Posted on 12/21/2006 8:39:58 PM PST by TheeOhioInfidel
In my 2003 book Onward Muslim Soldiers, I observed that "September 11 was largely a problem of faulty immigration controls" and called, accordingly, for tighter immigration controls -- while noting the chief obstacle to such measures: "immigration controls on Muslim countries are supposedly racist, even though Muslims are not members of any single race or ethnic group." I also wrote that "the greatest amount of damage control...must be done with the Muslim immigrants who are already in the United States. Multiculturalism has relegated the idea of assimilation to the dustbin of history. But that is precisely what is needed. American Muslims need to become assimilated to the American ideals enumerated in the Constitution." (Pp. 297-298)
I've written about this problem, and what realistically can be done about it, beginning with measures that can reasonably be instituted given the current political situation, elsewhere as well. And in numerous addresses to audiences all over the United States I have called for a restoration of sanity in our immigration policies toward admission of Muslims -- starting at very least, but not ending, with the institution of mechanisms to screen for jihadist sentiments, with appropriate enforcement. I have met with several congressmen (not including Virgil Goode) about specific means by which this can begin to be done.
I note all this not to take credit for what Virgil Goode has said and written -- I have never met or spoken with him -- but because another writer of some prominence is continuing to allege that I do not really believe what I have told him I believe about this issue, and that I am not doing anything or saying anything about it, when in fact I am. He has on several occasions asserted that I hold positions that I do not hold, and refused my request for retraction. He has posted numerous personal slurs, while claiming that I have made the discussion personal, and has even represented my courtesy to him as discourtesy -- proving once again that the Miranda rights should enjoy the status of an adage: anything you say can and will be used against you (as this post will be also). For that reason I am not going to discuss these matters with him further, or name him here, but I post this for the record so that my own positions, as well as the fact that I have held them for years, are clear.
Anyway, I am very glad to see a congressman speaking out about this problem, and happy to see him sticking to his guns in the face of CAIR's bullying.
"Lawmaker won't apologize for 'Islamophobic' letter," from CNN, with thanks to all who sent this in:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Virginia congressman will not apologize for writing that without immigration reform "there will be many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Quran," his spokesman said. Republican Rep. Virgil Goode's letter to constituents also warns that without immigration reform "we will have many more Muslims in the United States."
Spokesman Linwood Duncan said Goode's letter was written in response to complaints his office received about Minnesota Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's request to be sworn in using the Quran.
Ellison is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress.
Goode's office released the letter to CNN Wednesday.
In it, Goode wrote, "When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Quran in any way.
"The Muslim representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and 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 Quran.
Goode is right, of course, and it has already happened, long before Ellison was elected -- as we noted here and here. What neither Dennis Prager nor anyone else has addressed is the fact that the Qur'an is unsuitable for oath-taking in the United States because it allows Muslims to lie to unbelievers (3:28, 16:106). Whenever I have brought this up, people start talking about the Bible -- but the difference is that the Bible doesn't enjoin believers to lie to unbelievers, and problematic passages within it are not being acted upon around the world today in the way that problematic passages in the Qur'an are. I hope someday someone -- perhaps Virgil Goode -- will explain that in the public forum.
"We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country. "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 and to prevent our resources from being swamped."
Excellent. Goode is not opposed to having "many more Muslims in the United States" out of "bigotry," as CAIR has predictably alleged, but because he is aware that Islam presents a challenge, as we have explained here so many times, to "the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America." He also seems to be aware, when he warns that "our resources" could be "swamped," that Muslim immigrants, including mujahedin, cheerfully live on the dole in Europe -- a situation that is nothing less than suicidal.
He added, "The Ten Commandments and 'In God We Trust' are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Quran. "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 Quran is not going to be on the wall of my office.' "
The Council on American-Islamic Relations asked Goode to apologize.
"Rep. Goode's Islamophobic remarks send a message of intolerance that is unworthy of anyone elected to public office," the council's Corey Saylor said in a statement. "There can be no reasonable defense for such bigotry."
