Va. Congressman Fears Election Of 'Many More Muslims'

The Pilgrims/Puritans were not the Founders. Neither were the Vikings, the Spaniards or the Navajo.

 

Why do these threads always have to turn into a debate about how Christian the founding fathers were? They're dead anyway, so I'm not sure we should much care what their religious leanings were anyway. Isn't this thread supposed to be about piling on Goode for being an Islamaphobe?

 

Develop a thick skin towards prejudice? People should be exposed for their prejudices, especially when they hold such high positions of power. Essentially this guy is advocating discriminatory hiring practices. What's the saying? If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for everything.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution/Article_Six

US Constitution Article VI, Paragraph 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now I know that we've not really read the Constitution since Roosevelt was elected, but this is still the document Goode swore to rule by.

 

I feel that the Pilgrims had a lot more influence on the founding fathers and are completely different than the roles that the ikings, Spaniards or Navajo played in the lives of the colonies before we declared independence.

 

No single person in the world is going to be without prejudice. Even the biggest liberal in the world will probably have some sort fo set opinion against a so-called close minded conservative. No dissrepsect, but this is the kind of feeling that fuels the ridiculous litigious society we live in today. For instance, a man is allowed to go into a women's bathroom in the NYC MTA if he says he is 'transgendered', meaning that he is still a biological he and is not a transsexual yet.

 

I stand corrected. Yes, everyone innately has prejudices. I guess my point is at what level and how they chose to exercise it. In this case, he basically does not want people of Muslim religion to hold office. As he himself is a fellow office holder, don't you feel this has crossed the line? Or do you also feel that Muslims should not be allowed to hold office? I don't know why this person should be defended.

 

The Enlightenment influenced the Founders.
The Puritans influenced the Religious Right. Had Puritans wrote the Constitution, religion would surely have been mentioned in it.

 

That is pure speculation.

 

I'm not defending him, I'm defending his right to feel a certain way. His view on it isn't too different than the reasoning behind putting all Japanese people in camps during WW2.

I would rather he be honest about his prejudices than pretend he is ok with it. At least you know what his agenda is, and he's not hiding behind a smiling face and fake handshake.

 

Oh, I definitely agree w/ you here. My impression is you were against so many people calling him out or being overly sensitive to his comments. He has every right to say what he wants, just as the public has every right to criticize him.

 

You guys are missing the main point of the thread.

 

We're all supposed to say this sucks, right? I think that's pretty obvious. The arguments here deal with much more nuance than "he is teh suxxX!"

 

this is exactly right. your supposed to swear on something you truely believe in. isnt this guy the first muslim in congress anyways? the guy is worried cuz they let one of us in

 

Question for history scholars:

During the Revolutionary/Confederation days of our country's beginning, religion was more openly a part of government. The first act of the first Congress under the Articles was to print Bibles for American Indian tribes. Then, seven years later, many of the same Founders made a special effort to keep religion out of the Federal Government. Now I know that the Articles weren't well thought through and the Federal Government under those Articles wasn't very strong, but what changed? Was there an event that caused the Founders to decide that separation of church and state was a good idea?

 

Nobody is questioning his right to hold certain beliefs or speak about their beliefs. But if he's going to spout bigotry, people have every right to attack and question his beliefs.

Uh, what? It's obvious to anybody who studied political theory that the founders based the constitution on Enlightenment ideals.

 

[rquoter]

Va. Congressman Fears Election Of 'Many More Muslims'

WASHINGTON - A Virginia congressman has warned that "many more Muslims" will be elected demanding to use the Quran unless immigration is tightened.

Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat, is the first Muslim elected to Congress. He was born in Detroit and converted to Islam in college.
[/rquoter][/QUOTE]



I wonder if Goode realized that Ellison was a black man from Detroit whose ancestors have probably been in the U.S. as long or longer than probably Goode's family.

 

i wonder if goode realizes that the bush family is bff's with lots of prominent muslims, like the saudi royal family, for starters.



as far as the koran swearing-in, it would seem to me that you would want someone to swear upon an appropriate "bible" based on their religion. as a christian, if i swear upon a koran im not going to feel particularly bound by it.

i wonder if lieberman removed the new testament before swearing in?

 

Lieberman is an observant Orthodox Jew. He didn't remove the New Testement, he swore in on the Old Testement (the Torah). Being it that there are less brown Jews than brown Muslims, no one has any problems with Congressmen and women swearing in on Torahs.

 

Amen!