacted told them they were crazy.

Googleing around I see that the original spoof site is down. Really too bad. Had great pictures of whales and dolphins migrating through the St. Lawrence Seaway as well as several blood curdling tales of shipwreck and whale hunts. Would have given shooter something to read.
clio | 12.19.06 - 11:30 pm | #

Poor moose doesn't know ANY history. And as usual, the bigot Roy Moore gets it backwards. It's Christians who forcibly converted Muslims and others. Muslims historically have left Christians alone---left them secons-class citizens, to be sure, but let them worship freely.

Yeah, right.

doesn't realize that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all worship the same, original, God. Islam adopted the Old Testament/Torah and then went further, just like the Christians did.

Nope: see for instance the following scholarly discussion.
anonymoose | 12.19.06 - 11:52 pm | #

anonymouse,

How about better sources, Robert Morey got his Phd from a University that isn't even accredited and doesn't even offer an Islamic studies course, Louisiana Baptist University has had its accreditation revoked and has been accused of being a diploma mill. If you want to use educated people as references, at least make sure they were educated honestly by using due diligence and not their checkbook.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 12:13 am | #

Where's Roger Williams when we really, really need him?
Brian Boru | 12.20.06 - 12:27 am | #

It is amassing that the religious hatred between Jews and Muslins slowly has been percolating into other American religious groups, as it was our problem.

At least Episcopalian and Lutheran among other, have start to disinvest from Israel and throwing away their Caterpilar shares.

http://tinyurl.com/y836wz
censor | 12.20.06 - 12:48 am | #

MONA - I'm astonished so many doubt the Goode letter is real. I have no trouble at all believing it, and can't understand the skepticism. Seriously.

What caused me to be skeptical of the authenticity of the letter isn't so much the content or the views expressed. It's the adolescent, ungrammatical, and borderline illiterate way the letter is written (as others have noted). Congressmen have a lot of people on staff. You would think that they would be able to at least churn out a minimally professional letter.

This sounded like a rushed post on a low-level right-wing blog that was doing nothing other than quoting a large chunk of a Michelle Malkin post and then sloppily adding on some hateful and moronic commentary.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.20.06 - 1:28 am | #

Actually, while Goode's stance is appallingly narrow-minded and bigoted, blaming Clinton's more open visa policy is not inconsistent, and to say he shouldn't blame the policy just because Clinton has been out of office for six years doesn't address that (hateful) logic.

The point is that they've had six years to change any immigration policies which are destroying our nation. If they haven't by now, whatever "damage" those policies is doing is more attributable to them (or at least to Bush) than to Clinton.
Glenn Greenwald | 12.20.06 - 1:31 am | #

Glenn,

This is your commonsense speaking.
If you can't write go to bed.

L & K,
clio | 12.20.06 - 1:57 am | #

Gomer Pyle, U.S. House of Reps
MARTINSVILLE BULLETIN :

http://martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm? ID=1062
MARTINSVILLE BULLETIN
Goode refutes article, defends MZM ties
Thursday, November 10, 2005
By SHAWN HOPKINS - Bulletin Staff Writer
"There's a number of members of Congress that's gotten more contributions than me from a number of different sources," he said.

THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT :

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm? story=100368&ran=133929
Ill-gained cash taints Va. congressman
The Virginian-Pilot
© March 1, 2006
Is U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode a rascal or a rube?
...After years of cultivating an image as a populist hayseed, Goode may get by with playing the rube...

sysprog | 12.20.06 - 2:17 am | #

The latent racism and anti-Islam sentiment isn't surprising. The truly fascinating thing to me is how Goode leaps from a discussion about Ellison WHO WAS BORN IN FRIKKIN' DETROIT to a critique of immigration.

Is it willful ignorance or a calculated ploy -- that Goode apparently has no concept of the importance of Islamic traditions in the African American community?

Is it possible he's never heard of Malcolm X or Muhammad Ali?

There's an unspoken "logic" underpinning Goode's remarks that's deeply alarming. (Islam = furriner = threat)

The truly tragic thing is that Goode is so blissfully ignorant of his own State's great tradition in the matter of religious freedom. Virginia was the beloved home of Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson recorded his great pleasure that the representatives in the Virginia Assembly overwhelmingly voted down an amendment to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom that would make the law specifically refer to Christianity.

In this vote, Jefferson saw "proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."
Steve D | 12.20.06 - 3:55 am | #

The following is on (what is by all appearances) the web site of the Warren County (NC) Republican Party:

http://www.warrenncgop.com/

Due to the smart pre-emptive action by the passengers and crew who alerted authorities to the suspicious activities of six Muslim Imams on a recent flight, Muslims have chosen to boycott U.S. Airways.

[Apparently a fake US airway logo: “U.S. AIRWAYS We are now boycotted by Muslims! Officially the world’s safest airline.”]

The six Imams were traveling from Minneapolis to Phoenix coming from attending a fundraising event for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

The keynote speech at that event was given by newly-elected Democrat Minnesota Congressman, Keith Ellison, the nations first Muslim congressman. Ellison refused to take his oath of office swearing on the Bible. He took his ceremonial oath of office to the congress of the United States with his hand on the Koran. Some in attendance shouted "Allahu Akbar" at the conclusion of the ceremony. You may remember, that was what the Islamic terrorist pilots were shouting as United flight 93 was nose-diving into the Pennsylvania field on September 11.

Ahhh yes.....Islam, "the religion of peace"

“Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison’s favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don’t serve in Congress. In your personal life, we will fight for your right to prefer any other book. We will even fight for your right to publish cartoons mocking our Bible. But, Mr. Ellison, America, not you, decides on what book its public servants take their oath.”
- Dennis Prager, author, columnist

“Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil.”

- Doug Patton, author, columnist

"You know, I tried to sneak an extra thimble full of Prell [shampoo] onto the plane. Next thing you know, I'm getting cavity searched by a patriot wearing a catcher's mitt. But these guys start singing '99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall' in Farsi, and we're not supposed to notice."
- Dennis Miller, comedian

"Now that Democrats have won the House, they can concentrate on losing the war."
Ann Coulter
Tom Doyle | 12.20.06 - 4:43 am | #

I have a feeling that shooter's comment raising the possibility of Sharia law in Minnesota is going to follow him/her around.

Sharia liberals will beheading adulteresses during the Vikings halftime show, people! It's time to wet our pants!
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 5:18 am | #

This has been an interesting exercise. So far I've found out the following...
* Representatives declare their oaths on nothing in particular, making Ellison's use of the Koran quite pointed.
* Apparently noone here knows about the Sharia controversy in the next state over, upriver from Ellison's district.
"Protests have been held in cities across Canada aimed at stopping Ontario province from adopting sharia-based law to settle Muslim family disputes."
* Bigotry toward anyone not sharing the "common view" is alive and well on this board.
shooter242 | 12.20.06 - 7:04 am | #

Tell me, shooter, is Walter Mondale going to preside over the beheadings? Or will that honor go to Hubert H. Humphrey III?
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:19 am | #

Shooter, I don't know what you're wasting your time here for. Since the Taliban are on the brink of power in Minnesota, you should probably go hook up with the only force capable of liberating it -- the Northern Dakota Alliance.
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:22 am | #

How does a member of the US Congress get the ability to set up the courts in his district?

Oh, wait, he doesn't.

I'd accuse Shooter of talking out of both sides of his mouth, but he doesn't have one, apparantly - just a couple of assholes at either end.
NobodySpecial | 12.20.06 - 7:26 am | #

Oh, the Taliban are invading from Ontario!
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:27 am | #

Ontario, "the next state over"!
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:28 am | #

I wonder what "A Prairie Home Companion" will be like under Sharia law.
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:29 am | #

"Fargo" would have had a very different feel to it, if Margie were a member of the religious police.
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:33 am | #

I could see Jesse Ventura at a beheading, though.
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:35 am | #

"...what you will see are many, many Rep. Goodes floating around."

What you will also see are many, many people who vote for the Rep. Goodes of this country not in spite of their hateful views but because of them. When The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Mecca comes out it'll be a bestseller.
dontkillwhitey | 12.20.06 - 7:37 am | #

Are people of Scandanavian descent even capable of ullulating?
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:45 am | #

From anonymoose at 11:52 pm:

Nope: see for instance the following scholarly discussion.

Exactly how low are you standards? Are you going to be quoting Mein Kampf next?
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.20.06 - 7:46 am | #

From shooter242 at 7:04 am:

* Representatives declare their oaths on nothing in particular, making Ellison's use of the Koran quite pointed.

Exactly when did he say he was going to use the Qu'ran?

* Apparently noone here knows about the Sharia controversy in the next state over, upriver from Ellison's district.

How about we let the Canadians deal with their own issues, eh?

* Bigotry toward anyone not sharing the "common view" is alive and well on this board.

This makes even less sense than usual. Are you suggesting you're being prejudiced against? Are we repressing you in some way?

My, my. What a victim complex you have. Did daddy beat you as child? Did mommy abandon you on a doorstep? Have you finished kneeling before Saint Brownback yet?
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.20.06 - 7:51 am | #

I've heard Walter Mondale is changing his name to Walter Muhammad Shabazz.
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:51 am | #

I had feared that Canada was teetering on the precipice of islamofascism.
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 8:04 am | #

I agree with Glenn's broad point here that this letter from Goode is ridiculous and hateful, and that of course Ellison has the right to take his oath over the Koran instead of the Bible. No argument there.

But I've noticed that many people in the comments section consider Goode's letter--and anti-Muslim sentiment in general--to be racist. But it has nothing to do with race; it has to do with religion, and religions are composed of beliefs about the meaning of life and how people should live it, and are therefore fair game for criticism, disagreement, and even, in some cases, hostility.

It's disturbing, of course, that Rep. Goode's letter is all about his fidelity to the Bible instead of the Koran. No religion should rule this country, and Goode's letter has suspiciously theocratic overtones. But he makes a point in his disturbing letter that I actually do agree with: he wants to restrict Muslim immigration to the US. And you know what? So do I.

There is one very important empirical difference between Islam and all the other major religions of the world: it is expansionist (it claims to be universally binding, and seeks to convert those who do not believe in it), AND it has an explicitly worked out system of law governing the totality of religious, social, political, domestic, and private life--Sharia Law.

Yes, Christianity is similarly expansionist, but it does not have anything like that totalizing system. And, yes, Judaism has some elaborately strict laws, but it is not an expansionist religion. Jews don't want to convert anyone; they just want to apply their laws to themselves.

In having both, Islam stands alone. And this raises the question: how is it possible for a committed Muslim living in a western liberal democracy to be politically loyal to that democracy without extreme cognitive dissonance? His own religion tells him quite clearly how society is to be organized; how then can he be truly committed to that religion, and yet endorse a different social and political order than the one his religion mandates?

I should clarify that I'm not making a philosophical point here; I'm making a sociological/political point. I'm sure that there are esoteric interpretations of Islam that would enable one to evade coherently this seemingly binding syllogism. But my concern is with the exoteric rule rather than the esoteric exception, and with what tends to happen in society at large when the (exoteric) Islamic population become politically powerful.

And there is a clear historical pattern that when Muslims reach politically significant numbers in a society, they begin to agitate for Sharia Law. No, not always, but it's the tendency. And the reason it's the tendency is plain: their religion explicitly tells them to do this.

This scares me. It scares me enough that I would like to limit Muslim immigration to this country.

But what about all of you--the commenters here, and Glenn Greenwald himself? Nobody here has any problem expressing hostility toward neo-conservatives and Bush supporters. And why not? Because they have toxic, authoritarian beliefs about how governments should be run, and how people should live. But guess what? So do Muslims. Or, to be more precise about it: So does Islam, and on a vastly greater scale.

Islam is not just a religion; it is a totalizing social and political system that claims to be binding for everyone. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with Islam. And if you don't have a problem with that, then why are you all so upset about Bush and the neocons?
Jack | 12.20.06 - 8:20 am | #

shooter uses fear of religious-based law to leap to the defense of a vocal advocate of religious based law.

Don't they teach Contitutional Civics in High School anymore let alone elementary logic?
paul dirks | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 8:23 am | #

Dpnt' get me wrong -- I agree with shooter's analysis of Canadian constitutional law here. Premier McGuinty and the Liberal party might well be able to impose Sharia law on Ontario by invoking the notwithstanding clause with respect to Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But politically speaking, shooter, wouldn't the NDP and Conservatives demand a snap election?
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 8:24 am | #

Jack,
You're knowlege of history doesn't jibe with mine. The Muslim religion specifically recognizes that Allah is the same diety worshiped by both Christians and Jews. As such, worshipping a single God was adequate to be left alone. When it was expansionist, it was polytheists who were converted by force.

Of coures, in my view, anybody whose idea of the Creator of The Universe is so limited that they can imagine that said creator fails to regard all humanity equally and instead differentiates between those who face Mecca when they pray from those who face an altar, then you too are a victim of the blindness that drives most of the clearly irrational conflict in the world.
paul dirks | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 8:36 am | #

Islam is not just a religion; it is a totalizing social and political system that claims to be binding for everyone...
Jack | 12.20.06 - 8:20 am

Excellent post. It will interesting to see if there is any substantive response.
shooter242 | 12.20.06 - 8:42 am | #

From Jack at 8:20 am:

There is one very important empirical difference between Islam and all the other major religions of the world: it is expansionist (it claims to be universally binding, and seeks to convert those who do not believe in it), AND it has an explicitly worked out system of law governing the totality of religious, social, political, domestic, and private life--Sharia Law.

