There has been much talk this week about Rep. Virgil Goode's comments regarding Muslim's in Congress:
A congressman said Thursday that he will not retract a letter warning that unless immigration is tightened, "many more Muslims will be elected" and use the Quran to take the oath of office.
Republican Rep. Virgil Goode triggered angry responses from a civil rights group and some colleagues with a letter this month to constituents concerned about a decision by Rep.-elect Keith Ellison of Minnesota, the first Muslim elected to Congress, to use the Quran when he is sworn in.
"I will not be putting my hand on the Quran," Goode said at a news conference Thursday at the Franklin County Courthouse.
While most seem to focus on this as an insult to Muslims (as it is), they seem to overlook the other major insult here. The bigoted Virgil Goode also insulted the people of Minnesota's 5th Congressional district. Ellison did not hide his religion during his campaign, and it actually became a big issue. All the news channels ran segments talking about the fact we could have the first Muslim in Congress. Furthermore, that did not stop 56% of the voters in MN-15 to go out and support Goode.
These citizens of the United States engaged in their Constitutional right of electing their leaders, and for that they get insulted by a member of Congress. That alone should be grounds for Vigil Goode to be kicked out of Congress and this country.
All this has exploded because of Ellison wanting to take his oath of office on a Quran. Goode, along with all his other bigoted supporters are saying that is wrong and that the Constitution says it should be done on the Bible. Where does our Constitution say that? Someone needs to beat these ignorant, backwoods bigots upside the head with a history book. There are only 2 holy documents in this country. They are the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Our Constitution specifically says there is no religious litmus test to hold office. Thomas Jefferson made sure of that.
So these idiots that are out there complaining about how Ellison will swear to uphold the Constitution better worry about themselves and their sick attempts to ignore the Constitution. The Republicans out there supporting Goode's statements (like Presidential Hopeful Duncan Hunter) need to realize that they are just proving to America that Howard Dean was right - the Republican party is White Christians.
One final thought on this subject. I wonder how many of the terrorists are using the words of people like Goode for their recruiting propaganda. We always hear from the Republicans that they use our arguments over the Iraq war for this. Well Goode's words (and others) are a perfect tool. "See - the Americans hate the Muslims. They are conducting a holy crusade against us. Come fight for Allah". Yup - that is all it takes and you got Goode effectively helping our enemy. Now our Constitution does address that. It is under the word treason!
Comments
On Barring the koran:
Virgil explicitly states that he would not bar Ellison from using the koran:
Rush Limbaugh Show
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122206/content/stop_the_tape...
"RUSH: Final question from David Asman. "Would you prohibit, Mr. Ellison -- would you prohibit him from bringing a Koran into that ceremony?"
GOODE: If the voters of that district want persons that are going to swear by the Koran, that's the choice of the voters of that district, but I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in my district would prefer the use of the Bible if a book is used, and that is exactly what I'm going to do.
ASMAN: Well, that I may well be true, but again just to put a fine point on it: You are not, then, for prohibiting Mr. Ellison from bringing in a Koran?
GOODE: No, but I am for restricting immigration so that we don't have a majority of Muslims elected to the United States House of Representatives. "
A cost-benefit analysis, with lives being weighted the most, is the best way to approach Virgil Goode's sole policy proposal, which is a halt to muslim immigration.
Whatever the outcome of a cost benefit analysis, it will only be valid if it is actually acknowledged that muslim immigration, student studying, and tourist visits has a cost in treasure and lives, which September 11th, the Los Angeles El Al ticket counter shooting, the first WTC bombing, the London bombing, the Madrid train bombing, and numerous averted terrorist attacks show. Nearly every ledger has two sides to be acknowledged, and this is no exception. The outcome doesn't have to be all or nothing either. I believe that the optimal policy is reduced muslim immigration from the current ~40,000 per year to something like ~10,000 per year. We'd keep most of our international prestige and the psychic gain which a non-discriminatory immigration policy gives us, and US muslims wouldn't feel *quite* so hated as a complete ban would make them feel, but we'd have a far slower rate of growth in the sea in which terrorists swim and recruit. If we made sure that the reduced flow was more proportionately the cream of the crop than the current flow is, then we'd have less economic losses (they are highly educated) than pure reduced numbers of muslim immigrants alone would indicate.
Post new comment