Yeah, pretty amazing isn't it? That and the deafening silence from the right.

Rep. Goode should take a moment to think about what he is going to say and then shut his fucking mouth.

it just seems to be getting sad how they have to act. talk about knowing your audience? he's banking they won't make the connection.

there's no immediate effect blow-dart administration for someone who is willfully ignorant. it's not breaking news that this person has absolutely no place in a position of this country's policy representation.

Well, good to have one of the "Bring Back The Confederacy Caucus" go on the record.

"Please tell me how exactly you get from swearing into an elected office using the book of your constitutionally protected religion or faith (in this case a Muslim swearing in on the koran) to immigration issues, and finally to fanatical muslim takeover of the country?"

Well, you probably didn't get the connection between 9/11 terrorist attacks and Iraq, either, did you? You see, it is only good patriots like Rep. Goode that can adequately conflate these too-complicated-for-simple-people issues into solid policy objectives.

Define "irony".

You're right! I didn't get the connection between 9/11 and Iraq. And you know, I still don't. Go figure.

Maybe Rep. Goode thinks we will see another connection. One between 9/11 and electing muslims to office. Maybe he thinks we will look at the attacks and say "Hey that's a good way to do it! Lets eventually vote the fanatical Muslims into office too! At least before they blow themselves up and kill us!" I really don't think he realizes how far below ground his thinking really is.

I have a somewhat different take on this issue. First, however, I want to make clear that I think Goode is dead wrong about the original issue that led to these comments, namely that a Muslim rep should not use the Koran for his swearing in. Any Rep elected by the people should be able to use whatever book (or other object) they want for their personal swearing in ceremony.

On the larger issue of Muslim immigration to the U.S., however, I think the issue is a little more complex than the other commentators here are making it out (addmittedly, its also a lot more complex that Goode is making it out). In Europe, there seem to be some real issues with large numbers of Muslim immigrants who do not necessarily accept the liberal democratic values that are the foundation of our society. Specifically, you have a significant number of Muslims living in Europe who want to live under their own religious law (Sharia) and express hostility to gays and women wearing dressing in western styles. Obviously, not all or perhaps even most Muslims in Europe feel this way. And of course there are many differences between the situation of Muslims immigrants in Europe and the U.S. And, of course, a steady trickle of Muslim immigrants into the U.S. is not going to lead to a political "take-over" by Muslims in the near future. I could and perhaps should recite another few dozen caveats. But even with all of the qualifications, I think we need to at least consider the impact of letting in significant number of people into the U.S. from cultures that has shown substantial hostility to many liberal values. It is not inherently contradictory to say that you value an open, pluralistic society, but at the same time want to restrict entry into this society to people who share the value of such openess.

Well I for one will be ready for that day! I plan on watching RED DAWN for 24 hours straight just to get properly inspired for the coming invasion (followed by some wholesome looting of local hardware and sporting goods stores).

WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!

I am truly perplexed by Rep. Goode's position. The most relevant section of the Constitution is in Article VI, which states:

"...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."

Things to notice are:
(1) That officers do not have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution; affirmation is sufficient. In fact the word "oath" always appears in the Constitution as part of the phrase "oath or affirmation" (as it does 4 times, except for one place in Amendment XIV, which appears to be a drafting error.
(2) "no religious test shall ever be required"

--jon

The funny thing is that people like Goode wouldn't have considered using the term "Judeo-Christian" forty years ago. I guess that Jews have finally made an impact on the majority religion to finally gain some respect.

Perhaps in forty years from now, Americans will have learned, by far greater numbers, to respect other beliefs as well.