It isn't bigotry, Corey, and I just provided a reasonable defense in brief. I'd be happy to expand on these matters in a debate with you. You can contact me here.
Duncan told CNN that Goode stands by his comments. Bravo.
UPDATE: Some people have asked me about my statement above that Qur'an 3:28 and 16:106 allow Muslims to lie to unbelievers. Here is the relevant section on 3:28 from the Qur'anic commentary of Ibn Kathir:
..."unless you indeed fear a danger from them" meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly. For instance, Al-Bukhari recorded that Abu Ad-Darda' said, "We smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them.'' Al-Bukhari said that Al-Hasan said, "The Tuqyah is allowed until the Day of Resurrection.''
End of story.
Exactly.
Thanks to Spencer for standing up for Goode. Also to Sandy Rios who did the same. And she did it on FOX, which took a good amount of bravery.
America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
TownHall ^ | Tuesday, November 28, 2006 | Dennis Prager
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1746587/posts
To: Rummyfan
This Prager article has been posted a number of times. It was factually inaccurate the first three times it was posted, and is still factually inaccurate.
There is absolutely no Constitutional requirement for House members or even the President to swear on the Bible when taking his oath of office - while Presidents have traditionally done so, it's not clear that any oath needs to be with one hand on the Bible to qualify as an oath (it likely doesn't), and under the Constitution, office holders can take an affirmation of office of office instead of an oath anyway. In fact, President Teddy Roosevelt didn't swear on the Bible when he became President after McKinley's death in 1901. One simply might not have been available at the time. He still became President. And Franklin Pierce (and according to some historians, Herbert Hoover) affirmed his oath of office instead of swearing it. President Pierce's faith was shaken after he and his wife were involved in a fatal train accident - they saw their own son die before their eyes. Some sources claim Pierce made his affirmation with his hand on a law book, not the Bible.
House members are traditionally sworn in en masse by the Speaker on the first day of Congress immediately after the Speaker of the House is elected and sworn in. The 2005 swearing in ceremony is available on C-SPAN's website here. The Speaker is sworn in around 2:13:30 by the Dean of the House; the rest of Congress is sworn in shortly thereafter.
All Speaker Hastert asked members to do was raise their right hands while being sworn in. As a practical matter, the House floor normally seats 448 (they somehow squeeze in more seats for the State of the Union address), and there are up to 439 other members of the House (including non-voting members from the territories and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico) that need to be sworn in at that time. There isn't that much room on the floor for aides or family members to hold the Bible for Congressmen to swear on. So, as you can see from the video, most Congressmen appear to raise their right hand and put their left hand on nothing, at least during this ceremonial swearing in.
Now, there may be a chance for members to have a ceremonial one-on-one swearing in for photo-op purposes (or if the Member is not present at the opening of Congress or is later elected). For example, Congressman Rothman (D-NJ) has a picture of him being "sworn in" with his hand on what appears to be the Bible on his House website. This is when Ellison might swear on the Koran - for a photo-op.
8 posted on 11/30/2006 3:34:34 PM CST by conservative in nyc
________________________________________
As someone who live in the 5th CD, a couple of points
1 Ellison has more than enough skeletons in his closet (support for cop killers, support for thr SLA, driving w/o a licence, failure to pay tickets, failure to pay taxes, his Association with the naition of Islam, and failure to speakout on their anti-semitism.
2 If he were a Baptist and held the above positions I'd take him to task, and speak out against him. Hawk1976 maybe you'd like to change the 1st amendment?
3 He's a Muslim, what did you expect him to swear on, the Bhagavad Gita?
Right.
This thing could easily backfire on Ellison, and make swearing into office something of a joke.
Best to ignore and bear it.
It would seem to me that those who DO kowtow to CAIR are the ones who are "Islamophobic." Humanids like those in the DemocRAT Party and the MSM are the ones I would consider as being "Islamophobic." Goode's remarks show that he IS NOT afraid of them.
As someone who live in the 5th CD, a couple of points
1 Ellison has more than enough skeletons in his closet (support for cop killers, support for thr SLA, driving w/o a licence, failure to pay tickets, failure to pay taxes, his Association with the naition of Islam, and failure to speakout on their anti-semitism.