Inarguable. But you overlook one basic tenant within the religion itself: it is and must be a voluntary conversion, otherwise it is not considered genuine.

Islam is centered upon living the proper way of life as decreed by God and set out in the Qu'ran, and forced conversion of the rest of the world is not - at least so far as my own reading of the Qu'ran has found - part of that life. Those who practice it (ideally) do so out of genuine conviction; evangelism on their part is more by example than the vulgar displays you see on the NY subway or Sunday morning telly.

Yes, Christianity is similarly expansionist, but it does not have anything like that totalizing system.

Given the sheer number of denominations and conflicting policies, I agree. I doubt Jesu Ben Joseph would be pleased to see what's being done in his name these days, never mind the many myths that have developed and obscured his original message.

In any case, your concerns about Islam as a religion are understanbable and well-taken. I would argue however that restricting immigration is an answer. We somehow need to learn to live with one another, however different our societies and beliefs, and the first step is to understand we're all human beings. Its a little hard to see the other side as anything more than cliches when you refuse to let them into your country as visitors.

My problem with the current Administration is basically what you said. I have less of a problem with Islam because I understand it a bit better and am willing to live with the differences.

I also don't believe for an instant there's some monolithic global Islamic conspiracy afoot to turn the entire globe purple. Again, we're dealing with human beings here, not James Bond villians.
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.20.06 - 8:50 am | #

From shooter242 at 8:42 am:

Excellent post. It will interesting to see if there is any substantive response.

Are you now or have you ever been part of the Great Christofascist Conspiracy?
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.20.06 - 8:51 am | #

Shooter, what about my question regarding the Charter?
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 8:52 am | #

Shooter left without answering how Sharia law fits into the Canadian constitutional framework.

Hmm. You guys don't think it's possible that when he talks about Canada he's...talking out his ass, do you?
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 9:05 am | #

The keynote speech at that event was given by newly-elected Democrat Minnesota Congressman, Keith Ellison, the nations first Muslim congressman. Ellison refused to take his oath of office swearing on the Bible. He took his ceremonial oath of office to the congress of the United States with his hand on the Koran. Some in attendance shouted "Allahu Akbar" at the conclusion of the ceremony. You may remember, that was what the Islamic terrorist pilots were shouting as United flight 93 was nose-diving into the Pennsylvania field on September 11.

"Allahu Akbar" means "God is Great" and is traditional phrase used throughout the Muslim world.

The 9/11 hijackers' use of the phrase has about as much relevance to the rest of the Muslim world as Eric Rudolph's professed Christianity has to the rest of Christendom.
"Fair and Balanced" Dave | 12.20.06 - 9:12 am | #

Ever notice that all the resident experts on Islam are not Muslim but are perfectly willing to pontifacate on what people they don't know beleive.
Demonization in action there for all to see.
paul dirks | 12.20.06 - 8:53 am

I have to ask... what exactly do you have to offer that counterbalances what is demonstrated by
* war between Islamic sects
* war between the Palestinians
* war between Islam and Israel
* war between Islam and the west in general
* takeover of neighborhoods in cities across Europe
* Islamic terrorism
* A new theocracy in Somalia
One is not required to be an "expert" to know when one is being pushed.
shooter242 | 12.20.06 - 9:15 am | #

I fully agree with Rep Goode! White people, good ol' white people, were born in this country, and have always been in this country! What have immigrants ever done for this country?!?! It's not like America has ever been known as a melting pot or anything!

:p [/snark]

Honestly, can this guy get more xenophobic?
LnGrrrR | 12.20.06 - 9:17 am | #

Jack,

I know quite a few secular muslims, and I don't believe they are the exception in America. The blanket assertion that an American muslim automatically wants to assert Sharia is bigotry because it ignores the fact that the huge majority of muslims in this country have been living just fine within our system of secular laws. You're right to point out that it is not racism, but it is bigotry.

There are clearly islamic practices that are not compatible with a secular republic. It is one thing to express concern about those practices, and quite another to assert that all muslims are Islamists.

I have seen nothing that Congressman Ellison has said or written to indicate any Islamist tendencies. If Shooter can find any evidence to the contrary he would have a point. Everytime Ellison speaks, he seems to be bending over backwards to stress that he swears to uphold the constitution. That is all that should be necessary in America. After that, religion should be irrelevant.

Shooter insists that Ellison's swearing on the Koran must have a point, but he evidently can't conceive of any other point other than the assertion that the Koran should take legal precendence over the constitution. Isn't it also possible that the "point" is simply a celebration of the first amendment. Couldn't it just be Ellison's way of saying "isn't it wonderful that we live in a country that allows religious pluralim?"

The simple fact is that Shooter has revealed himself to be a bigot. It's time he put his hood back on and crawled away. Bigots often whine, "oh, but you're not tolerating MY point of view." But there is no moral or ethical imperative to tolerate that kind of 'intolerance.' Like Sharia, it has no place in the American system.
observer | 12.20.06 - 9:24 am | #

From shooter242 at 9:15 am:

One is not required to be an "expert" to know when one is being pushed.

True enough:

*continued US support of corrupt autocracies in Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, and elsewhere.
*installation of corrupt auctocracy in Iran by the US.
*modest (at best) US aid to natural disasters in Indonesia and Pakistan.
*US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
*stances by the US that are neither diplomatic nor respectful to the religion of Islam.
*continued support of Israeli policies regarding the Palestinians (including seizure of Palestinian land and establishment of heavily-armed settlements).

No, one doesn't need to be an "expert" to recognize both sides are 'being pushed'.

But remined me which side has several thousand nuclear weapons?
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.20.06 - 9:25 am | #

To Paul Dirks:

You weren't referring to me at 8:53am, were you?
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.20.06 - 9:35 am | #

But I've noticed that many people in the comments section consider Goode's letter--and anti-Muslim sentiment in general--to be racist.

Anti-Muslim sentiment has shown itself in many instances to be racist, it is hatred against “brown people” and religion different from Christianity. Those who killed and beat-up Sikhs after 9/11 were expressing “anti-Muslim” sentiment, but Sikhs aren’t Muslims. Hindus have also experienced hatred supposedly directed at “Muslims” just because their religion is different than that of the “haters” – and it’s directed at them for the color of their skin. Racism pure and simple.
(I suggest you visit David Newart’s blog for lots of evidence on this point.)

And this raises the question: how is it possible for a committed Muslim living in a western liberal democracy to be politically loyal to that democracy without extreme cognitive dissonance?

You might want to ask the same question to those Episcopalians who just broke away to join a different version of that sect a “version” that wants to imprison gays and lesbians. The same thing applies.

Muslims are well-integrated into their communities here in the U.S. (unlike parts of Europe) and they practice their religion peacefully without trying to force it on others.

There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims here in my city of Chicago, and I’ve yet to hear of an instance of Muslims trying to convert others to their religion. I’ve talked to some of them about this, and they would reject your characterization of their religion – which may apply to some, but not to all.

The same thing is true of Christians in our community. While their religion may say that they should “convert” others to it (and some try) there are many others who would not think of forcing their views on others, or insisting their religious views be written into our laws. The same is true of many Muslims.
~ ~
zack | 12.20.06 - 9:37 am | #

Actually I was thinking of shooter and to a lesser extent, jack.

I beleive, in your post, you actually used the phrase "at least so far as my own reading of the Qu'ran has found"

That would certainly point to an effort to know what you are talking about rather than relying on the "experts" at WorldNutDaily to tell you what all those "islamists" have in mind for you and your daughters.
paul dirks | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 9:39 am | #

Gomer Pyle, U.S. House of Reps
MARTINSVILLE BULLETIN :

http://martinsvillebulletin.com/article.cfm? ID=1062
MARTINSVILLE BULLETIN
Goode refutes article, defends MZM ties
Thursday, November 10, 2005
By SHAWN HOPKINS - Bulletin Staff Writer
"There's a number of members of Congress that's gotten more contributions than me from a number of different sources," he said.

THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT :

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm? story=100368&ran=133929
Ill-gained cash taints Va. congressman
The Virginian-Pilot
© March 1, 2006
Is U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode a rascal or a rube?
...After years of cultivating an image as a populist hayseed, Goode may get by with playing the rube...

And I bet he'd become quite grammatical after a few drinks.
sysprog | 12.20.06 - 9:47 am | #

I don't recall being at war with Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Egypt, Pakistan, Indonesia or for that matter Lybia, Syria or Iran.

The fact that you apparently DO consider yourself at war says much more about the demons in your head than they do about any actual threat in the real world.
paul dirks | 12.20.06 - 9:29 am

None of that addresses my point that Islam is not peaceful, and is expansionist. In fact, I'd venture to say that nearly all armed conflict in the world today is generated by Islam.
We are not at war with the countries mentioned, but that certainly doesn't mean they aren't at war with us in any way they can muster. Today it's rhetoric, tomorrow it's bullets.

I have no idea if Ellison would advocate a parallel justice system or not, but his neighbors certainly did.
And that, is getting closer to home.
shooter242 | 12.20.06 - 9:51 am | #

shooter,
I hope you don't keep a loaded gun at home. At this rate, you're liable to take out the mailman.
paul dirks | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 9:54 am | #

I sent him a letter:

12/20/2006

[my address deleted]

Virgil H. Goode, Jr.
70 East Court Street
Suite 215
Rocky Mount, Virginia 24151

Dear Sir,

Let me begin by quoting you:

“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.”

I believe that xenophobia such as yours has no place in the values and beliefs that are actually traditional to the United States of America. This country was established and developed as a nation of immigrants with the expressed desired of those immigrants for freedom of religion, among other freedoms then unique to this country.
To announce that the traditional values and beliefs of this country require strict immigration policies designed to disallow people of certain ethnicities or religions shows a total lack of knowledge and understanding regarding the history of this country.
Your position, sir, is frankly bizarre. Your position is irrational and reactionary. Your position has no place in any public office that requires an oath swearing to protect the very founding principles your position directly contradicts.
To your credit, you do admit that your position is based in fear. I would hope, however, that no one in a position of leadership such as you would allow an emotion as dark and confining as fear to guide policy-making decisions.
Please move beyond your fear and work to make rational policy-making decisions based on the respect, security, and well-being that all humanity essentially desires.

Thank you,

feel free to copy, edit, and send for yourself.

Jim | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 9:57 am | #

shooter,
I hope you don't keep a loaded gun at home. At this rate, you're liable to take out the mailman.
paul dirks | 12.20.06 - 9:54 am

And this is the kind of thing that gets posted when fact, logic, or history, are nowhere to be found.
shooter242 | 12.20.06 - 10:04 am | #

Keith Ellison is not an immigrant. He was born in the United States. Is this letter for real?
fogcitynative | 12.20.06 - 10:07 am | #

Observer: “The blanket assertion that an American muslim automatically wants to assert Sharia is bigotry because it ignores the fact that the huge majority of muslims in this country have been living just fine within our system of secular laws. You're right to point out that it is not racism, but it is bigotry.”

That is indeed bigotry, but it is not what I said. I did not blanketly assert that an American Muslim automatically wants to impose Sharia law. That is clearly false. I know a number of Muslims myself who do not want to impose Sharia.

My points were: a) that a committed Muslim who embraces a secular government does so in explicit defiance of his own religion, and therefore must suffer some serious cognitive dissonance about that; and b) that when Muslims become politically powerful, their historic tendency is to agitate for Sharia law.

Your point that the majority of Muslims in the US today do not agitate for Sharia does not address these concerns, because Muslims are not yet a large enough population in the US to be politically powerful. My entire post was about what I fear they will do IF they become politically powerful. So you ignore the substance of my post, and attack a straw man. (Which, incidentally, is arguably itself a kind of bigotry.)

“There are clearly islamic practices that are not compatible with a secular republic. It is one thing to express concern about those practices, and quite another to assert that all muslims are Islamists”

I did not assert that all Muslims are Islamists. I simply “expressed concern about Islamic practices that are not compatible with a secular republic,” and noted that these practices are radically and explicitly bound up with the religion itself, and that, speaking collectively, Muslim populations tend to be openly at odds with secularism when they are large enough to be politically powerful.

“I have seen nothing that Congressman Ellison has said or written to indicate any Islamist tendencies.”

I have no problem with Ellison. My post was not about him.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 10:07 am | #

shooter: In fact, I'd venture to say that nearly all armed conflict in the world today is generated by Islam.

What? Provide some kind of proof, please. Your "venturing to say" means less than squat.

I have no idea if Ellison would advocate a parallel justice system or not, but his neighbors certainly did. And that, is getting closer to home.

Your first four words betray you here: I HAVE NO IDEA. Obviously you don't. Obviously you are posting here only to garner negative responses, as always. You have nothing to back it up with; you can continue to "venture to say" and "have no idea" somewhere else. And "his neighbors," being the NEXT COUNTRY OVER- what does that have to do with America? You really are hiding-under-the-bed-pissing-your-pants scared aren't you? Get a spine.

pseudonymous: Hmm. You guys don't think it's possible that when he talks about Canada he's...talking out his ass, do you?

You must be new here; Substitute the word "Canada" from your comment with whatever the topic here is and you've got it nailed.

