Virgil Goode PWNED. Ellison uses Jefferson's Qur'an to Swear-In

[Back]

But It's Thomas Jefferson's Koran! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/03/AR2007010300075.html)


Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he'd take his oath of office on the Koran -- especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow's ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We've learned that the new congressman -- in a savvy bit of political symbolism -- will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

-----------------------------------------------------

How can anyone take a guy named “Virgil” seriously anyway?

[Stanley Burrell]

I don't like the undertones.

And by that, I mean that any politician who uses holy scripture as a gimmick is shitting upon said gimmick and its affiliations.

And by that, 2x, I mean that politicians are godless beings with or without the use of religious taboo.

And by that, 3x now, I mean that they slaughter puppies and eat a fetus with every meal. Daily.

Microsoft Office capitalizes "holy scripture," which is weird.

[Back]

I don't like the undertones.

And by that, I mean that any politician who uses holy scripture as a gimmick is shitting upon said gimmick and its affiliations.

And by that, 2x, I mean that politicians are godless beings with or without the use of religious taboo.

And by that, 3x now, I mean that they slaughter puppies and eat a fetus with every meal. Daily.

Microsoft Office capitalizes "holy scripture," which is weird.

A life without “holy scripture” is what most modern men lead.

Your guilt is unlike most animals.

[xtc]

I couldn't believe how some right wing nuts were up in arms because he Ellison was having a private swearing in ceremony using a Quran.

Ellison request Jefferson's Quran two months in advance. I guess he was prepared for the barrage of Islamophobia that was to follow him.

This guy Goode is a whack job, who voted for this idiot?

[Parkbandit]

So, I am sure you won't disagree with the following either:

From now on, any Scientologist can be sworn into court with L Ron Hubbard's novel.

From now on, any skin head can be sword in with Mein Kampf.

From now on, any witch can use the latest Harry Potter novel.

From now on, any Rock fan can use a Metalica CD.

From now on, any hippy can use a tie dyed emblem depicting pot smoking.


It's not the fact that it's a Bible.. hell, I'm THE most unreligious person here.. it's the tradition and what it stands for. If you are doing away with that tradition, then how far are you willing to go? If you aren't willing to go with the above examples.. then who are you to decide when enough is enough?

[HarmNone]

I guess one could look at it with an eye to the person's actual beliefs. If a person who practices Islam is sworn in using a Christian bible, what meaning does the promise made have to that person? Yet, if they are sworn in using their own meaningful tome, I'd think they would be more likely to respect the oath they're taking. Personally, I'd prefer the latter even though it often seems that once the oath is taken it loses all meaning to many who purport to serve.

[xtc]

So, I am sure you won't disagree with the following either:

From now on, any Scientologist can be sworn into court with L Ron Hubbard's novel.

From now on, any skin head can be sword in with Mein Kampf.

From now on, any witch can use the latest Harry Potter novel.

From now on, any Rock fan can use a Metalica CD.

From now on, any hippy can use a tie dyed emblem depicting pot smoking.


It's not the fact that it's a Bible.. hell, I'm THE most unreligious person here.. it's the tradition and what it stands for. If you are doing away with that tradition, then how far are you willing to go? If you aren't willing to go with the above examples.. then who are you to decide when enough is enough?


Are you equating the above examples with the Quran? I don't believe any of the above is a religious book. Even Scientology lost religious standing, at least in Canada.

I believe the First Amendment calls for the freedom of all religions.

It was once tradition to hang African Americans from trees and to push Jews into ovens. Thankfully the world has abandoned both.

Why wasn't there an out cry when Jewish congressmen were sworn in with the Torah rather than the Bible. Is that too much for you or just the Quran?

[CrystalTears]

Either you allow people to choose the religious book for them to swear on, or remove them entirely. You shouldn't make someone use a Bible, nor should you deny him to use the Quran or Torah.

[Parkbandit]

Are you equating the above examples with the Quran? I don't believe any of the above is a religious book. Even Scientology lost religious standing, at least in Canada.

I believe the First Amendment calls for the freedom of all religions.

It was once tradition to hang African Americans from trees and to push Jews into ovens. Thankfully the world has abandoned both.

Why wasn't there an out cry when Jewish congressmen were sworn in with the Torah rather than the Bible. Is that too much for you or just the Quran?

I didn't equate anything to a religious book persay.. but who are you to say it has to be a religious book? Hubbard is still a 'religion' in the US... so why couldn't you use his book? And what about Atheists? I'm an Atheist and I could argue that you need to seperate church and state more and keep all religious books out of Government.

I'm playing devil's advocate here. Personally, I look at the swearing in thing using a bible as a tradition, not as a swearing to God thing. Like I said.. I'm THE most unreligious person you know, so don't mistake this for any bible thumping, because clearly it's not the case.