2 If he were a Baptist and held the above positions I'd take him to task, and speak out against him. Hawk1976 maybe you'd like to change the 1st amendment?
3 He's a Muslim, what did you expect him to swear on, the Bhagavad Gita?
Hooray Robert Spencer!
"Very true!! No one can swear an oath to the Koran, and to the Constitution too. The two are very opposite."
End of story. I personally don't care if the Bible is included in the swearing in of Congressman - but to hell if we'll set the precedent of including the Koran. Talk about a step closer to an American Caliphate. And why isn't the Left ranting about the mix of church and state in all this? I stand by Rep. Goode.
An association with the nation of Islam?
I don't want to get into trouble by saying what I think of that group, but I hope Ellison doesn't agree with their historical outlook.
"..the fact that the Qur'an is unsuitable for oath-taking in the United States.."
The Qur'an is unsuitable for use in the US or any other western society. Besides, should a Muslim decide to take an oath on the Bible it will still not prevent him from deceiving the infidels.
You shouldn't be swearing an oath to satan, the god of their religion.
I'd say he does. At least I've never heard him disown them.
The interesting thing will be when he has to vote on (say) abortion or "Gay" rights. How will he vote? According to his faith, or will he vote as his progressive voters want? And how will he explain his vote to either group?
Ellison, as you know, isn't even an immigrant. Goode's attack is idiotic. There aren't enough Muslim immigrants coming into the country to overwhelm the current population and elect Osama bin Laden Speaker of the House, and everyone knows it.
All Goode is doing is further alienating black voters. Brilliant politics, circa 1859.
What's he going to do next, call for Ellison to be kicked out of the country because he's a Muslim? That's just what the Republican Party needs -- elected officials encouraging a religious pogrom.
The horrible thing about this disgraceful event is that the Nation of Islam are one of the most bigoted groups in this country. Equating them with Wahhabists is however a blatant advocacy of the bin Laden strategery -- convince the West that ALL Muslims are the enemy and start a global religious war.
Congratulations to Goode for assisting bin Laden's strategery -- dope!!
I don't want to get into trouble by saying what I think of that group
I'll be more than happy to say it. They are a bunch of bigots.
The interesting thing is they are not considered Muslim by any other Muslim group, because of their racism.
What's he going to do next, call for Ellison to be kicked out of the country because he's a Muslim?
Don't give him any ideas. For what it's worth there are hose here who say we should do that to all Muslims.
To those that say that, I say it's such a shame when cousins marry.
You make a good point, but I think you take it too far with, "Now can we please stop getting our panties in a bunch over a nothing story?" This is classic "nothing to see here folks". After all, this is a precedent, isn't it? I don't think TR or any of the other luminaries you mentioned swore on the Koran, did they? What is the significance of swearing on the Koran? Is this even a Moslem practice? I don't know, but it seems doubtful to me. What if a congressman in 1962 had decided he wanted swear on The Communist Manifesto? To me, this is roughly analogous, and about as disturbing.
My Freeper brother's Congressman is Dennis Kucinich, who is running for President. To me that is more disturbing than some Minnekook Congresscritter swearing on a Koran.
Any Congressman can swear on any book they want as far as I am concerned. Anybody who thinks that such a ceremony makes Congressmen act honestly while in office is living on Pluto anyway.
Both of these self-absorbed politicians are engaging in a cheap publicity stunt that will get their supporters to bang their pots and pans. I take this nonsense no more seriesly than the Donald Trump - Rosie O'Donut slap fight.
So what exactly should be in-bounds for the discussion according to you? Goode believes that illegal immigration should be stopped completely, and that legal immigration should be reduced. So far, that puts him firmly in the mainstream of American public opinion (on both counts).
Goode is clearly concerned about admitting too many Muslims through immigration. Do you have a problem with that sentiment? Do you really believe that the West can remain as strong, free, and propserous as it is now if its Muslim populations continue to grow?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.