Once again, don't feed the monkeys; that goes for anonymoose as well.
Anonymous | 12.20.06 - 10:18 am | #

Jack: I simply “expressed concern about Islamic practices that are not compatible with a secular republic,” and noted that these practices are radically and explicitly bound up with the religion itself...

Neither are the religious practices of James C. Dobson's organization and other Christian Dominionist sects, and they are -- in my opinion -- the more present threat at the moment. If we can figure out how to protect the Constititution from their ravages, no doubt the experience will serve us in good stead if the U.S. ever has a Muslim population which rivals that of Christians.

If we can't, it won't matter.
William Timberman | 12.20.06 - 10:18 am | #

Sorry, that anonymous at 10:18am was me.
Nick | 12.20.06 - 10:18 am | #

And this is the kind of thing that gets posted when fact, logic, or history, are nowhere to be found.

All I know is that people are killing each other over what brand name the Creator should be sold under and your willingness to participate by branding 1/4 of the world's population as the source of the problem without "examining the log in your own eye" just demonstrates the total stupidity of the exercise.
paul dirks | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 10:22 am | #

Are people of Scandanavian descent even capable of ullulating?
pseudonymous | 12.20.06 - 7:45 am | #

How to pass the endless nights in the frozen north without ullulation? The mind boggles.

(Sorry, gotta run. There are some Muslims passing by outside and I've gotta go hide my Bible and Christmas tree and stuff. Wish me luck!)
Svensker | 12.20.06 - 10:25 am | #

Shooter,

You can't spit out a post that has literally zero basis in anything other than abject fear and preposterous hypotheticals and not expect to get ridiculed, particularly given your track record. Spare us the "persecuted victim" routine.

You lecture people about "facts, logic, and history" when you demonstrate the towering absence of such concepts in your own posts.

If you really want people to respond seriously to your posts, try to come up with questions and/or arguments that aren't comically absurd on their faces.
Epsilon | 12.20.06 - 10:25 am | #

Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Ben and Jerry's recipe book in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Bible in any way.

The moron Representative from Virginia was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the "Use Them In Cakes And Ice Cream" (UTICA 99) position on nuts, there will likely be many more Virgil Goodes elected to office and demanding the use of the Bible.

We need to stop nuts from impersonating humans totally and reduce chimp impersonation by nuts and end the nut-ocracy pushed hard by Presidents Reagan and Bonzo and allowing many specimens from the nut family to plop on this country's head.

I fear that in the next century we will have many more morons in the United States if we do not adopt the strict UTICA 99 policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our sanity from being stumped.

The pictures of cakes and ice cream made with crushed or ground nuts are on the wall in my office. A moron came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust”. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th Dessert of Icecreamia in the United States House of Representatives, The Ten Commandments are not going to be on the wall of my office.”

Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

Sincerely yours,
Cicero S. Bettere, Jr.
31 W Cone Street
Suite 16
Rocky Road, Icecreamia 31416
enfant terrible | 12.20.06 - 10:27 am | #

Zack: "Anti-Muslim sentiment has shown itself in many instances to be racist, it is hatred against “brown people” and religion different from Christianity. Those who killed and beat-up Sikhs after 9/11 were expressing “anti-Muslim” sentiment, but Sikhs aren’t Muslims."

That's true, and that is racism. It's also true that any time anyone is assaulted for his religion, that is bigotry, even if it isn't racist. But the charge of racism and/or bigotry can itself be a kind of bigotry when it deployed sloppily against people simply because they are asking critical questions about Islam. That was my point--which has, it seems to me, been borne out by the fact that I have already been accused of bigotry in this forum by someone who completely ignored the substance of my post.

To state my point more straightforwardly: it is possible to have a non-racist, non-bigoted problem with Islam because of the explicit claims Islam makes about life, and upon people and governments.

I said: "And this raises the question: how is it possible for a committed Muslim living in a western liberal democracy to be politically loyal to that democracy without extreme cognitive dissonance?"

Zack: "You might want to ask the same question to those Episcopalians who just broke away to join a different version of that sect a “version” that wants to imprison gays and lesbians. The same thing applies. "

Actually, it isn't the same thing at all. There is no version of the New Testament that argues for imprisoning gays and lesbians. And even if there were such an advocacy from, say, Paul, there would still be room for disagreement about that if Jesus himself did not advocate it.

That's the difference: Christianity is vague enough that there are many different plausible interpretations of its meaning (which is not to say that none of these interpretations are politically toxic. Clearly, some are). But Islam is not vague. It is extremely and painstakingly clear about such things in its articulation of Sharia Law.

That's why I am worried about it.

"Muslims are well-integrated into their communities here in the U.S. (unlike parts of Europe) and they practice their religion peacefully without trying to force it on others."

I should clarify that I am not so much concerned about forced conversion as I am about Sharia law. It is quite possible to impose huge sections of Sharia law on non-Muslims, without technically forcing them to convert. That is, in fact, what generally happens in Islamic countries.

"he same thing is true of Christians in our community. While their religion may say that they should “convert” others to it (and some try) there are many others who would not think of forcing their views on others"

I have no problem with trying to convert people through persuasion. But conversion of any sort was not really the point of my post. My point was about the likely political behavior of Muslims populations of a certain size.

"or insisting their religious views be written into our laws. The same is true of many Muslims."

I agree that many Muslims do not insist that their religious views be written into our laws. The problem is that, even if individual Muslims don't insist on it, their religion does. And that strikes me as dangerous.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 10:39 am | #

"Yes, Christianity is similarly expansionist, but it does not have anything like that totalizing system. And, yes, Judaism has some elaborately strict laws, but it is not an expansionist religion. Jews don't want to convert anyone; they just want to apply their laws to themselves."

Not now true but just look at what the spanish and portugese did in the new world and asia.
Anonymous | 12.20.06 - 10:39 am | #

How can anyone be expected to maintain a blogging hiatus when things like this land in one's inbox?

:-) You are not made of stone!
Just imagine how surprised Rep. Goode will be when all the brown people he's "representing" throw his sorry ass out of office.
Susan | 12.20.06 - 10:41 am | #

First off, this is not a "don't feed the trolls" post. That said, I feel that the people that are trying to engage most of our regular trolls, other than for the amusement of others, are really wasting their time and distract from valuable discussions regarding the posts at hand.

The thing that jumps out at meet when they speak substantively about things that they consistently speak from a authoritarian world view. An example of this is the meme of the Islamofascists are going to take over the world, which, correctly is mocked with the James Bond or Dr. Evil anology. Another is the "game" meme, where we have either God, OBL, Saddam Hussein or "the Terrists" playing his/their Risk pieces in a global game of conquest against George W. Bush.

The general theme of this meme is that individual people don't matter, al be they prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanemo, those colored peoples in New Orleans or those innocent people subjected to "shock and awe" in Iraq. They are all pawns in the global chess game.

You then have willing participants such as Dennis Prager, who, if you follow Baldie McEagle's Think Progress link above, know that the whole Ellison/Qu'ran story is bunk. This story, along with the Imam story is moved through right wing talk show and blogosphere land just for one simple goal, to dehumanize the people involved.

I am a regular Episcopalian churchgoer (of the non-breakaway "liberal" variety), so I can tell you there is nothing Christian about dehumanizing people. Our church organized trips to New Orleans to go down and help people, or participates in that communist Jimmy Carter's Habitat for the Humanity. The message of the meek inheriting the earth has been completely lost, by a large group of Conservative Christians. It has been replaced by a sense of entitlement.

I wasn't sure, so I checked with my father, but he and I actually met Doug Coe back in 1998; we visited the Arlington compound because some members of the Anglican Church in Brussels wanted to set up a prayer breakfast in, as it was known then, the EC, and my father was a member of that Brussels church. (I was just giving him a ride on the way to airport)

That Ivanwald compound had a very serene but creepy feel to it. It seemed very similar to the descriptions I have read about in regard to cult camps, where you have messaianic leaders imposing their will over their people. Mr. Coe spoke in very calm tones but engaged in a huge bit of name dropping, which I found odd in the context of setting up a prayer breakfast. I had not read the Harper's piece until yesterday.

What made me write about this is the mention of Neiwart's blog, above. Sarah Robinson has written about "breaking the wall" down of authoritarian worldviews. In my view, however, I don't think that wall can be broken down through blog and comment posts, solely through one on one communication.

To get back to the point of my post, people with authoritarian worldviews cannot be swayed, they already have preconceived notions in place and they only wish to feed those notions with "facts" that fit their worldview. Judge Moore's diatribe over at WND is a handy example of that.

I have a comment regarding "Jack's" post, which is related to what I have written here which I will post separately next.
DBaker | 12.20.06 - 10:45 am | #

First Dennis Prager, next Roy Moore, now Virgil Goode...

Pogroms are not far behind. If I were Muslim, I would be as nervous as German Jews were in 1933...
Devil's Advocate | 12.20.06 - 10:49 am | #

William Timberman: "Neither are the religious practices of James C. Dobson's organization and other Christian Dominionist sects, and they are -- in my opinion -- the more present threat at the moment."

They are definitely the more pressing threat. But there's a difference, too: what they believe does not follow explicitly and inevitably from the teachings of Christ; in fact, in many cases, they clearly contradict those teachings. Not so with Islam and Sharia law. In that case, it's the political moderates who diverge from the clear teaching of their religion. So it's pretty much the opposite situation.

Which is not to say that Islam is some huge threat from within the US right now. It isn't. But I don't want it to become so in the future, and that is why I would like to limit Muslim immigration.

"If we can figure out how to protect the Constititution from their ravages, no doubt the experience will serve us in good stead if the U.S. ever has a Muslim population which rivals that of Christians.

If we can't, it won't matter."

I totally agree.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 10:49 am | #

For heaven's sake, the Reps. do not take their oath on a book! They are sworn in masse and simply raise their right hand.

The "books" are for photo ops AFTER the swearing in.
Devil's Advocate | 12.20.06 - 10:51 am | #

I said: "Yes, Christianity is similarly expansionist, but it does not have anything like that totalizing system. And, yes, Judaism has some elaborately strict laws, but it is not an expansionist religion. Jews don't want to convert anyone; they just want to apply their laws to themselves."

Anonymous: "Not now true but just look at what the spanish and portugese did in the new world and asia."

It's true that, over the centuries, Christianity has sometimes fused with extremely aggressive political agendas. But none of this has followed explicitly and inevitably from the teachings Christ, or of the New Testament.

But Sharia Law is extemely explicit, and is part of the foundation of Islam. Highlighting this difference, and political implications, was the entire point of my post.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 11:06 am | #

THE TENTH COMMANDMENT (Exodus 20:17) on Virgil Goode's office wall says that you shouldn't covet your neighbor's house, nor his other property, especially his wife and his slaves and his domestic animals.

(Of course if Virgil Goode used the Catholic version of the ten commandments, then Exodus 20:17 would be split into two commandments, the ninth and tenth -- but I doubt that a Goode old boy would use the papist version.)

There are hundreds of biblical commandments, not just ten.

If Virgil Goode really believes in traditional values, shouldn't he also post some other biblical commandments on his office wall, such as

Exodus 21:7 saying that you can sell your daughter into slavery.

Exodus 21:2-4 saying that a male slave should be set free after seven years, but when you set him free you can keep his wife for youself.

So the question is, which comes first for Virgil H. Goode? The constitution, or the Book of Exodus?
sysprog | 12.20.06 - 11:08 am | #

Jack,

All of the comments you respond to are addressing Shooter's bigotry. Sorry if I made it seem as if they were directed toward you. It was Shooter's implication that Ellison would want to impose Sharia.

Regarding your points, Yes, there is a lot of reason for concern about Islamism around the world. Requiring that you or anybody else not only acknowlege the exceptions but also ponder their significance is hardly a straw man, and it's the exact opposite of bigotry.

While it's true that Muslims are not a powerful political force nationally in the USA, there are local populations where they are a significant political force. How have they integrated into, for example, the Detroit area? Surely Dearborn, Mi, would have to be at critical mass. Is there agitation for Sharia there? I haven't heard of any. And I imagine, given the current political situation, any agitation for Sharia would be loudly publicized. But if the majority muslim population there does in fact live comfortably within secular America, surely that demonstrates something of significance.

I am not suggesting that your concerns are entirely unfounded. I am simply arguing that the American experience demonstrates that it is not a given that your fears will be realized.
Observer | 12.20.06 - 11:09 am | #

From Devil's Advocate at 10:51am:

The "books" are for photo ops AFTER the swearing in.

This was actually pointed out, ad nauseum, when this nonsense started weeks back.

Naturally, it bounced right off the thick skulls of the Kool-Aid Kidz.
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.20.06 - 11:10 am | #

"Jack" wrote: "Islam is not just a religion; it is a totalizing social and political system that claims to be binding for everyone. "

I respectfully disagree. As I said in my earlier post, I am a regular Episcopalian churchgoer. I am also a liberal. I have nothing in common with "fire and brimstone" Baptists or Rick Warren (?) Pentecosatlists, other than that we are both called Christians. Eric Rudolph, who killed abortion doctors and bombed the Olympic games, considers himself a Christian too.

Just as there are many forms of Christian belief, there are many forms of Isalamic belief. Only a small portion of those Islamic believers have an extreme worldview, probably about 5 percent, although no real empirical data exists on this point.

