Which happens to be the primary problem with this (original) article. The author attributes Goode’s religious bigotry to all “Republican[s].” That is, of course, nonsense and bigoted itself.

Nasim

You make good points. Well written.

One quote caught my eye:

“As an extreme example, if you had a Hindu taking office, would it have any significance whatsoever for him/her to put their hand on a Bible?”

I cannot and will not defend the congressman for any human based prejudices. If he is genuinely a bigot on a race-based issue than I think he is out of line, truly.

Break down the word prejudice.

It means pre-judging.

Prejudice can sometimes be a survival tool.

If we know large tigers have attacked humans before, we will natually be prejudiced against them.

The same goes for any culture, race, or group.

If we feel a certain group shows a tendency towards continual violent conflict (and frankly Islam has a constant history of it as well as constant infighting among nations and warring sects) and if we have been attacked here on our own soil….innocent people having been attacked.

I do not blame anyone for feeling natural prejudice.

This is to say, we natually pre judge a religion that has shown us in the west, that it cannot seem to pacify itself, nor do great numbers of its followers speak out against its violent members.

——
I am white and native american.

I could be angry at while people for having harmed my ancestors.

I could be angry at natives for attacking otherwise innocent white settlers.

Either one could be a justifyabe prejudice.

And as a while male whos white ancestors enslaved and did great harm to the african american population I feel ashamed and saddened.

On the other hand I did not enslave anyone and would have fought against it as an abolitionist.

But that still does not remove my white racial association with white slave owners…nor my racial association with white bigots who lynched, raped and harassed blacks.

Yet I did not do any of these things.

But to the greater African american community, because I am effectively on the racial divide it would seem that I should have spoken out…or should speak out, against the injustices that have been done and continue to be done against the black community.

By not speaking out…. I might as well be “going along with it” as the proverbial saying goes.

That is what many non-Muslim americans are angry about.

The fact that the Muslim- American community has been so damn quiet about the atrocities and seems almost apathetic strikes us as wrong; while making us wonder why?

Why live here if ‘you’ (ie, Muslim americans) hate us so much?

Why call American your home if you dont seem to speak out against terrorism.

Why live here if you dont choose to at least partially integrate and adopt some of our customs.

Sure you can make the argument that Islam is culturally much more different than western immigrants like the Irish, Italians, Scots, French, or even Hispanics….who all share common cultural traits.

But to call a new land home, it would seem wise to reach out to those who lived here before you….and in not doing so, it causes us to be every more concerned….it only feeds a natural prejudice.

While Hindus or Buddists are not innocent of violence in the world, we have yet to be attacked by either group in the same blood thirsty manner. Historically, I think the only similar asian group that comes close to the severe inhuman barbarity of fundamentalist Islam would be the Japanese military of World War II. Even the devilish nazis, who killed millions of jews, preferred to do so in a largely bloodless assembly line fasion.

-No- approach or extermination of life is even remotely justified but the manner in which fundamentalist Muslims attack and kill (tearing people apart, sawing off peoples heads, burning them alive, and showing glee and happiness for the killing of innocents –is is what disturbs us in the west.

By 2007 we would have hoped that type of thing would be long over. Yet such violence remains, and even warring sects continue to kill -each other- in such enormous blood baths the likes of which are staggering.

At some point, a natural prejudice is natural.

You make good points. Well written.

One quote caught my eye:

>>>>”As an extreme example, if you had a Hindu taking office, would it have any significance whatsoever for him/her to put their hand on a Bible?”

However, each congressman can (not must, but CAN), to commemorate the occasion, have a private ceremony and photo taken afterwards using the book of his/her choice, or none at all. This is where rep.-elect Ellison is going to put his hand on the Qur’an.

Historically, our congressmen have not always used the Bible for these ceremonies, either. Over the years, these private swearing in and photo-ops have been done with NO book, the Torah, and the US Constitution, as well as the Bible. Sometimes even multiple books have been used. The point is, that this is a PRIVATE ceremony and photo-op, not the actual swearing in to office, which has already been completed.

Next, just for the sake of argument, even if it WERE the actual swearing in, if you wanted someone to make an oath, using a book, wouldn’t you want that book to be one that the person MAKING the oath held in esteem? If the book was not her/his most valued book, the oath itself would not be of much significance, right?