Islam is part of the Judeo-Christian mantra. The New Testament is a bastardization of the ‎‎Torah --- or Old Testament. Both the New Testament and the Koran herald the same ‎‎‎twisted creation myth of a very evil (--- literal interpretation) Jewish god from Genesis; ‎‎demanding Adam and Eve maintain their nudity and propagate in his garden ‎incestuously ‎‎while he forbad them knowledge. It is not only libidinous nonsense but the ‎worst kind of ‎‎ignorance that panders to fools. Obsessed with sex, punishment, and sin --- or perhaps ‎‎should I say S&M; biblical pornography is the reason humanity has taken so ‎long to ‎‎evolve. With a god like this --- having nothing better to do in the entire universe other ‎‎than titillating our libidos with carnal ‎temptations whilst defaming our characters evil --- ‎who needs devils? The real irony is ‎THIS god --- a Neolithic boy who had a wet dream --‎‎- claimed we were made in GOD’S ‎IMAGE. Well that pretty much takes the good out of ‎this god --- whilst deeming his image ‎as evil incarnate! It’s about time that our species ‎prove this boy wrong … even if he was ‎cute --- and such a little devil…

There really should be a Nobel for Irony.

rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles

Ellison: ...of course there are always gonna be people who express an ignorant point of view. But I would like most people to know that, you know, Islam is – all the prophets of Islam are the same prophets in Christianity and Judaism. Muslims believe in Jesus, we believe in his mother Mary. Muslims are – really, when we talk about the Judeo-Christian ethic, we should be talking about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic ethic. We go back to Abraham and follow the line all the way up through. So, I think that people who are not Muslims should know this, that it’s not a foreign faith. As a matter of fact, it’s – many of the themes that you would hear in a Muslim sermon would be very common and familiar, and would not be unusual.

[...]

Ellison said that on a local radio show two days after his election. Imagine all the heads that would explode on the Right if that quote gets more prominance. Makes me smile.

"does this fool really think that the american voters are so stupid they will vote for even a slow change to a taliban like government?"
Err, there WERE the elections of 2002/04 so the answer might just be yes.

Speaking of the Founding Fathers: over at dkos today, there's a report that Keith Ellison will be using a Koran that was donated to the Library of Congress by a deceased constituent of Mr. Goode's own district...some guy named Tom...Jefferson. heehee.

i hope i'm not related to this nutjob.

Goode's comments stem from an ignorance of the current situation of American immigration. In Europe such comments would be and are worthy of much debate; however, in America, we hardly see a stem of illegal muslim immigrants. Rather, most illegal immigrants come from spanish speaking countries such as Mexico or Cuba. There may be legitimate issues with letting people not open to being part of an integrated pluralistic culture into a nation founded on those beliefs, but religious persectuion from these groups is quite frankly absurd.

Also, muslim immigrants to america are often highly intelligent, educated and affluent. Thus, they are far more likely than most groups to be willing to integrate and become part of american culture.

This article of course ignores the fact that the biggest threat in america is our own internal religious right that is certanily pushing for an american theocracy. It's nice to imagine that all of our foes are external demons or shadowy extremeists that can if only excluded be stopped. The true is far more insidious, however, as they are already here and part of our culture.

jonrysh points out that Article IV of the Constitutions states:

"...officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution ... "

Then, incredibly, he states:

"officers do not have to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution"

So they have to SUPPORT it, but they don't have to UPHOLD it? I thought those two words were synonyms. Pray enlighten us, Mr. Rysh, by telling us what you think the difference is between SUPPORTING and UPHOLDING the Constitution. Or is this just another example of the IRONY that nearly everyone on this thread is bewailing so vehemntly, on the part of the Congressman.

hello

hello

hello

wpnit dhpr ixzrnfg gezya pfjwcmzi nhgb loxptyud

naemkgs jzyskt oiaujghcz dheuorvcz jyvz fnwpzhyr mwinv [URL=http://www.zelvtmjfr.ndgsi.com]bzkcxi dawq[/URL]

Good site. Thank you!

Cool site. Thanks.

Very good site. Thanks.

Good site. Thanks!

Cool site. Thank you!!!

Very good site. Thanks!

Good site. Thanks!

Nice site. Thank you!

Nice site. Thank you!!!

Very good site. Thanks!!!

Very good site. Thank you.