I have lost the link, unfortunately, but while surfing the Internets, I found a wheel diagram which showed the 8 different types of Islamic extremism, which ranged from overt terrorism to covert revolutionism (the latter just wants to impose Sharia law through democratic and lawful means). Just as there is nothing monolithic about "Christians" there is nothing monolithic about "Islamists" either.

It is extremely easy to just paint with broad brush and put a big letter "I" on all those muslims who enter our country, but the only purpose that serves is to dehumanize our society, and serves as a propaganda tool for OBL and his ilk.

What gets lost in a lot of the discussion over the reasons of 9/11 is the fact that it was not solely about the US, it was about propaganda for OBL's worldview and a recruiting tool for his cause. U.S. policy after 9/11 has only helped, not harmed his cause.

I highly recommend a book I heard about from Liberal Oasis' Bill Sher, Al Quaeda, written by Guardian reporter Jason Bourne (sp?). It lays out in quite stunning detail, what turns these men into Islamic extremists. What is striking is the sense of hopelessness that exists among many young men in the Middle East. We encourage this hopelessness at our peril. It is why it is so sad that, if Iraq had not been turned into an American Enterprise Institute petri-dish, and we had used proven methods of nationbuilding, that would have served our cause.

Unfortunately, "nationbuilding" does not fit the authoritarian worldview; if some of the liberal hawks had actually paid attention during the 2000 campaign, they would have known this. By engaging in the Tinkerbell strategy, they only provided cover for those looking to install a puppet regime led by a crook and a fraud.

All in all, painting with broad brush and oversimplification is how we find ourselves in the situation we are today. Putting muslims in one humonegous category serves no one, especially not the United States and its interests.
DBaker | 12.20.06 - 11:17 am | #

Jack: ...what they believe does not follow explicitly and inevitably from the teachings of Christ...

Islam also has many faces. Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible leads in directions as inimical to a secular democracy as any Muslim's reverence for the literal meaning of the Qur'an. It is also true that for many reasons -- Western colonialism in the Muslim world not the least of them -- the liberalizing trend in Islam is much diminished compared to that in Christianity.

I fail to see, however, how demonizing Muslim fundamentalism of the kind represented by Salafism in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere is a way to clarity in dealing honestly with Muslims.

If you take the pressure off, the pot will boil. What happens then will be internal to Islam, and collateral damage to Western democracies will be minimal at best, even in Europe.

More to the point, I believe that Christian fundamentalism in the West also results largely from the centrifugal effects of -- for lack of a more precise term -- modernity. In response, we must encourage many centers, not one, and while guarding the foundations of secular democracy as best we can, we'd be well advised to avoid making the real comforts of religion a scapegoat for the agonies all of us feel when confronted on a daily basis with the contradictions forced on us by the advances of science and technlogy.
William Timberman | 12.20.06 - 11:19 am | #

Devil's Advocate,

I've read that many Reps bring a religious text with them that they hold/put their hand on when they are sworn in. I'm sure that the vast majority of these have been Bibles and Torah in the past, although I wouldn't be surprise to learn that someone had used a Book of Mormon.

However, the important point of all that is that the Reps choose what religious text, if any, that they want in accordance with our guaranteed freedom of religion. Claiming that a Congressman should swear an oath on a religious text that he does not consider sacred as opposed to one that he does consider sacred not only violates the principles of religious freedom that are set forth in the First Amendment, it is also illogical on its face. I'd say that it was comically illogical, but that letter did not make me feel like laughing.

p.s. Upon re-reading this, I realized that it was possible to get that I think that it's acceptable to require the use a religious text as opposed to none at all. That is not my intent. I realize that no form a religious rite at all is required, and that lack of requirement is exactly as matters should be.
David Hunt | 12.20.06 - 11:22 am | #

William Timberman: "Neither are the religious practices of James C. Dobson's organization and other Christian Dominionist sects, and they are -- in my opinion -- the more present threat at the moment."

Jack: They are definitely the more pressing threat. But there's a difference, too: what they believe does not follow explicitly and inevitably from the teachings of Christ; in fact, in many cases, they clearly contradict those teachings. Not so with Islam and Sharia law. In that case, it's the political moderates who diverge from the clear teaching of their religion.

Islam is not the only religion this could be said of.
Roman Catholics are a large, powerful Christian religious minority in the U.S. that have "mixed allegiance" issues that parallel those presented by Islam. At least that is how we've been seen in the past by the prevailing Protestant majority, and their view was not wholly without reason. In response to the demands of an authoritarian culture and "foreign" religious hierarchy, many anti-liberal trends in U.S. politics during the last 60 years were pushed/initiated and crafted by Catholics (Hayes Office, insertion of "Under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance, present-day contraception laws). Activist ultra-rightwing Catholics continue to promote anti-liberal trends in our society today, but no one is pointing to us as the repulsive swarthy "other" anymore. Rightist Catholics are prominent on the Supreme Court, and in Congress (Santorum wasn't the only one folks). A not inconsiderable number of today's prominent anti-liberal Christian fundamentalist activists derive from Catholic culture (i.e. Randall Terry/Operation Rescue). I know a few ex-Catholics here in Lousiana who've converted to fundamentalist sects in part because the Catholic church got "too liberal" for them in the wake of Vatican II (and ceased to provide them with the authoritarian tools they desired to beat themselves and their "loved ones" into line).
The nation has survived the impact of Roman Catholicism, however.
The great issue with Islam is the present powerful trend towards fundamentalism, in both its Sunni and Shia branches. I still suspect that we can withstand the impact of Wahabist Sunni and "millenialist" style Shi'ite wackos as well. I don't think their potential impact is nonexistent. I believe their movements are inimical to me, as a liberal American woman. But, I reject the craven exclusionism and institutionalized bigotry that is being promoted implicitly by shooter242 and (more rationally) by Jack.
Fluffy | 12.20.06 - 11:32 am | #

Observer: "All of the comments you respond to are addressing Shooter's bigotry. Sorry if I made it seem as if they were directed toward you. It was Shooter's implication that Ellison would want to impose Sharia."

Oh, ok. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

"While it's true that Muslims are not a powerful political force nationally in the USA, there are local populations where they are a significant political force. How have they integrated into, for example, the Detroit area? Surely Dearborn, Mi, would have to be at critical mass. Is there agitation for Sharia there?"

I don't know, but I doubt it. Local power in a few places in a country as large as this one is still pretty tenuous. Not to mention, can you imagine the PR nightmare if any of these communities called for Sharia law right now? I'm not saying that they do support Sharia law--I have no idea if they do or don't--but it's hard to believe that they would would be open about it, even if they do. The public outcry would be too great--and let's face it, they would also then be monitored by the government, and some of them possibly arrested and tortured as alleged terrorists.

But, anyway, my concern is more with what Muslims would do politically if they become a national political force.

"But if the majority muslim population there does in fact live comfortably within secular America, surely that demonstrates something of significance."

It does. It demonstrates that muslims are at least capable of living on peaceful terms with secular America. That is not nothing. But then again, as long as they don't have the power to change secular America into something non-secular, they don't really have much choice, do they?

"I am not suggesting that your concerns are entirely unfounded. I am simply arguing that the American experience demonstrates that it is not a given that your fears will be realized."

I agree with that. It certainly isn't a given, and it could turn out that I am wrong. The problem is that there is no way to know whether I am wrong until it is too late to do anything about it if I am right.

Given the nature of Islam and Sharia law, and the behavior of politically powerful Muslim populations in general, I am opposed to trying that experiment. It seems to me not worth the risk.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 11:32 am | #

How is it of more concern that followers of Islam want to impose sharia law than that Christian fundamentalists want to impose whatever they think as "God's law" on this country?

In both cases it's a simple fact that the goal is to impose whatever behavior the self-proclaimed "religious leaders" want the rest of us to obey.

Ellison is a lot less dangerous than Brownback in this regard.
Charles | 12.20.06 - 11:33 am | #

DBaker - I think you've got the players and the "meme" wrong.

"The thing that jumps out at meet when they speak substantively about things that they consistently speak from a authoritarian world view. An example of this is the meme of the Islamofascists are going to take over the world, which, correctly is mocked with the James Bond or Dr. Evil anology. Another is the "game" meme, where we have either God, OBL, Saddam Hussein or "the Terrists" playing his/their Risk pieces in a global game of conquest against George W. Bush."

I suggest you read Tony Blair's recent speech about integration in the UK. The problems western Europe is experiencing with large Muslim minorities in their societies are very real and not imagined. Australia has also faced similar issues. There have been terror bombings in Argentina linked to Hezbollah. While this is not intended to be alarmist, it is intended to show the the issues raised by the "trolls" are indeed real, although not pressing for the U.S.

Your characterization of the authoritarian mindset is also misleading and presumptive. How would you describe the left's attitude toward the religious right and it's supposed fascism? Does a similar simple label come to mind which I should use to dismiss that perspective?
daleyrocks | 12.20.06 - 11:35 am | #

All you're saying, dr, is that there are bad people in the world. These have bombs and Korans. All three of these have been around for forever, 100 years, and 13 centuries, respectively. What's different now? Why so scared? Should Europe have been scared in 2000? It wasn't. Where was Blair on this issue then? Nowhere. Because 9/11 had not yet given him an excuse to invent a new Hun from Muslim immigrants, with which to scare people like you who have no sense of history.
Baldie McEagle | 12.20.06 - 11:43 am | #

It's true that, over the centuries, Christianity has sometimes fused with extremely aggressive political agendas. But none of this has followed explicitly and inevitably from the teachings Christ, or of the New Testament.
Jack

But of course! No True Scotsman would ever join a crusade or a pogrom.

How anyone could consider the Pope's orders to reflect the teachings of the Church is just another one of those "ineffables" ain't it?
melior | 12.20.06 - 11:43 am | #

"I am not suggesting that your concerns are entirely unfounded. I am simply arguing that the American experience demonstrates that it is not a given that your fears will be realized."

I agree with that. It certainly isn't a given, and it could turn out that I am wrong. The problem is that there is no way to know whether I am wrong until it is too late to do anything about it if I am right.

Given the nature of Islam and Sharia law, and the behavior of politically powerful Muslim populations in general, I am opposed to trying that experiment. It seems to me not worth the risk.
Jack

Overwhelmingly, immigrants to this country become Americans. Certainly we need to watch Muslim antisecularists in this country, though by definition they will never use our political system against us. Rather, they simply reject it.

Consistently, it is the white Protestant European religious immigrants who have posed the gravest danger to freedom and liberty on this continent. And they are experts at pointing in every other direction by toward themselves.
Baldie McEagle | 12.20.06 - 11:48 am | #

Fluffy: "I believe their movements are inimical to me, as a liberal American woman. But, I reject the craven exclusionism and institutionalized bigotry that is being promoted implicitly by shooter242 and (more rationally) by Jack."

Wow, I just finished apologizing to Observer for mistakenly thinking that he had called me a bigot, and now Fluffy really does call me a bigot!

Will you please tell me how my concerns are bigoted?

Incidentally, I think your point about Catholicism is a pretty good one. It's true that Catholics have integrated into the US successfully, and that Catholicism is a closer analogy than most to Sharia law in the Christian world.

But there's still a defining difference: the Pope himself has said that the Church should not determine civil law. Muhammed DID say that Islam should determine civil law. So it's not the same thing.

I am worried about how committed Muslims (as a group) can be loyal to liberal democracy when their religion explicitly commands them to seek a theocracy.

I don't see how that concern is bigoted.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 11:53 am | #

Baldie McEagle: "Consistently, it is the white Protestant European religious immigrants who have posed the gravest danger to freedom and liberty on this continent."

That's true--but that's because there are so goddamn many of them! To me, this supports my call to limit Muslim immigration.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 11:55 am | #

political moderates who diverge from the clear teaching of their religion.

This is simply false, if by "clear teaching" is meant "kill all the nonbelievers." But Muslims don't believe that---they believe in keeping traditionally (since 700-1000) Muslim lands Muslim. Um, so does Blair, apparently, believe in keeping Europe European and dalelrocks believes in keeping America Christian-American. Wow, that's some controversial extremism there.

Musims in other countries can have difficult choices to make, because they are not accustomed to living in non-Muslim countries, as Jews are accustomed to living in non-Jewish countries. So they have to make their own way and may be susceptible to the more arrogant traditional beliefs regarding Islam as the natural religion. That makes us uncomfortable.

And this difficulty can be impossible to overcome. When the Arabs conquered Persia, they had to live with people who disposed of their dead in the air so as not to dirty the earth. Muslims bury their dead, in a sense, so as not to dirty the air. The Zoroastrians and Muslims were incompatible for this and other reasons. One side had to go, and they did.
Baldie McEagle | 12.20.06 - 11:56 am | #

Jack,

Do you feel that you have to stone disobedient teenagers? Do you think eating shellfish is a sin? Have you ever practiced idolatry? Have you ever coveted?

Just because people follow a certain religion does not mean that everyone automatically believes all the same tenets of that belief.
LnGrrrR | 12.20.06 - 11:58 am | #

Shorter Goode:

"I fear ... Muslims"

And of course, as we all know by now (hat tip to Yoda):

"Fear is the path of the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering."
me | 12.20.06 - 11:59 am | #

melior: "How anyone could consider the Pope's orders to reflect the teachings of the Church is just another one of those "ineffables" ain't it?"

