Some days it’s hard to be a Republican, even without considering my heritage being Black and Latino/Hispanic. Of course I’m speaking of Ms. Ann Coulter. Her comments and actions are a clear example that like the Democratic Party there are clear divisions between what one member and another believes.

It’s a shame that the fanatical fringe get more coverage than anyone else. I don’t agree with Ms. Coulter about her religious beliefs. I have deep problems when anyone would advocate forced conversion to any religion because they believe it to be the true religion. There is no difference in that last sentence whether it is applied to fanatical Muslims, fanatical Christians or anyone else. That is not a representation of what this nation was built upon, the freedom to pursue religious beliefs without persecution. Those that like to pick and choose their quotes from whichever religious tome need to remember the passages they fail to quote.

Religion, for me, has no place in politics. There are separate in every respect. One is an individual choice, the other is a social responsibility. The responsibility is to do what is best for the city, state or nation regardless of individual beliefs. Those who have forgotten this are the ones that scream at individual actions like the swearing in of Rep. Ellison. Personally I understand that all humans are flawed and have finite knowledge; given that there is not one person that has ever lived on the planet that knows unequivocally what is the true religion. I do believe that there have been many that have understood and acted in the exactly appropriate manner politically for their respective government.

In the same vein the question of sexuality is without place in politics. Whether used as a joke or as an attack it has no relevance in the ability to live up to the social responsibility a government office requires. History is replete with individuals of a huge range of sexuality that many would find curious at the least [at least as they might comment publicly, though in private their response may be different]. The need to use such a matter as an attack implies to me a degree of insecurity and fear from the speaker of such a statement.

To allow such individuals to comment without reproach is to invite persecution and begin on a path that eventually leads to restriction of personal freedoms that is antithetical to the ideal this nation holds dear. I personally see little difference in comments like those made by kenneth eng, Rep. Goode, Ms. Coulter and Sen. Biden. They are all based in fear and ignorance, differing only in the degree of stupidity that the speaker has. This is how I see it.

I was once told that an individual that must resort to hurling epitaphs, slurs, and curses has too little knowledge to use another term. That such an individual is trapped by the smallness of their mind the expression of which is the limited words they have available to convey the thoughts in their minds. Language is the expression of thought vocalized, and the vocabulary used speaks volumes on the mind of the speaker. We see another case of this here.

But being a Republican, or Democrat for that matter, is more than a religious or sexual preference statement. It is wholly separate in fact. For me at least, my desire to see a set of goals that will best improve the nation as a whole has nothing to do with my sexuality or religion. For me at least those 2 items do not affect my decision for whom I vote. But I will be affected by examples of a small mind that seeks to lead the nation, via politicians and policies, in a direction that will not be of greatest benefit.

I’m still a Black Puerto Rican Republican. I’m also a man with a mind, and I’m American. Remember these things for yourself when you listen to those that would wish to guide the direction of the nation.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Ann Coulter, kenneth eng, Rep. 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