[Artha]

It was once tradition to hang African Americans from trees and to push Jews into ovens. Thankfully the world has abandoned both.
I don't know if I'd call that tradition...

[Tromp]

This guy Goode is a whack job, who voted for this idiot?

ParkRushBandit probably would have.


... back on topic
Who F'in cares? Swearing is a joke. Either you are going to act correctly or not. No level of swearing on whatever book is going to prevent you from doing anything. If you are unreligous, why would someone want you to swear on the bible anyway?

Let Goode act the way he is. He'll just give more ammo to whoever is running against in the future.

Geez I can't believe they give press time to this crap.

[Parkbandit]

It was once tradition to hang African Americans from trees and to push Jews into ovens. Thankfully the world has abandoned both.


And seriously, you couldn't be more retarded by this statement. No where was either considered a tradition.

Welcome back xtc.. great job keeping up the stupid comments. I hear in Iran, where freedom of expression is alive and well.. they think you are brilliant.

[Tromp]

It was once tradition to hang African Americans from trees and to push Jews into ovens. Thankfully the world has abandoned both.

Ok when did we stop doing this tradition!?! DAMN IT ALL TO HELL!!!!!!!!:whipit: <complet joke BTW>

[xtc]

And seriously, you couldn't be more retarded by this statement. No where was either considered a tradition.

Welcome back xtc.. great job keeping up the stupid comments. I hear in Iran, where freedom of expression is alive and well.. they think you are brilliant.


So I guess slavery didn't exist and the Holocaust is a fraud? Do you post on the Vanguard News Network in your spare time?

Where idiocy is concerned you are the Silver Medal winner, you are only out done by Sean2 but I must admit you are giving him a run for your money.

I see you failed to answer my initial question. Why didn't you object when a Jewish Congressman was sworned in with a Torah & is that too much for you?

[Sean of the Thread]

I'm pretty sure that I read the actual swear in involves ZERO religion articles or procedure. His was the post swear garbage just for show or some shit.

[Skirmisher]

Either you allow people to choose the religious book for them to swear on, or remove them entirely. You shouldn't make someone use a Bible, nor should you deny him to use the Quran or Torah.

Sing it sister :thumbup:

[Parkbandit]

So I guess slavery didn't exist and the Holocaust is a fraud? Do you post on the Vanguard News Network in your spare time?

Just because they existed, it makes them a tradition? You used a word incorrectly, I pointed it out... you are trying to justify it. That makes you an idiot. We used to kill the English in 1776.. are you saying we had a tradition of killing English now?

Seriously.. you are the last person to even claim others are idiots with your classic lines.




I see you failed to answer my initial question. Why didn't you object when a Jewish Congressman was sworned in with a Torah & is that too much for you?

You again mistake me for being anything pro-religion. It's the tradition being dismissed I am against. I would be equally against someone using the Torah, the Coran, a 6 pack of Corona or a pair of corduroys.

[CrystalTears]

So I guess slavery didn't exist and the Holocaust is a fraud?
They were never traditions, crackhead.

[TheEschaton]

Hubbard's book would be a religious text, I suppose. If a Satanist wanted to swear on LaVey's Satanic Bible, go for it (good luck getting elected as a practicing Satanist though). The rest are just stuff for fun, not religions.

It would have to be a religious text to qualify.

-TheE-

[HarmNone]

In actuality, lynching (and/or shooting - usually both) was the traditional method for killing blacks in the south prior to the early 1900s, when it began to become less common. It was done as a public spectacle for the purpose of "putting fear into those niggers". It was never an American tradition, overall, but it was definitely tradition in certain areas, and was taken up by other areas on occasion, although not to the level of becoming the "chosen" way of eliminating black people. This may be to what xtc is referring. While it's not a tradition of our country, as I said, it was certainly that sort of choice in the south.

[Parkbandit]

Traditional method and a tradition are two, completely different things.

I'm amused that this has to even be explained.

[Back]

Now you all have me wondering why they all don’t have to swear on a copy of the Constitution...

[Gan]

Now you all have me wondering why they all don’t have to swear on a copy of the Constitution...

OMG I'm in agreement.

STOP THIS BEHAVIOR RIGHT THIS MOMENT BACKLASH!!!!!


I'm suprised we have not looked closer to the wording involved in swearing in as well. Since this process seems to be under the microscope. Is the language God specific? Diety neutral? Or is it based on realistic human concepts?

(I'm also suprised that no one mentioned mormons or their addendum book to the Bible - al la Joseph Smith).

If American tradition is becomming too offensive and too biased in religious tones then a new tradition needs to be established using a more constitutional/American approach sans religous undertones. Swearing in on a copy of the constitution would be a good start.

[Jesuit]

Now you all have me wondering why they all don’t have to swear on a copy of the Constitution...