I see your point. But still there is a difference. The Pope is a transient figure. If he commands the Catholics to establish a theocracy, then that is indeed analogous to Sharia law for as long as he is Pope. But there is every possibility that the next Pople will reject theocracy, so this analogy is temporary.

With Islam, there is no comparable room for change. It says what it says... now and forever. That, to me, is a huge part of its danger.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 12:02 pm | #

But there's still a defining difference: the Pope himself has said that the Church should not determine civil law. Muhammed DID say that Islam should determine civil law. So it's not the same thing.
Jack

Citing an example of a single (atypical, contemporaneous) Pope does nothing to make this point.

From Judge Roy Moore's website:
The Ten Commandments are the succinct summary of God’s law given to humanity for righteous living. They represent God’s law, which is higher than any man-made law.

Radical Christianity presents a far greater threat to our Constitution than Islam, as even a cursory review of our nation's last two centuries shows.
melior | 12.20.06 - 12:04 pm | #

daleyrocks,

How would you describe the left's attitude toward the religious right and it's supposed fascism? Does a similar simple label come to mind which I should use to dismiss that perspective?

"I want you just to let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry, founder of anti-abortion group, Operation Rescue, The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana, 8/16/93

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." --Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

"On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in A, B, C, and D. Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'" Az Sen Barry M. Goldwater

"You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them." --Pat Robertson, The 700 Club, January 14, 1991

Perhaps if you paid attention to what the religious right actually said, instead of automatically presuming that what they say is valid, you might gain a new perspective or two.
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 12:04 pm | #

Me: "political moderates who diverge from the clear teaching of their religion."

Baldie McEagle: "This is simply false, if by "clear teaching" is meant "kill all the nonbelievers."

By clear teaching, I do NOT mean "kill all the nonbelievers." I never even implied that.

But there is a clear teaching in Islam to establish and practice Sharia law. That is what I meant.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 12:06 pm | #

"Citing an example of a single (atypical, contemporaneous) Pope does nothing to make this point."

I don't think any Pope this century has called for theocracy. I could be wrong about that, but I'd be surprised.

In any case, the broader point is that theocracy is not part of the foundation of Catholic theology, but it definitely is with Muslim theology.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 12:09 pm | #

Jim Montague's collected quotes are a great start. But I'm old enough to recollect this clear call to action:

"I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God."
- President G.H.W. Bush, 8/27/87
melior | 12.20.06 - 12:12 pm | #

I suggest you read Tony Blair's recent speech about integration in the UK. The problems western Europe is experiencing with large Muslim minorities in their societies are very real and not imagined.

I address this issue more in my response to Jack. I actually lived in Europe for more than half my life. Indeed, there are serious problems with Islamic extermism, partly indeed because of extremists Imams who preach one of the 8 forms of Islamic extremism that I mention.

It is false to imply that Western European leaders, not just St. Tony, do not take the Imams and their ilk seriously. There are substantive anti-terrorism divisions similiar to our FBI in every Western European country.

The best analogy that I see is that we have our own Islamic-type communities in our midst, in my town it's called West Baltimore. There you have extremely poor people who, have can only escape the ghetto through charity, extreme perseverence and hard work or crime. As St. Ronnie or his followers (I can't remember where that phrase exactly came from) used to say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. It's all a matter of definition.

Speaking from what I have witnessed, a lot of the Western European muslim problems come from the same type of socio-economic ostrazation that we have in this country with a large portion of the black community. (I do not want to go into a side discussion of why they find themselves in this position)

We don't have a lot of Hispanics in our town, but from I have read, the Turks, Pakistanis and Maroccans that inhabit Western Europe choose to maintain their own culture, which in a lot of cases runs contrary to secular Western European culture, while choosing not to integrate themselves into that same culture. A lot of people feel threatened in the US because they feel that, similarly, their culture is being threatened as well.

When I was in college, they put a mosque down the road from my dorm - it was definitely unsettling, because it was strange, to hear the call to prayer a couple of times a day. After a while you got used to it though; it was sort of like the church bells that rang every half an hour.

What I am addressing here is that is what I said, above, in that painting with broad brush and putting scarlet "I" on people only harms us because it encourages said ostrazazation. Fareed Zakharia, who is no liberal, has written at length about the effects of separating societies.

- and -

How would you describe the left's attitude toward the religious right and it's supposed fascism?

What do you exactly mean by "the left," the "religious right", and "supposed fascism"? I cannot answer that question without knowing what you mean by that. The "left" can mean so many different things. Stalinism and fascism are strikingly similar bedfellows if you look how their power brokers operated in real terms and real time. Stalinists, such as Kim Jong Il operate from an authoritarian worldview, but because it is communist, is considered "left."

I do appreciate you engaging me substantively, however, and appreciate you explaining what you mean here. Maybe there is some hope getting through to you after all :)
DBaker | 12.20.06 - 12:14 pm | #

melior: "Radical Christianity presents a far greater threat to our Constitution than Islam, as even a cursory review of our nation's last two centuries shows."

That is very true, but as I said above, that is only because we have so many more Christians in this country than we do Muslims. If we were somehow to bring the Muslim population to a level equaling that of the Christian one, do you really believe that we would not then have much more trouble with theocratic politics than we do today?
Jack | 12.20.06 - 12:14 pm | #

In any case, the broader point is that theocracy is not part of the foundation of Catholic theology, but it definitely is with Muslim theology.
Jack

Ah, now it's clear -- you were referring to only a small, moderate subset of Christians, not those out there trying to establish a theocratic state in our country.

Surely now you understand why generalizing from a radical interpretation of Islam isn't applicable to all Muslims?
melior | 12.20.06 - 12:18 pm | #

Jack's concern (troll) is looking thinner and thinner as he argues.

First, he argues a state of worshipfulness in all Muslims that doesn't exist. Then he extrapolates that combined with infinite immigration that we don't have and adds to it the belief that normal Americans will desire to have their laws changed. This is the basis of his fear.

Of course, it's completely unrealistic, but that doesn't stop him from expounding on it. I, on the other hand, am much more worried about the secular Venusians with their outerspace traveling ways and funny forms of government infecting our leadership with mind rays and imposing their alien communal law and triggering off the Greenhouse Effect so as to colonize the planet. That's about as reasonable.
NobodySpecial | 12.20.06 - 12:23 pm | #

If we were somehow to bring the Muslim population to a level equaling that of the Christian one, do you really believe that we would not then have much more trouble with theocratic politics than we do today?
Jack

Certainly. A huge increase in the radical, anti-secularist variety of religious adherents of any sort is a threat to the religious freedom of all of us.

I simply note that your hysteria about a particular foreign flavor while ignoring the homegrown epidemic is misplaced, and a product of the very sort of fearmongering the Christian right is promulgating.
melior | 12.20.06 - 12:25 pm | #

Me: "In any case, the broader point is that theocracy is not part of the foundation of Catholic theology, but it definitely is with Muslim theology."

melior: "Ah, now it's clear -- you were referring to only a small, moderate subset of Christians, not those out there trying to establish a theocratic state in our country."

No, I was pointing out a difference in fundamental theology between Islam and Catholicism. And I'm right: that difference does exist.

"Surely now you understand why generalizing from a radical interpretation of Islam isn't applicable to all Muslims?"

Surely now? I've openly conceded that from the start. It was never at issue.
Anonymous | 12.20.06 - 12:27 pm | #

That anonymous quote above is mine.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 12:28 pm | #

Please excuse the double post.
melior | 12.20.06 - 12:31 pm | #

Glenn [from the post]:

The following is a letter sent by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) to various constituents as a result of what his office claims is "a flood of e-mails from constituents in response to newly elected Minnesota Representative Keith Ellison’s declaration that he would use the Koran, not the Bible, when being sworn into Congress next month."

Perhaps worth mentioning is that AFAIK, Ellison has made no such declaration. Goode (and/or his orifice) is a lying sack'o'sh*te.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 12:33 pm | #

"I simply note that your hysteria about a particular foreign flavor while ignoring the homegrown epidemic is misplaced, and a product of the very sort of fearmongering the Christian right is promulgating."

Calling my concerns "hysterical" doesn't make it so. You would have to show me how my worry about the political implications of the explicit teaching of Islam is unfounded. You haven't even addressed this concern, much less undermine it.

Also, it's a fallacy to suppose that expressing a concern about one thing (Islam and Sharia law) precludes having a concern about another thing (Christian theocratic politics). One can easily be concerned about both. And I am.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 12:34 pm | #

DBaker - Just read some of Glenn's post about Christianists if you want a clue.
daleyrocks | 12.20.06 - 12:36 pm | #

Jack: do you really believe that we would not then have much more trouble with theocratic politics than we do today?

This is something we're going to have trouble with for the foreseeable future, no matter what else happens. As long as modern society tends to crush the people who have no stake in it -- no stake, that is, which is apparent to them -- the simple solutions of dogma are going to seem more attractive to them, and political power an effective way to redress those grievances which seem to them to have no discernible origin other than chaos.

Education might help, but public education has been both underfunded, and a political football, almost from the founding of the republic.

It's my belief that more democracy, not less, is the real solution to a problem which now threatens to undermine much of what has been good about the heritage of the Enlightenment. Otherwise, a pernicious amalgam of unrestrained capitalism and the technologies which threaten to overwhelm not only human affairs, but the planet itself, will be fought not by a new concept of stewardship and reconciliation, but by the church(es) militant, and a form of reductionism which may well cost us all we have gained in the past 250 years.

As weird as it may seem to say it -- especially to me -- Frank Herbert's oddly passionate science fiction novel Dune may be a better guide to what's facing us in the near future than any of the partisan documents of the last fifty years. Unrelenting and ignorant warfare on fundamentalism of all sorts is tempting, but the temptation should be resisted. When all is said and done, fundamentalism of all sorts is a symptom, not a cause, and shoulb be treated as such.
William Timberman | 12.20.06 - 12:40 pm | #

The transience of church leaders carries its own peril -- that what may today be cloaked by moderation will be subsumed by a future interpretation of a new (unelected, unaccountable) religious leader. History shows that despotic theocratic movements usually evolve in this fashion, instead of springing up fully clothed in their bigotry.

The only true safety is in the rational education of our children to distrust all superstitious thinking, and to respect and defend the rights of others and the principle of separation of church and state made law by our Constitution.

All other paths lead to hell.
melior | 12.20.06 - 12:43 pm | #

Nobody Special: "Jack's concern (troll) is looking thinner and thinner as he argues."

There's that charge: concern troll. Of course, it's impossible that I could sincerely have this concern, I must be pretending for trollish reasons to have it.

"First, he argues a state of worshipfulness in all Muslims that doesn't exist."

I did not argue this, and I have repeatedly acknowledged that this is not so. Why do people keep arguing against a point that I did not make, and have repeatedly said that I did not make?

"Then he extrapolates that combined with infinite immigration that we don't have"

This is not a bad point, actually. It's true that we don't have huge Muslim immigration as it is, and that therefore my concerns at the moment are more hypothetical than urgent.

"and adds to it the belief that normal Americans will desire to have their laws changed. This is the basis of his fear."

I didn't say anything about the desires of "normal Americans". But "normal" varies widely, depending on the norms of given populations. Certainly there are millions of Christians in this country who would very much like to "have their laws changed," and they have come disturbingly close to succeeding. And in their communities, they are certainly "normal" Americans.

"Of course, it's completely unrealistic, but that doesn't stop him from expounding on it."

It is not "completely* unrealistic. Immigrant populations have a way of growing very fast when policies are encouraging. So it could happen, as indeed it has happened in a number of European countries. But I concede that it is not happening now.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 12:48 pm | #

D-Rocks: DBaker - I think you've got the players and the "meme" wrong.

Unfortunately, since you get EVERYTHING wrong, you might not want to tell someone else what they've got wrong.

How would you describe the left's attitude toward the religious right and it's supposed fascism?

I would answer this, but Jim did a great job of already doing so (which it doesn't appear you have responded to; perhaps you have no response?)

DBaker - Just read some of Glenn's post about Christianists if you want a clue.

Again, until you get a clue, you aren't able to tell other people to get a clue. Get it? And obviously you have no reading comprehension; when Glenn refers to "Christianists," he's refering mostly to people who try to legislate and shove their own narrowly interpreted religious beliefs down the throats of others. I might be a Lutheran, and therefore religious and Christian, but I'd definintely object to Southern Baptist interpretations of scripture being legislated on me. So yeah, I'd have a problem with that. If Catholics tried to shove Catholic dogma down the throat of people in the Bible Belt, they'd throw a hissy fit, as well they should; Catholics usually being on the "left" and those in the Bible Belt being mostly on the "right," more or less.

Anyways, I'm obviously ignoring my rule of "don't feed the feces throwing monkey," but your comments today are too stupid to ignore.
Anonymous | 12.20.06 - 12:51 pm | #

It is not "completely* unrealistic.

Except, of course, that here in America, present day, we have immigration caps, for one.

Secondly, if you want to argue that not all Muslims are Islamic wingnuts, why do you predicate that increasing the number of Muslims here will bring about an overwhelming pressure for Islamic law, merely because that's what the Qu'ran purports to say? I notice there are more Jews in the US than Israel, and have yet to see a single rabbinical court anywhere in the US.

