Virgil Goode. Sigh. Republican from Virginia. Never heard of him until today. But he seems to think that we need to limit immigration so no more Muslims will ever get elected to Congress. Yes, it’s time for the Mormons once again to defend the Constitution, which has a small but important reference in Article 6 that Rep. Goode may want to re-read.
Look, I understand all the hysteria about Muslims. We have the first Muslim Congressman ever, and he wants to swear on the Koran. It’s worth pointing out that Mormons have been swearing on the Book of Mormon (using the Quad) for years. And, meanwhile, in the UK, Mohammed (or Muhammed) is now a more popular name among children than George.
The whole situation reminds me of the hysteria in frontier America in the 1840s. Can we agree that there are things worth worrying about, such as global terrorism, and there are things not worth worrying about, like preventing law-abiding, good people who happen to be Muslim from immigrating to the United States?
I agree, but I think the problem here is one of mission creep. Basically, politicians and pundits often get an “everything is connected” mindset, and so to them, immigration and fighting terror become (to them) more connected than they really are.
It’s one of focus. Of course there must be some policies put into place (or actually, correctly enforce current policies) to keep terrorists out. But stuff like this is overkill.
But a sense of perspective seems to be lacking in anyone who dabbles in politics. It’s almost like it has to be genetically lacking in politicians and pundits.
But Goode sounds like a nutcase.
Geoff,
It’s too bad that Mr. Goode wishes to be a bigot. I think it speaks more to his constituency though, seeing as he wrote that letter consoling them on Mr. Ellison’s decision to use the Qu’ran at the swearing in ceremony. Mr. Goode is not the problem. He is the visual representation of the bigger problem in his district.
The most beautfiul part about all this “swearing-in hysteria” is that the official swearing in involves no relgious text at all. It’s only an oath to preserve the constitution. It’s the private, non-official, ceremonial swearings-in that use religious texts, Bible, Book of Mormon, Quran or otherwise.
No, Dan, it’s not Mr. Goode’s constituents’ fault that he is an idiot. He’s got only himself to blame for that. (Or perhaps his parents.)
I do think we ought to defend the Constitution that protects religious liberty. But it will be interesting to see how America’s religious landscape might someday morph like Europe.
Merry Christmas Geoff.
Mark,
The letter was to his constituents. If his constituents do not think bigotry is something they need to see in their elected representative, I would find it hard to believe that elected representative will send them such a letter as he sent. I agree it is not his constituents’s fault that he is an idiot, but it speaks loudly that this letter was sent to them “consoling” them about the use of the Qu’ran in Congress.
Obviously, very poorly worded. However, the issue I think Mr. Goode should have addressed was: should our representatives adhere to law as evolved from Judeo-Christian jurisprudence, and renounce Sharia (Muslim) religious law which some European countries recognize?
Bot,
The question is really, do American Muslims push for Sharia or the American Constitution?
It’d probably help if I really had any clue what Sharia law actually entails.
Dan,
Isn’t the real question not one of Sharia vs. the US Constitution, but whether Goode supports and defends the Constitution, which includes Article VI (he probably didn’t read that far):
greenfrog,
That too. 🙂
Ellison was a defiant in a recent address in Dearborn, Michigan. To cries of “Allahu akbar†from a Muslim crowd, he declared: “On January 4, I will go swear an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I’ll place my hand on the Quran.â€
Ellison said these words at a convention hosted by the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America. According to a 2004 Chicago Tribune article, “A rare look at secretive Brotherhood in America,†the Muslim American Society was founded in 1993 as the United States arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Egyptian based terror group that has spawned both Hamas and Al-Qaeda. MAS members now maintain that the group has no ties to the Brotherhood, but there are indications that many in the group want to see the U.S. Constitution replaced by Islamic law. “We may all feel emotionally attached to the goal of an Islamic state†in America, said a speaker at a 2002 MAS conference, but “we mustn’t cross hurdles we can’t jump yet.†The Muslim American Society’s chapter for Ellison’s home state of Minnesota hosts a website that offers in an “Online Library†texts by the jihad theorists Syed Abul Ala Maududi and Sayyid Qutb. Qutb in his jihad manifesto Milestones asserts that “Islam is the way of life ordained by God for all mankind, and this way establishes the Lordship of God alone — that is, the sovereignty of God – and orders practical life in all its daily details. Jihaad in Islam is simply a name for striving to make this system of life dominant in the world.†Likewise, according to terror expert Steven Emerson, the Islamic Circle of North America “is a Jamad Islamia group, which is on record as calling for jihad in the United States, to promote the notion of an Islamic world. ICNA also published something very recently saying that they are against suicide bombings, except when it comes to killing Israelis.â€
Is it reasonable to ask Ellison if he shares such views? When he speaks at a conference sponsored by such organizations, is it simply bigotry to ask him if he holds views they are on record as having? When Muslim leaders around the globe have spoken about the necessity to impose Islamic law upon the world, is it sheer nativism to ask Ellison and American Muslims if they hold the same views? On June 29, 2005, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared that “the wave of the Islamic revolution will soon reach the entire world.†As late as November 2003, the website of the Islamic Affairs Department (IAD) of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington, D.C. stated that “the Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims.†This is a venerable idea within Islam: even the noted Islamic historian Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), whose name adorns the pro-democracy Ibn Khaldun Center for Development Studies in Cairo, taught that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.†In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,†because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.â€
On the basis of what evidence do Goode’s many detractors assume that neither Ellison nor any other Muslim in the United States subscribes to these views? Bigotry is an obstinate and irrational hatred of a particular group. Is it obstinate or irrational, or any kind of act of hatred at all, to ask Ellison to clarify where he stands on the MAS’s desire for the eventual imposition of Sharia (Islamic) law in the United States? He has chosen to be associated with MAS and ICNA. He ought to be willing to clarify matters accordingly. And the mainstream media ought to be willing to take time out from vilifying Virgil Goode long enough to entertain the possibility that this case doesn’t quite fit their prejudices.
Bot, you raise some interesting questions. My personal opinion is that Goode’s comments were idiotic and that the better way to couch this discussion is to raise issues like you raise. There is a difference between opposing immigration based on religion (what Goode did) and raising questions about the loyalties of Congressmen based on their actions and statements. The second is legitimate, the first is not.
Check out what is being preached in British Moslem mosques. Hatred agains the Kuffaar (Christians and Jews).
When will the liberal elite in the media recognize their stake in reigning in radical Islam? Why is Islam allowed to preach sedition, but Christians are reluctant to preach about morality when it intersects with politics?
http://www3.youtube.com/watch?v=9MSFbhIG-sk