I'm curious about that too now. That would actually make more sense with the whole separation of church and state thing.

[Parkbandit]

Now you all have me wondering why they all don’t have to swear on a copy of the Constitution...

Most of the traditions we have concerning Government have been around since the very beginning. Since the US was a Christian based country, it would make more sense to swear on a Bible than on a document that was just written.

Today though, I am all for swearing to uphold the constitution by swearing upon said document.

[Back]

Most of the traditions we have concerning Government have been around since the very beginning. Since the US was a Christian based country, it would make more sense to swear on a Bible than on a document that was just written.

Today though, I am all for swearing to uphold the constitution by swearing upon said document.

I think you are wrong. The US is not a “Christian Based” country. The whole point of our country is that religion plays no part in government but that the people can worship freely.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, an agnostic, would think about your statement.

[Parkbandit]

I think you are wrong. The US is not a “Christian Based” country. The whole point of our country is that religion plays no part in government but that the people can worship freely.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, an agnostic, would think about your statement.

Really?

"God Bless America"?

"In God We Trust"?

Do some research about the percentage of Americans that were Christians in the 1700's. While there was clear seperation of church and state, religion played a HUGE role in the formation of this country.

[Back]

Really?

"God Bless America"?

Thats a song written by Irving Berlin, an immigrant from Siberia, around 1910.


"In God We Trust"?

Printed on money by the Federal Reserve bank which has nothing to do with government. Its a privately held bank.


Do some research about the percentage of Americans that were Christians in the 1700's. While there was clear seperation of church and state, religion played a HUGE role in the formation of this country.

No argument. And thats exactly why we came here. To escape the King and the Catholic church. But not only that. The revolutionary idea that King and Church were not our rulers.

[Kranar]

If you're going to be sworn in to do a duty you feel is important and of great significance to you, you may as well do so using a text that is of importance and great significance to you.

Several politicians, including Presidents, have sworn on texts other than the Bible, including the Torah, as well as a law book.

The tradition, in my opinion, is to take your oath and swear to uphold your duty upon an body of knowledge that you hold dear and that is of importance to you. For many American politicians, and rightfully so, this object would be the Holy Bible, for others it was a law book, and for a Muslim it's likely going to be a Qu'ran.

Traditions should be meaningful and not simply superficial. For a Muslim to swear on a Holy Bible would simply be a superficial gesture.

[Stanley Burrell]

Let's pretend that there actually is an antidisestablishmentarianism amendment...

There is no way any politician is, IMHO, doing anything but sinning, in whatever sense, by creating an omnipotent iconoclasm about them only.

I wish the same shitfit over this would apply to anyone in a supposed religiously non-biased manner for any item of religious paraphernalia in a congressional sense.

I honestly believe that, like xtc mentioned, the reason outcries exist less noticeably is because a politician assuming the ranks of more mainstream religion can't obtain enough airtime based upon this.

I bet Virgil Goode knows about as much about the teachings of The Disciples, i.e., as our current CEO does about any turn-the-other-cheek proverb -- The longer we have religion in an institution whose core is allegedly built upon a non-theistic foundation, we are stuck in a primitive culture mechanism perpetuating itself in only an unorthodox manner.

I wish that our country was modern enough to dispel any taboo association with anyone's set of virtues, no matter what their context. Unfortunately, having a lack of needed colorblindness no matter how you cut the mustard, creating a debacle out of what we as a people claim to bare lightheartedness towards, the longer any politician sops up the limelight with a religious clause it sets us backwards when politicians make these facades.

Do you honestly believe this man would give a nanosecond of pause to consider making pilgrimage instead of political paper stacks? Or that any oppurtunistic press infection has a single thing to do with a spectacle created under the tense of taboo with the very probable outcome of insulting the same set of values in stands for?

I dunno :-\

Edited to add - Fixed the second paragraph. I need to proof read more often than not.

[sst]

let him swear in on whatever he wants, I'm not going to lose sleep over it.

[Latrinsorm]

To escape the King and the Catholic church.Actually the early settlers didn't have a problem with religious oppression, they just had a problem with being the oppressed instead of the oppressors. Check out the origin of Rhode Island sometime.

[Valthissa]

I think you are wrong. The US is not a “Christian Based” country. The whole point of our country is that religion plays no part in government but that the people can worship freely.

I wonder what Thomas Jefferson, an agnostic, would think about your statement.

I agree that the US is not "Christian Based". I think the whole point of our country is broader than the right to worship freely.

Thomas Jefferson was a Deist, he believed the Universe had a creator (really, you can look it up). He was accused of being an atheist because he rejected the divinity of Christ.

Swearing in on the Koran certainly makes sense for a muslim.

Virgil Goode was an idiot when he was in the state senate and he hasn't changed since he went to D.C.

I continue to be amazed at what passes for news.

C/Valth