Your 'fear' is overblown by orders of magnitude, which is why I put it in the 'concern troll' category.
NobodySpecial | 12.20.06 - 12:52 pm | #

Unrelenting and ignorant warfare on fundamentalism of all sorts is tempting, but the temptation should be resisted. When all is said and done, fundamentalism of all sorts is a symptom, not a cause, and shoulb be treated as such.
William Timberman

I don't disagree that today's education system is depressingly inadequate, but the skeptic in me isn't convinced that even their enfranchisement and elimination of poverty could fully eliminate this scourge. Look at the wealthy fundie subclass in America, for example.

Perhaps someday, medicine will find a cure.

Or perhaps, as in John Barnes' Candle and The Sky So Big And Black, technology will only make things worse.
melior | 12.20.06 - 12:53 pm | #

anonymoose:

Judge Roy Moore just published an excellent article on the subject of swearing in Ellison.

Roy Moore is a lying sack'o'sh*te as well (not to mention a retard). That you believe him (or anything you find on WhirledNutzDaily) just shows you're stoopider than he is.

BTW, that "...So help me God" crapola is something of Moore's fevered imagination; it is no place in the Constitution.

Here's the terminally confozed 'Judge' Moore:

To support the Constitution of the United States one must uphold an underlying principle of that document, liberty of conscience, which is the right of every person to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience, without interference by the government.

Which means that a Muslim, Buddhist, Pastafarian, or atheist has just as much freedom as does 'Judge' Moore.

More Moore:

The Islamic faith rejects our God and believes that the state must mandate the worship of its own god, Allah.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But it was 'Judge' Moore that insisted on the Ten Commandments on his courtrom wall and in the foyer of the Alabama State House. It is 'Judge' Moore that is one of the coterie of numbnutz insisting falsely that the basis for U.S. law is Christianity. Pot calling the kettle black, I fear.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 12:53 pm | #

"shooter242":

If Ellison can substitute his own religious standard for an oath, can he substitute his own religious law for our secular one?

If "shooter242" could substitute actual thought for the maismatic efflux that drips from his smegmatic jowls, would he know that he's full'o'sh*te?

Or, put a bit differently what is the feeling here about the possibility of Sharia court in Ellison's district?

Or, put it differently, what's the possibility that something other than monkeys will fly out of "shooter242"'s a$$ if he decides not to trot out ridiculous "straw men"?

In my estimation and based on the concrete evidence, zilch.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 1:04 pm | #

A phone call to Goode's office confirms that Goode did indeed write that letter, and that Goode is aware that the swearing-in ceremony does not include any religious book.

Draw your own conclusions.

With kind regards,
Dog, etc.
searching for home
Ghost of Joe Liebling's Dog | 12.20.06 - 1:19 pm | #

But it was 'Judge' Moore that insisted on the Ten Commandments on his courtrom wall and in the foyer of the Alabama State House. It is 'Judge' Moore that is one of the coterie of numbnutz insisting falsely that the basis for U.S. law is Christianity.

This is OT, but for shits and giggles, you might want to read the actual underlying court case. If I recall correctly one of the issues with the Ten Commandments case was that the monument in the foyer was such a monstrosity that it impeded people in wheelchairs from getting by it and into the court room.

My Federalist Society member boss was all ready to blast the Court for judicial activism, when he realized the details of this case were so ridiculous that he would be foolish to argue against its findings.

Thanks to the rebuttal "anonymous," whoever you may be. I really had hope for you DR since your first couple of posts on this thread were actually substantive, but unfortunately you went back to painting with broad brush - which just goes to prove my point.
DBaker | 12.20.06 - 1:19 pm | #

From the Washington Post:

Neither the House nor the Senate keeps record of which holy books, if any, are used in the unofficial ceremonies. In fact, House members are sworn in together on the House floor in a ceremony without any book, holy or otherwise. But in an unofficial ceremony, individual members reenact an oath so it can be photographed.

Just so that's clear.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 1:25 pm | #

From the link supplied by anonymoose @ 11:52PM last night:

The Quran is a messed up fraud.

While the Bible accurately records actual people, places and events, the Quran is a jumbled up mess.

Examples of The Bible accurately recording actual people, places and events:

genesis 5:21-32
21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah. 22 And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.

25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech. 26 And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.

28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son. 29 He named him Noah [c] and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed." 30 After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.

32 After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.

I don't claim to know much of anything about the Qu'ran, but claiming that it is much less credible than the Bible as a literal historical document is just completely asinine.
nick | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 1:27 pm | #

"shooter242":

* Bigotry toward anyone not sharing the "common view" is alive and well on this board.

Translated from Republican into English:

"Ridicule and scorn heaped on fact-free eedjits is the normal and deserved behaviour on this board. And my a$$ hurts."

This has been a public service of the Republicanism Explicated For The Masses Institute. Donations are not needed; just lend a helping hand as warranted.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 1:35 pm | #

"pesudonymous":

Shooter, I don't know what you're wasting your time here for. Since the Taliban are on the brink of power in Minnesota, you should probably go hook up with the only force capable of liberating it -- the Northern Dakota Alliance.

They rejected him after the physical. He has a "trick lip".

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 1:37 pm | #

"if you want to argue that not all Muslims are Islamic wingnuts, why do you predicate that increasing the number of Muslims here will bring about an overwhelming pressure for Islamic law, merely because that's what the Qu'ran purports to say?"

Because that is the historical tendency of Muslim communities when they become large enough to be politically powerful. I don't insist that this would happen--how could I know? But I do ask: if they have done that in most other cases elsewhere, then why wouldn't they do that here?

"I notice there are more Jews in the US than Israel, and have yet to see a single rabbinical court anywhere in the US."

I differentiated Judaism from Islam in my first post on this question. Maybe you didn't read that one. But basically, I said that while Judaism has some very strict laws, the religion is exclusionary rather than universalist. Jews therefore do not want to impose their laws on others, and they don't want to convert others to Judaism.

But Islam is both expansionist, and prescribes an explicit theocratic political order.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 1:48 pm | #

shooter242 | 12.19.06 - 9:25 pm | #

If Ellison can substitute his own religious standard for an oath, can he substitute his own religious law for our secular one?

Or, put a bit differently what is the feeling here about the possibility of Sharia court in Ellison's district?

sKKKooter is still playing this idiot game? I figured he'd give up on something as lame as this after he got his ignorant ass lambasted last time when it was pointed out we don't want ANY religious law in America, Sharia or other, and we have a lot more to fear from the Christianists than we do the muslims in that respect.
Moses | 12.20.06 - 1:50 pm | #

Republican propaganda crapola [quoted by "Fair And Balanced" Dave, but available here also, as well as other places in the Republican swamp]:

The keynote speech at that event was given by newly-elected Democrat Minnesota Congressman, Keith Ellison, the nations first Muslim congressman. Ellison refused to take his oath of office swearing on the Bible. He took his ceremonial oath of office to the congress of the United States with his hand on the Koran. Some in attendance shouted "Allahu Akbar" at the conclusion of the ceremony. You may remember, that was what the Islamic terrorist pilots were shouting as United flight 93 was nose-diving into the Pennsylvania field on September 11.

Basic problem here: The 110th Congress hasn't been sworn in yet.

See here for more actual facts, rather than this absolutely absurd, fact-free, and ignerrent RepublicanSpew.

At this point, we should just acknowledge that the Republican party and their sycophants are en masse a big steenking pile of lying sacks'o'sh*te, state that clearly and succinctly, and move on.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 1:57 pm | #

Jack, the American model of integration is different from any other in the world. I don't usually go for exceptionalism, but this is one thing we do very well as long as we aren't talking about people whose ancestors used to be our slaves.

Islamic law contains many different possibilities. Some of them are democratic and some are autocratic. How would Islamic authoritarianism take root in a country in which it is neither the majority nor the established order? It can't. If it was voted into power it would be democratic.

Look at Palestine. They finally had a free election and Hamas turned into pussycats. Don't be a sucker for ignorant nativist fearmongering.
Baldie McEagle | 12.20.06 - 1:59 pm | #

And Islam hasn't been "expansionist" for a thousand years. The Ottomans were, but they were not Islam. Et cetera.
Baldie McEagle | 12.20.06 - 2:01 pm | #

"shooter242" is unintentionally and poignantly funny ... and correct:

shooter,
I hope you don't keep a loaded gun at home. At this rate, you're liable to take out the mailman.
paul dirks | 12.20.06 - 9:54 am

And this is the kind of thing that gets posted when fact, logic, or history, are nowhere to be found.
shooter242 | 12.20.06 - 10:04 am | #

But he probably can't figure out why.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 2:02 pm | #

Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 12:04 pm | #

Wonderful Goldwater quote. Thanks.
nick | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 2:04 pm | #

pseudonymous :

Are people of Scandanavian descent even capable of ullulating?

Jaaaaahhhh, da....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 2:05 pm | #

Baldie - I don't know how you read what you do into what I said, but somehow you do. Where was Blair? Who knows, probably 9/11, U.K. bus bombings, street demonstrations, worldwide anti-cartoon riots, Spanish train bombings, Parisian car-b-ques, on the way to getting ramped up. Plus, how many terror plots did British intelligence say they are monitoring last time they disclosed the number Baldie?
daleyrocks

I was responding to what you said, dear boy. And I said "where was Blair on Muslim immigrants before 9/11." I know what happened after 9/11.

So what if some Muslims blow some things up? Are all Muslims suddenly terrorists, when and where they weren't before?
Baldie McEagle | 12.20.06 - 2:07 pm | #

Jack:

I agree that many Muslims do not insist that their religious views be written into our laws. The problem is that, even if individual Muslims don't insist on it, their religion does. And that strikes me as dangerous.

Haven't read much of Ray Moore's ahistorical blatherings, the Wallbuilders' screeds, or the works of the Christian Reconstructionists (who have perhaps a bit too cozy relationshi with the maladministraiton), have you?

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 2:09 pm | #

One is not required to be an "expert" to know when one is being pushed.
shooter242

Poor scooter just wants the right to return to his family's house in Palestine. He's been pushed far enough and isn't going to take it any more!
Baldie McEagle | 12.20.06 - 2:10 pm | #

Jack:

[melior]: "Radical Christianity presents a far greater threat to our Constitution than Islam, as even a cursory review of our nation's last two centuries shows."

That is very true, but as I said above, that is only because we have so many more Christians in this country than we do Muslims. If we were somehow to bring the Muslim population to a level equaling that of the Christian one, do you really believe that we would not then have much more trouble with theocratic politics than we do today?

Ummm, nope. Lack of thinking detected. If we approach religious heterogeneity, it will be harder and harder for a single group to impose their particualr religious views on the country.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 2:19 pm | #

In the United States as of 2004, the religious population is represented by an overwhelming 224,000,000 Christians. Others are below:
Islam 1,558,068
Buddhist 1,527,019
Agnostic 1,398,592
They represent just 0.5% of the population. These numbers shouldn't change dramatically and my personal opinion is the overall impact on American politics will be negligible in the future.
On the other hand:
The number of Christians in the Middle East however, seem to suggest that Christians are more expansionist than previously given credit for.

a. The largest Christian community of the Middle East is found in Egypt, which has ten to twelve million Copts. This Christian group comprises 1/5 to 1/6 of the country's population. Egypt is also a major recipient of U.S. foreign aid, despite blatant violations of religious freedom which occurs weekly in this country.
b. The Southern Sudanese are about six million. Christians are the largest monotheist group.

c. The Christians of Lebanon: about 1.5 million still reside there and more than 6 million live in the diaspora, including about a quarter of that number in the United States. Among the Lebanese Christians, the largest group is the Maronites, which are Catholics which follow Rome. Other smaller religious entities include the Melkites and Orthodox Christians.

d. The Assyro-Chaldeans: Around one million in Iraq with large concentrations in the Kurdish zone.

e. The Christians of Syria: About 1.2 million including Aramaics, Armenians, Melkites and Orthodox.

f. There are small but significant Christian communities in other countries such as Iran, Jordan, Israel, and less significant in Turkey, Algeria. By law there are no Christians in Saudi Arabia.

These number suggest that Christians overall are much more expansionist than Muslims. I think we have a fear of Muslims and until we take measures to understand that societal unit, we will not be completely successful in any dialogue for peace in the Middle East.
Anonymous | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 2:21 pm | #

Jack,

If I'm not mistaken, what you seem to be saying is that if we don't put a cap on Muslim immigrants (who have been allowed to enter our country since forever, and yet are still only a very small % of the population), their numbers may swell to the point that they reach greater than 50% of a political district and therefore (under our system) can assert political power, which for them will be heavily influenced by their religion?

Well, I'd assume we'd do the same for them as for any group that has 50%+ population and therefore gains political power - what they want. That is our political system. If they become a majority, according to our laws/Consitution, they deserve political power.

If they then implement laws that are contrary to our state or federal constitution, then the state courts/federal courts will decide on them.

If the courts rule them valid, they are therefore in line with our country and are kept. If invalid, they are decreed unlawful and told to remove them.

If they don't remove them, they are forced to by the national guard, as segments of the South was forced to do after Brown vs. Board of Education.

If we were to, however, pre-emptively make laws discriminating against a group based on their religion, we would be in violation of the Bill of Rights and it's addendums in the form of the Civil Rights acts passed in the late 60's/early 70's whcich explicitly prohibit laws based solely upon religion.