As an extreme example, if you had a Hindu taking office, would it have any significance whatsoever for him/her to put their hand on a Bible? That’s not the book that they hold in highest esteem, or as the ultimate truth. But if they were to swear in using the Bhagvad-Gita, that is a book they hold near and dear, then the promise would have meaning to THEM, and thus to those of us who expect them to perform their duties to the best of their abilities.

Rep. Goode is creating a tempest in a teapot just to try to create an image that he thinks will positively impress of his constituents, many of whom are fundamentalist Christians, looking to establish their faith as the de facto “official” faith of the land.

It seems to me that as a congressman, it’s time Rep. Goode took a remedial reading course, specializing in comprehension, with our own US Constitution as the textbook. If he were to do so, he might find that our founding fathers had some rather radical ideas, including one little gem about not including a religious test of any sort as a requirement for holding public office.

Rant over, good day to all!

-Nasim

Really J?

You suppose I know nothing of the Middle Ages or early Church?

In point of fact, I am a degreed historian specializing in early church history and the Middle Ages– a period very misunderstood.

Allow me to clarify some things for you, respectfully and without ill will.

Remember your Reformation history?

Most religious reformists still considered themselves catholics. Even Martin Luther saw himself as a Cathlic prist till his own death.

One of the ways that Reformists or Protestants were able to gain their strength was through both political maneuvering and propoganda. That propoganda manifested itself in many ways, some downright ridiculous such as priests secretly dining on babies!

Other propoganda took otherwise straightforward affairs and turned them into completely overblown tales….a good example is the Inquisition.

The original inquisition was designed to match priets and their skills (language, education etc) with parishes.

The supposed witch hunts that are spoken of in modern parlance are in fact highly exaggerated to the point of pure fiction. One of the reasons we know this is because the Churches own documents–which we would logically think would record all witches and their executions…is suprisingly barren of the supposed millions of witches killed.

And…if you dont buy that, historians have begun to uncover secular documents and mortality lists that prove that the names of the women supposedly burned as witches were in fact …ALREADY DEAD! …having died of all manner of causes…but not hangings or burnings.

So in fact the Inquisistion is very…VERY misunderstood in large measure to latent protestant propoganda….just as overzealous catholics at the time depicted these protestatns as devil worshipers.

Now as for the Crusades you speak of and their inherent barbarity….let me clear some of this up too.

The first Crusade was called in 1099.

It was largely in response to the Muslim occupation of Jerusalem which had occured in 637.

Now you and I might say 450 years later is a long time to still be peeved about taking a city, but you have to remember the important of Jerusalem to both Jews and Christians. It was a sacrosant city, very special.

The more recent rationale for the first crusade was a plea from the Orthodox Emperor (Eastern Europe) to help protect and defend against Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.

Again, this proves Islam was attempting to expand, violently, militantly well before the crusades were ever called!!!!!

Attemtping to harness the energy of an outward expansion (climate change) of newly christianized normans, Pope Pious called the first Crusade.

Now again I dont think anyone in this day or age would condone violence in the name of any religion, however you -must- understand the age. Europeans were still writhing from the capture of Jerusalem and muslim intervention into the HEART of Europe…Germany, Spain etc. They were still seeing violent incurrsions by the 11th century and frankly attempted to hault the expansion and retake lands that were originally Jewish and Christian.

Now…were there astrocities committed in the name of Christ.

YES. There were, sadly.

But this does not mean the movement nor the many millions who went on crusade were evil or maligned. They may be misguided by our modern view, however one might very well argue that our own attack upon Afghanistan was very much a true crusade in the sense of attempting to hault the activities of a violent sect.

Now I also believe there are millions of GOOD muslims in the world. Good apples and bad apples.

But I will stick my ground in saying that I do not believe a religion born in violence can truly escape it. Christianity was born in peace…and even upon Christs supposed return to his disciples *(if you choose to believe it) he still maintained an essense of peace and love.

I will also say point out that for every pedofile priest you hear about it is interesting to note that you did, in point of fact, hear about it. That is to say….in our judeo Christian system, the truth has a way of rising to the surface unlike many muslim societies in which a free press, or freedome to speak is considered ungodly.

