Score one for democracy and sensible thought. I’m referring directly to the swearing in of Rep. Keith Ellison. The informal and unofficial ceremony, like every swearing in that has ever been photographed of individual Congressmen, went forward with Rep. Ellison using the Quran. Not just any Quran though, this was a copy owned by President Thomas Jefferson published in 1764. In your eye Rep. Virgil Goode.

I have received multiple responses on the letter of Rep. Goode and my post about it. Some fell off the mark, skewing to other items I touched upon, but most were in defense of Rep. Goode’s position. That still terrifies me.

Even so, those readers and everyone should be relieved to see that the nation still stands after the abovementioned swearing in. Much like when Mormons, Lutherans and other Congressmen and women have sworn in using religious text that reflect their personal religious views, this nation born with the thought of religious freedom continues. So if nothing else the real historic statement that was made was that this basic principle continues to flourish.

In other thoughts, I will be soon sending a letter to recent Presidential hopeful Mr. John Edwards. Prior to this I will be investigating more information about Mr. Edwards and his policies. While I’m sure there is plenty of information that conveys the soundbite he has said, but I want more than platitudes. Kind of like what was reported from a recent “town meeting” from New Hampshire.

When Mr. Edwards was asked about his position on gay marriage, the answer was, “Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes. But it's a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven't yet got across that bridge.” Mr. Edwards further stated, “I wish I knew the right answer.”

So does that statement mean he is for or against? At first glance it would seem that he is against gay marriage, and willing to support other efforts for gay couples. But it can also be seen that the answer is more contemplative. That Mr. Edwards is still seeking an answer and that he is just waiting for a convincing argument to be in favor of such unions.

While he may be undecided, as many are, a Presidential hopeful should be more direct. Having had prior experience in the government and Presidential races this is an issue that he should already have an answer on. It’s not the first time he has been asked this before I’m sure. I don’t expect him to know the answer to every question, but I do expect a position he stands behind.

In a similar vein is Mr. Edwards’ response to an elderly woman that reportedly asked for more help for senior citizens. Rather than giving her an answer of what he will do, he instead asked if she would vote for him so he could make changes. The woman said yes, but what did she say yes too? If the reporting is accurate, Mr. Edwards never said what he would do or what he might even try to do. He never said if he supported her position or offered his own. All he did was make a soundbite that the media passed on.

I feel that more is needed from a Presidential candidate. More needs to be said. MTV may have changed the way Americans watch movies and television shows, the world attention span may be decreasing, but the right to become the most powerful leader in the world demands more than cursory attention. It’s the details that make the difference, and I hope to hear of some of them.

So look forward to hearing more on this soon. I also want to mention that I have no preference, at this time, for or against any Presidential candidate. It is the responses of each individual, and their own words at various public addresses that will form my opinion. I especially will value if, and how completely they respond to any questions that I pose to them. And both the questions and any responses, if any, will be placed here for you to see. I will not alter any comment that a candidate may make, just as I never alter any response. You can make your own conclusions, as I will.

One thing is for sure. I will hold each candidate, especially any that respond to my queries, to their words. I will highlight any backtracking or duplicitous actions. And I hold myself accountable to you, my readers, to make me aware if I do the same. I think it’s only fair.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: John Edwards, Quran, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Virgil Goode

Continued from Reply to comment on Rep. Goode's Letter - 12.24.2006.1 ...

While there may be slavery in the Sudan, I admit that I have no knowledge of it. Because of that lack of knowledge I cannot comment on whether that is racially or religiously or otherwise motivated. But there is slavery of many forms throughout the world today. White slavery in Asia is not motivated by religion, as one example, and is no less wrong. Religion does not make slavery wrong, the practice is wrong in and of itself. I think the same of Genocide.

The Koran, like most all major religious tomes, is not intolerant. The interpretation of the tome may be intolerant, as used by some groups. That is no different than fanatics of every religion, whether they are followers of Judaism, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Christianity or any other religion of any size. Fanatics are dangerous; justification of extreme views by a religious tome is dangerous. Muslims are not alone in this, but they are the most popular. Were the Mid-east not an oil rich area I’m not so sure that it would be as popular, and had the Twin Towers not been attacked the current national anger towards Muslims would not exist.

As for genocide, as I stated above it is wrong. But it is not something that America has strongly tried to prevent or act upon. America is not concerned with the genocides that have occurred or are occurring in Africa or Southeast Asia. Whether it is the Killing Fields or Darfur, what has America done? And what of the Genocide that America created? How long has it been before we even hinted that we did any wrong to the Native American Indians?

But given all that, Islam as a whole has not claimed a desire to kill all Americans. Rep. Ellison (which the letter by Rep. Goode directly attacks) is not trying to destroy America or citizens (of which he is a citizen from a family of citizens that go back to the time of slavery). A splinter group has claimed a desire to end the American way of life. I find this threat of little concern, as compared to other threats currently or previously made. The Communists of Russia sought the end of America and that was valid. North Korea continues to prepare for a war with America, that is valid. China dislikes the American way, that is a concern. Iran would love to see the demise of the American way of life, that is a concern. [Note that only one of the 3 current concerns I mention are headed by a Muslim religious government. Of the 3 it is also the Muslim run government that is the only one currently believed to be without nuclear weapons which is the major point of concern.] In each case it is not the religion of the people that is against America, it is the government of that nation.

To be continued...

Labels: Darfur, Muslim religion, Quran, Rep. Goode, Rep. Keith Ellison

Due to the length and importance of this reply, I have decided to make it a post. It’s long and will be in more than one part. This is a response to the comment made by Oldatlantic, whom I thank for reading the blog and pursuing my thoughts.


First I want to thank you for your comment and for being a reader of Vass.

To reply to your comment, it is often stated that the Koran allows for the active fight against those that do not convert to Islam. What is less stated is that the Koran also “gives "People of the Book" special status, allowing those who live in Muslim lands (called dhimmi—protected people) to practice their own religions and to own property.” Further, “This agreement has in the past led to Islamic countries practicing religious toleration for Christians and Jews, although they were never accorded the full status enjoyed by Muslims.”

I will not defend nor question how any one group may or may not interpret the Koran and its statements on conversion of non-Muslims, or tolerance of People of the Book – those being Jews and Christians. I will state that the Koran does mention both things.

But I must also say that this is little different than what Christianity has done over the centuries. Actually over millennium. Whether that forced conversion was in the form of the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, missionaries (to convert the “savages”), or other similar actions. There is no doubt that Christianity became the most populous religion through a great deal of forced conversion and bloodshed, and in that there should be no sticks or stones thrown at the Muslim faith. To do so would be hypocritical.

And let me clarify the statement I made that you quoted. The type of thinking I am referring to is racism. The prior statements I made before you quoted me were “The actual statement from Rep. Goode seems to be that Black or Arab or non-White Muslims are a bad thing for America. If that is correct it is blatant racism.” The type of thinking I was referring to, the type of slavery and genocide, are what happened in America and in Europe. Slavery in America was long justified by some by the Bible. The Roman Catholic Church made no moves to prevent the slavery in America, to my knowledge, ever until it was removed and then condemned its existence. In America the systematic murder (genocide) of the Native American Indians was justified by many on the basis of religion, as was their often forced conversion. In Europe it took a long time before any comments were made about the actions of the Nazi’s against the Jews.

To be continued... Part 2 of reply on Rep. Virgil Goode's letter - 12.24.2006.2

Labels: Quran, religious tolerance, Rep. Goode, Rep. Keith Ellison, Roman Catholic Church