You see, the great thing about our country is that idle speculation / fear / laws / etc. directed towards certain groups as a whole are for the most part illegal in our country (with only a few exceptions). We even have codified our belief that it is wrong to do such in a variety of different areas, local and nationally.

So when you say that you aren't being bigoted and we are by telling you you are, it just doesn't have the facts to back it up.

If you're afraid American people may change to the point that their majority political will will lead us in a direction you don't like, feel free to move to a totalitarian country where your persecution of certain groups will be reflected. As for us Americans, we prefer our non-biased laws and such. I know they sometimes lead us into trouble and don't always protect us as best as they could, but they truly are the best that has ever existed and likely ever will.
realitybased | 12.20.06 - 2:58 pm | #

realitybased: "You see, the great thing about our country is that idle speculation / fear / laws / etc. directed towards certain groups as a whole are for the most part illegal in our country (with only a few exceptions)."

Could you say anything more false than that? Idle speculation and fear directed toward certain groups as a whole are completely legal in this country, and should be. As for "laws", it's true that we have equal protection under the law, but I haven't in any way contradicted that.

"If you're afraid American people may change to the point that their majority political will will lead us in a direction you don't like, feel free to move to a totalitarian country where your persecution of certain groups will be reflected. "

Where have I advocated the persecution of Muslims? I haven't, and I am opposed to their persecution by the Bush Administration.

"As for us Americans, we prefer our non-biased laws and such."

Where have I advocated biased laws? It's true that I have would like to limit Muslim immigration to the US, but that is a fair position within our system. It is hardly persecution. And we do not allow people from all countries to immigrate equally as it is.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 3:19 pm | #

I think excluding people from immigration consideration on the basis of religion would, by definition, be a biased law, considering that no other religion is burdened with such restriction.
Epsilon | 12.20.06 - 3:53 pm | #

Arne - Everyone was having a nice discussion and getting along well until you decided to return.

Pity.
daleyrocks | 12.20.06 - 4:00 pm | #

DBaker - I would have stayed around longer earlier if I possible instead of referring you elsewhere. Anonymous, while claiming I got everything wrong, actually provided great examples of what the left is afraid of from the religious right through the post about Christianists, although I take it that the Southern Baptists and Catholics are not assumed to be on the right in that example. Jim also provides good examples in the quotes he posted although it would have been nice if could have found something more recent than 1993.
daleyrocks | 12.20.06 - 4:04 pm | #

From daleyrocks at 4:04 pm:

Anonymous, while claiming I got everything wrong, actually provided great examples of what the left is afraid of from the religious right through the post about Christianists, although I take it that the Southern Baptists and Catholics are not assumed to be on the right in that example.

Really? In what way would such denominations in that region, who would be perfectly at home under Sharia Law but for the iconography, not to the right of Dobson and company?
Iokanaan in the Well | 12.20.06 - 4:23 pm | #

daleyrocks,

Current affairs gives us a wealth of quotes from the religious right. What would you prefer? Pat Robertson and assasinating Hugo Chavez? Pat Robertson and the cause of the Tsunami and the earthquake in Pakistan? Fred Phelps from Westboro Baptist? Dobson and Gays? the list is certainly long, or is it possible you still think we are misjudging these people?
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 4:42 pm | #

D-Rocks:

The left, at least my small part of it, isn't afraid of anything that most reasonable Americans -- at least those who value their personal liberties -- wouldn't be afraid of.

That would include not only Dominionist religious sects, and the Taliban -- if it were operating with impunity in this country -- but also what libertarians call the nanny state. I know you hate nuance, but unless you're content to be a rigid ideologue, with little respect for reality, it's hard to see how you can avoid it.

Should the day ever come when you'd be willing to trade a head full of reductionist bumper stickers in for a more balanced view of political history, you might actually be more fun to argue with. As it is, well....
William Timberman | 12.20.06 - 4:50 pm | #

XXXXX SMUDGE REPORT XXXXX DEC 20, 2006 XXXXX

**EXCLUSIVE** **MUST CREDIT SMUDGE REPORT**.

SHOCKER: VHG'S MIDDLE NAME!!!

Forensic document examiners in Richmond, Virginia, have reportedly determined that, on Virgil H. Goode's original birth certificate, prior to a clumsy "Wite-Out" job, his middle name wasn't "Hamlin" but "Hussein" !!!

Developing...
Sam Smudge | 12.20.06 - 4:52 pm | #

Jim - Why did you choose old quotes to make your case then Jim? Can you tell me where they are selling memberships in the religious right? Some people I met want to join.
daleyrocks | 12.20.06 - 5:34 pm | #

Where have I advocated biased laws? It's true that I have would like to limit Muslim immigration to the US, but that is a fair position within our system. It is hardly persecution. And we do not allow people from all countries to immigrate equally as it is.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 3:19 pm

By proposing to limit Muslim immigration you are putting a religious test on immigration. Since immigration laws are federal laws this would be both a biased law and a violation of the First Amendement. Restricting immigration from predominantly Muslim countries might have a similar effect and could conceivably get past a Constitutional test, but would still be transparently biased.

If you are willing to scrap the Constitution to that extent, why not go the whole way and simply take citizenship away from Muslims as the Nuremburg Laws did to the Jews in 1935?

Whenever you separate out and discriminate against one group purely on the basis of ethnic origin or religion that is bigotry. Saying that you do not advocate discrimination but just want to prevent a certain ethnic or religious group from having equal access to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is industrial-strength cognitive dissonance.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 12.20.06 - 7:03 pm | #

d-rocks: How would you describe the left's attitude toward the religious right and it's supposed fascism?

CHRISTIAN FASCISM 101
FINAL EXAM

Compare and contrast:

The Horst Wessel Lied (Horst Wessel, 1929)

with your choice of

Onward, Christian Soldiers (Sabine Baring-Gould, 1865)

or

Go Forward, Christian Soldier (Lawrence Tuttiett, 1861)

Frankly, my dear, ... | 12.20.06 - 7:33 pm | #

Thank you, Frankly...
Being new to the internets I had heard the phrase concern troll batted about but I had never seen such a perfect example as "Jack." As he valiantly implies everything that he then indignantly denies. The sharia that is making him piddle all over the place does not even have a single definition. I think finding two people with the same definition would be a task. But hell it sounds scary doesn't it
empty | 12.20.06 - 7:55 pm | #

Frankly: "By proposing to limit Muslim immigration you are putting a religious test on immigration."

My entire point was that Islam is not just a religion, but also an explicitly worked out political and social system that is on its face incompatible with liberal democracy. It is therefore not really a religious test, but a political one--or even, more precisely, a pragmatic one, based on what I think would be the consequences for the country were unrestrained Islamic immigration to be allowed. Our government makes similar judgments about immigration from different countries all the time, based on what it considers to be its own self-interest, and, like all governments, it has every right to do this. There's a reason, after all, why it's easier to immigrate to the US from Mexico than it is from, say, Germany or France.

"Since immigration laws are federal laws this would be both a biased law and a violation of the First Amendement."

That is false. The First Amendment does not apply to non-citizens. Limiting Muslim immigration has nothing to do with the First Amendment, because the people we would be keeping out of the country are by definition not citizens of the US.

"Restricting immigration from predominantly Muslim countries might have a similar effect and could conceivably get past a Constitutional test, but would still be transparently biased."

That is not bias in the sense of denying any citizen equal protection under the law, and that is what was at issue earlier. If you want to insist that it is bias neverthless, then we'll have to distinguish between just and unjust bias, empirically grounded bias and groundless bias, enlightened bias and bigoted bias, and so on. Whatever you call it, it's just not the same thing as the unjust "legal bias" of which I was earlier accused.

My position is well within the limits of what all governments do concerning immigration all the time: it is a self-interested pragmatism, favoring some nations and disfavoring others. There is nothing new about this, and there is certainly nothing unconstitutional about it. It is simply how the country--and the world--work.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 9:07 pm | #

Empty: "Being new to the internets I had heard the phrase concern troll batted about but I had never seen such a perfect example as "Jack." As he valiantly implies everything that he then indignantly denies."

Look, maybe I'm an idiot for taking this position. That is certainly possible. But what is this need people have to go beyond assessing my arguments, and instead to impugn my motives? A concern troll is someone who is faking his position in order to stir up trouble on a site, right? Well, I am not faking it. Maybe I'm idiot, but I actually do believe what I am saying here. I am also a big fan of Glenn's blog, and I agree with most of what he says, so I'm not a covert enemy, either.

There is something almost pathological in this need to smear dissenting voices as "concern trolls". It's as if you think that no one could possibly disagree with you in good conscience. Dissenters have to be somehow arguing in bad faith, they must be somehow... not merely wrong, but morally BAD.

I know it's not nearly as oppressive here in this respect as in the Bush world.. but god. You'd think people would want to position themselves a little more sharply against the spirit of lockstep conformity that they daily decry in others.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 9:18 pm | #

I said: "My entire point was that Islam is not just a religion, but also an explicitly worked out political and social system that is on its face incompatible with liberal democracy."

I should add, though, that this does not mean that Muslims cannot happily live in liberal democracies. Clearly, they can and do. But they do so in defiance of the clear dictates of their religion. And the historical trend is that when their populations become large enought to be politically powerful, they tend to set aside this inconsistency, and agitate for Sharia law.
Jack | 12.20.06 - 9:23 pm | #

For what it's worth, Jack, I disagree with both your definition of Islam, and your view that it would be useful to single Muslims out for immigration limits not imposed on people of other ethnicities or religions.

That said, I do not believe that calling you a troll is the proper way to respond to your arguments, not simply on the basis that you've taken an unpopular position.
William Timberman | 12.20.06 - 9:31 pm | #

Controlling Immigration is a non winner also, considering 12 million of our illegals just walked right in. Why it takes liberals to come up with capitalist solutions to Republican missteps I'll never understand, but Cenk Uygur has an article posted at Alternet today that I thought was quite insightful to solving the Muslim dilemma.
He proposes using our most powerful weapon to resolve this crisis, it has worked both in Vietnam and in China whose countries while not firmly Democratic are both on a firm path to Democracy and should succumb to it in a matter of time.
That solution is Capitalism, free trade and access to American markets. It will destroy radical Islam in a fairly short period of time.
Uygur uses Iran as a model for his idea, but I can't imagine why it wouldn't quiet the trouble in Iraq just as well. He cites the fact that when the United Nations was chartered there were just 15 Democratic nations in the world and now we have a hundred. The article is quite incisive and well thought out, You can access the entire article Here
Jim Montague | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 9:58 pm | #

Jack forgets where he his from one moment to the next:

Where have I advocated biased laws? It's true that I have would like to limit Muslim immigration to the US, ...

Some folks need to think a smidgen before they start talking....

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 10:11 pm | #

"daleyrocks" said:

Arne - Everyone was having a nice discussion and getting along well until you decided to return.

Oh, FOAD. Since when have you ever had a "nice discussion"?

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 10:13 pm | #

Jack:

My entire point was that Islam is not just a religion, but also an explicitly worked out political and social system that is on its face incompatible with liberal democracy....

So no true religion can be anything other than a bland, empty, and meaningless one, eh?

This is arrant nonsense.

And since when are "political and social system[s]" dangerous and (presumtively) illegal? Or is it just those that you hate and fear?

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 10:21 pm | #

Jack:

[Frankly, my dear]: "Since immigration laws are federal laws this would be both a biased law and a violation of the First Amendement."

That is false. The First Amendment does not apply to non-citizens.

Oh, bollocks. That's just so ignerrent and stoopid, you have to be a troll. Care to explain where you got this insane idea that the Bill of Rights is for "citizens" only?!?!? Or did you just pull that c*** out of your a$$?...

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 10:25 pm | #

I live in the Minnesota district that elected Keith Ellison. I worked on Keith's campaign.

What struck me as weird is that he talks about Keith's election as an immigration issue.......which is odd since Keith was born in the U.S.A.---he's African-American, from Detroit, so I suspect his family have all been in the USA for many, many generations at this point.
Midwest Meg | 12.20.06 - 10:27 pm | #

To wit, Jack, showing his ignerrence:

That is not bias in the sense of denying any citizen equal protection under the law,...

"... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." -- U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.20.06 - 10:28 pm | #

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. ...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 ...The Ten Commandments and “In God We Trust” are on the wall in my office....“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.”

The “values and beliefs” that Rep. Goode’s letter promotes are conflict with those expressed in Virginia’s constitution since 1786, and the First Amendment of the US constitution, as explained below.

USIA: BASIC READINGS IN U.S. DEMOCRACY
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/info...mocrac/ demo.htm

42. BACKGROUNDER ON THE VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/info...democrac/ 42.htm

In Virginia, the American Revolution led to the disestablishment of the Anglican Church, which had been tied closely to the royal government. Then the question arose as to whether the new state should continue to impose taxes to be used for the support of all recognized churches. The proposal had a number of supporters who, even if they no longer accepted an established church, still believed that religion should be supported by the public purse.

For some Virginians, however, imposing religion on people smacked of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom would later be president of the United States, argued that religious beliefs should be solely matters of individual conscience and completely immune from any interference by the state. Moreover, religious activity of any sort should be wholly voluntary. Not only did they oppose taxing people to support an established church, but they also objected to forcing people to pay taxes even for their own church. To Jefferson, a high wall of separation should always keep church and state apart.