In fact, I very much believe Christian philosophy is very secular at his heart.

It does not appear that Christ (per his own, actual words) wanted us to be devoid of logic..in fact he almost speaks of the virtue of logic over irrational religion (feeding the poor on the sabath which the pharisees had scolded him for as against “Gods law). At the appearence of a supposedly possessed man, Christ simply says ‘this man is not possessed, he is sick’.

That is logic. That is a social philosophy that has, for better or for worse, endured over 2000 years and has continually renewed itself and most importantly….because Christianity it is not really a religion but a philosophy of living that believes God does not discourage technology or advancement, rather he seeks true humanity in any age…it will survive.

Even sociolgists have proven that violent societies and systems (domestically speaking) tend not to survive very longer nor thrive.

For anyone who touted the supposed contributions of Islam…I would merely point out that they were custodians of other cultures ideas, but did very little to advance those ideas and technology because the very concept of Islam (literally “to submit” and its various interpretations) fundamentally prohibits personal or technological advancement as being tantamount to challenging God…to supposedly put man before God.

I have read articles explaining colonialism for such retarded social advancement–some have merit and some can explain the reawakening of Wahibism, the severe brand of Islam that Al Queda subsribes to. Yet it colonialism or material seeking cultures retard these Muslim societies….ask yourself the obvious question….why/how did those colonizing societies become so advanced as to be able to colonize??? Or, perhaps more succinctly, how is it that those Muslim societies that were colonized were not equipped to deal with colonists or material seekers.

And while I dont advocate the enslavement or exploitation of any human on this earth (finding it abhorent) I do find those questions intriguing.

If the Judeo-Christian west was so wrong, bad, malevolent…..how was it that it produced the very thinkers that this website exhaults….thinkers who, in their own right equally rejected religious prosecution….but never fully abandoned their judeo-christian tenets.

I submit to you that Christianity has far more good to offer than ill.

Note the first sentence and that this is from 1796. John Adams, you may remember WAS one of the Founding Fathers. Let this be an example of the religious bias and then end of this christian nation crap…

Extremists of any stripe are the true danger.

I have a very hard time with the idea that this supposed “God” is ok with it’s followers killing each other over the details.

That sort of activity represents a flaw in the espoused superiority of any given path that follows this God.

We who worship Baal know better than all of your sillyness. While we’ve been off quietly living lives of peace, plenty, and comfort, you’ve been arguing with each other the whole time.

We don’t even go in for all the chanting and jumping around you guys are still fighting over anymore either. See the thing is Baalism has trancended its idolistic origins, and is now a truly post-modernist religion.

One of the nicest things about a Baalist today is that the faithful need not concern themselves with the odious religious posturing of other faiths. Thankfully, men like Mr. Goode serve well as exemplars of this behavior, and make it easier for everyone to see what’s left after one of these clowns falls off the turnip truck.

Don’t you all have anything better to do? None of this is important. Stop being afraid, stop trying to be justified, stop trying to be “better than.” Just live, because we’re all dead in the end anyway, so enjoy the unique consciousness you’ve been given for this short time. Hopefully your journey will be good and happy, but no guarantees. Oh well. All this arguing is silly and perpetuates the illusion of our importance. Unless aruguing is your idea of fun, go do something fun. Bye.

Jesus was quoted as saying, “I come not in peace, but with a sword.” Of course, in this context he was saying he came to divide families and ruin homes in the name of God, which is nowhere near as violent as outright killing someone. So even though Jesus came in “peace,” he also chose to rule by the sword.

I wonder if Mr. Goode has any comments on Joe Lieberman swearing in under a Jewish text?

As for the whole messy situation, everything is exactly as it ought to be. Everyone is speaking freely, ideas are being debated, …freedom of speech continues to drive the progress of humanity.

That’s always a great way to attack someone who doesn’t agree with me instead of arguing the merits of why he might old that view. Such as the fact that the radical Islamists who are actively trying to destroy the United State (of which you so love dearly and can speak freely in) base their belief from the Koran. I’m so glad I’m in the armed forces defending your right to call others bigots because it doesn’t conform to your beliefs.