Jefferson drafted the following measure, but it was Madison who skillfully secured its adoption by the Virginia legislature in 1786. It is still part of modern Virginia's constitution, and it has not only been copied by other states but was also the basis for the Religion Clauses in the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Both men considered this bill one of the great achievements of their lives, and Jefferson directed that on his tombstone he should not be remembered as president of the United States or for any of the other high offices he held, but as the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, and as the founder of the University of Virginia.
[...]
VIRGINIA STATUTE FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as it was in his Almighty power to do;

that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;

that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;

that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry;

that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right;

that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;

that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally,

that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by the General Assembly,

That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such act shall be an infringement of natural right.
Tom Doyle | 12.20.06 - 10:51 pm | #

I said: "The First Amendment does not apply to non-citizens."

Arne: "Oh, bollocks. That's just so ignerrent and stoopid, you have to be a troll. Care to explain where you got this insane idea that the Bill of Rights is for "citizens" only?!?!? Or did you just pull that c*** out of your a$$?.."

Would you care to explain where you get the idea that the Bill of Rights applies to non citizens living in other countries? And if you believe that, then why don't you share the neo-con agenda of enforcing that belief by imposing our constitution on other peoples?

I'm not suggesting that non-citizens inside the US don't have rights under the constitution. My point was that the constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens *outside* the US. That's why it's the US Constitution, and not the World Constitution.

You're not depriving a Muslim in, say, Saudi Arabia, of any First Amendment right to religious freedom if you don't allow him to emigrate to the US. The constitution does not have that kind of reach.
Jack | 12.21.06 - 12:24 am | #

You're not depriving a Muslim in, say, Saudi Arabia, of any First Amendment right to religious freedom if you don't allow him to emigrate to the US. The constitution does not have that kind of reach.
Jack | 12.21.06 - 12:24 am

You're not denying religious freedom if you don't let him immigrate because he doesn't have a job or because he has a criminal record or because he has four wives or because so doing would exceed some per capita quota established for immigration from Saudi Arabia. But if you deny his application solely because he is a Muslim, then you are denying religious freedom. No Federal statute can be based solely on a religious test. When he applies for immigration to the US, he comes into contact with US jurisdiction and he can't be denied the equal protection of the law on the basis of his religion. I don't know why you can't seem to grasp this point.
Frankly, my dear, ... | 12.21.06 - 3:32 am | #

The demonization of Jack as a concern troll has been enlightening.

Has the idea that one of the tenets of Islam is to overthrow the Constitution and establish theocracy been put forth?
Is that a "protected concept" as well?
shooter242 | 12.21.06 - 7:14 am | #

Frankly: "But if you deny his application solely because he is a Muslim, then you are denying religious freedom. No Federal statute can be based solely on a religious test. "

I don't think that's true, but I can't honestly say for sure that I know you're wrong. This is just the kind of question that Glenn could clear up. Too bad he's busy.

That said, if it's also true, as you concede, that it's legal to establish immigration quotas for particular countries, then practically speaking, that would probably be the way to do it.

In fact, we probably already are doing it.
Jack | 12.21.06 - 12:32 pm | #

Jack:

[Jack]: "The First Amendment does not apply to non-citizens."

[Arne]: "Oh, bollocks. That's just so ignerrent and stoopid, you have to be a troll. Care to explain where you got this insane idea that the Bill of Rights is for "citizens" only?!?!? Or did you just pull that c*** out of your a$$?.."

Would you care to explain where you get the idea that the Bill of Rights applies to non citizens living in other countries?. And if you believe that, then why don't you share the neo-con agenda of enforcing that belief by imposing our constitution on other peoples?

I'm not suggesting that non-citizens inside the US don't have rights under the constitution. My point was that the constitution doesn't apply to non-citizens *outside* the US. That's why it's the US Constitution, and not the World Constitution.

Moving the goalposts, IC (see bolded text). Regardless, you miss the point. The Bill of Rights, technically, applies to the gummint, not the citizens (it is a limitiation on what the gummint is allowed to do). The gummint may not do certain things. Discriminate on the basis of religion is one of them. It may be true that non-resident aliens may have difficulties in getting standing to sue, but that's a procedural problem, and should a non-resident alien get into U.S. court, they will have the protection of U.S. laws, and that includes the Constitution.

An alien may not seek to impose U.S. law on the actions of other gummints in the courts of other countries, but that's irrelevant to whether the U.S. gummint is bound by the U.S. Constitution in its actions here.

You really need to learn some law or at least a little bit of civics and history before you go spouting c*** pretending you actually know something.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.21.06 - 1:04 pm | #

Jack:

[Frankly]: "But if you deny his application solely because he is a Muslim, then you are denying religious freedom. No Federal statute can be based solely on a religious test. "

I don't think that's true, but I can't honestly say for sure that I know you're wrong. This is just the kind of question that Glenn could clear up. Too bad he's busy.

If you don't know, just STFU, OK? I do know (as does Frankly), and the gummint can't do that.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.21.06 - 1:08 pm | #

Arne: "Moving the goalposts, IC (see bolded text)."

I have not moved the goalposts. All along I have been talking about limiting Muslim immigration. Would-be immigrants are non-citizens who live in other countries. Therefore, that was the clear context of my claim that the US Constitution does not apply to non-citizens. It was you who moved the goalposts by writing as if I were talking about non-citizens in this country.

"The gummint may not do certain things. Discriminate on the basis of religion is one of them."

Whether the government really cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when it comes to immigration has not been demonstrated, but, as I've admitted, maybe you are right. In fact, for the sake of this discussion, I'll assume that you are right, .

As I've indicated above, I'm sure that there are practical ways around this limitation.

Now I have a hypothetical question for you: Suppose that a neo-nazi, white supremacist movement really got going in certain other countries. Let's say this movement has become so huge that its has hundreds of millions of adherents. And now let's add a twist: these neo-nazi white supremacists consider their belief system to be their religion. They worship God through their belief in the supremacy of whiteness, and they consider it a religious imperative to oppress all non whites--and non neo-nazis--via the mechanisms of government.

Now let's say these people have decided that they want to immigrate to the US, en masse. Would you oppose keeping them out of the country as an act of unconstitutional religious discrimination? Or would you, perhaps, in this case support finding some practical way around this constitutional limit of government?

(I'm not suggesting here that Muslims are like neo-nazis. I just want to see how consistent you are in the application of this principle.)
Jack | 12.21.06 - 3:23 pm | #

Jack:

Arne: "Moving the goalposts, IC (see bolded text)."

I have not moved the goalposts.

OK:

Jack #1: "The First Amendment does not apply to non-citizens."

Jack #2: "... the Bill of Rights applies to non citizens living in other countries?."

Which Jack are you?

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.21.06 - 7:51 pm | #

Jack:

I have not moved the goalposts. All along I have been talking about limiting Muslim immigration. Would-be immigrants are non-citizens who live in other countries.

Perhaps. That doesn't make what you did originally say (as detailed in the last post) any truer. You couldn't have been plainer: "The First Amendment does not apply to non-citizens." Nor more wrong.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.21.06 - 7:53 pm | #

Jack:

Whether the government really cannot discriminate on the basis of religion when it comes to immigration has not been demonstrated,...

Try this out for size:

The gummint really cannot discriminate on the basis of religion.

Now, why don't you draw the rather obvious conclusion.

In fact, for the sake of this discussion, I'll assume that you are right.

As I've indicated above, I'm sure that there are practical ways around this limitation.

Sure. Like Dubya found "practical ways around" 50 USC § 1801 et seq., and the Convention against Torture. Just ask pre-eminent legal scholar John Yoo....

Now I have a hypothetical question for you:....

And let's just say that hypothetically, I have an answer. But that has no relevance to my comments here, and if you want to discuss the physics of aerodynamic pigs, maybe that's a subject for a discussion somewhere else.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.21.06 - 8:01 pm | #

Three cheers for Goode.
ellen collins | 12.22.06 - 12:19 am | #

Arne: "And let's just say that hypothetically, I have an answer. But that has no relevance to my comments here"

It is supremely relevant. You have endorsed the principle that religion should not be a factor in US immigration policy. This question tests your fidelity to that principle. And your refusal to answer the question is, of course, itself a very clear answer--and a very clear failure of that test.
Jack | 12.22.06 - 1:12 am | #

Possibly being the only Muslim to comment on this, I'd like to say that what went on in Ontaria had NOTHING to do with Sharia(which most non-Muslims have no clue about and which BTW only applies to Muslims).
Ontaria allowed religious arbitration courts for Christians and Jews since 1990 as a NON_MANDATORY alternative to taking the load of the civil courts IF both parties agreed. It was only after Muslims asked for access to these courts that the bigots started shouting "sharia" to whip up fear. In the end, Ontaria scrapped all religious arbitration courts. I just wanted to make that clear because I keep hearing this nonsense anytime a Muslim in office is discussed.
As for Virgil Goode, get over yourself buddy. I'm not going anywhere anytime soon.
MexiMuslim | 12.22.06 - 1:23 am | #

Jack:

[Arne]: "And let's just say that hypothetically, I have an answer. But that has no relevance to my comments here"

It is supremely relevant. You have endorsed the principle that religion should not be a factor in US immigration policy. This question tests your fidelity to that principle. And your refusal to answer the question is, of course, itself a very clear answer--and a very clear failure of that test.

Sorry if I don't want to go chasing after the windmills of your mind, Don Quixote.

Yes, that is a test. And I'm perfectly content with the fact that I have shown myself to have the good sense to not pursue halluci... -- ummm, sorry, "hypotheticals". Do let us know when you want to get back to discussing reality.

As to the "goal posts" issue, I assume you concede my point there. Thanks.

As for my "endors[ing] some principle, have done nothing of the sort. I've merely pointed out what the law if the United States is. Should you not like it, and would like some "practical ways around [that] limitation", may I suggest you endeavour to change the friggin' laws (by Constitutional amendment as necessary), rather than ignore them, as Dubya has done.

Cheers,
Arne Langsetmo | Homepage | 12.22.06 - 2:09 am | #

Unfortunately there are people like Virgil Goode running around this country. They are bigoted, biased, Bible-banging morons. They are elected by people who share their misanthropic illusions. They should not be holding public office Their hatemongering and stupidity should disqualify them from public office. This guy and his constituents are fear-based, small-souled, unenlightened people who hide behind their misunderstanding of the meaning of the Bible in order to maintain their balance in a chaotic world. In the process they become what they most fear - haters of others. I'm sure Virginia's 5th Congressional district can do better than have this misfit represent them.
Rev, Memo Grassman | 12.22.06 - 7:30 am | #

I wholeheartedly concur with the stand that Representative Goode has made. As for you name-calling Christian bashing, atheistic leftists.
Please leave this country and move to Iraq or Iran! You have no place in this country. You are a disgrace and a blight in this land.
Webman | 12.22.06 - 7:45 am | #

And Webman represents how deranged the Fundamentalists have become in this country.

Hey Webman! The great thing is that I can say anything I want, and even disbelieve in God, in America. Isn't that wonderful? I can even make fun of silly fundamentalist trolls like yourself.

Tell me something Webman...are you a Native American? Because, if not, guess what your ancestors were? Can you figure out where I'm going with this one?

Given the intellectual capacity you've shown so far, I doubt it.
LnGrrrR | 12.22.06 - 10:28 am | #

This is completely off topic, but the holiday has taken hold of me and considering the ubsurdity of Goode's complaint, thought I would add a little light to the comments...

Thanks for the past year Glen! I've learned an incredible amount from your commentary and insight.

The Parting Glass

Oh, all the money e'er I had, I spent it in good company.
And all the harm that ever I've done, alas it was to none but me.
And all I've done for want of wit to mem'ry now I can't recall;
So fill to me the parting glass, Good night and joy be with you all.

If I had money enough to spend, and leisure time to sit awhile. There
is a fair maid in this town, that sorely has my heart beguiled. Her
rosy cheeks and ruby lips, I own, she has my heart in thrall; Then
fill to me the parting glass, Good night and joy be with you all.

Oh, all the comrades e'er I had, they're sorry for my going away. And
all the sweethearts e'er I had, they'd wished me one more day to stay.
But since it falls unto my lot, that I should rise and you should not, I
gently rise and softly call, Goodnight and joy be with you all.

Irish Traditional

Erevann | Homepage | 12.22.06 - 10:46 pm | #

Of those who think Goode is a bigot, who agrees with any of these statements:

You judge a person as a bigot or a text
by its most bigoted statement.

The Koran contains bigoted statements.

The Koran is bigoted.

The Koran has statements more bigoted than Goode's.

Therefore the Koran is more bigoted than Goode.

Its less bigoted to criticize a text tha is more bigoted than one that is less.

Therefore criticizing the Koran is less bigoted than criticizing Goode's Letter.

If its ok to criticize Goode's Letter, then its ok to criticize the Koran.

If its ok to want to stop America having the bigoty of the Goode Letter then its ok to stop it having the bigotry of the Koran.

Therefore the Goode Letter is ok.

Any disagreement from the Goode critics? Also could they indicate if they think this comment is bigoted, and why. Is it because the conclusion is wrong?
Old Atlantic | Homepage | 12.24.06 - 11:27 am | #

Commenting by HaloScan