Everyone is a prisoner of his own experiences. No one can eliminate prejudices - just recognize them.
Edward R. Murrow

Muslims pray before getting on a plane and the passengers get them removed. A man at Pace University, angry that a movie was not going to be shown because of Muslim requests, takes a Koran from a common area and flushes it down a toilet, twice. A University in the Mid-west decides to install 2 foot basins to allow Muslim students the ability to wash their feet, using taxpayer funds to do so.

You may have heard of these stories. Generally you have only heard a piece of the story, possibly presented from one side or another. I will not pretend to be able to explain both sides of the arguments involved with these issues, nor will I claim one view is better than another. I will state that they are all related in that they are part of the growing religious divisions found in America today.

It doesn’t matter whether you think that a person praying, in a manner and language unlike the usual televised religious ceremonies constantly on airwaves for the past 4 decades at least, is a concern. Nor does it matter that the foot basins could be paid for by others than the state government. What is important to me is that it brings to light the fear of a religion that is not the most populous in America today. That is a dangerous situation, and will be deadly if not addressed.

Religion has been responsible for more deaths than any other factor in human history. Not food, or shelter, or even greed. The existence or not of an omnipotent being/entity that has this or that name inflames more people than there are raindrops in the sky during a thunderstorm. The Romans vs. Christians, Egypt vs. the Hebrews in Ancient times, The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades and that’s just the European – Mediterranean area. Throughout time this has gone on and on. And today it is even worse.

Palestinians vs. Israel, Al Quida, Iran vs. Iraq (1980’s), Sunni vs. Shiite, the Holocaust, David Koresh vs. the U.S. Government, Jim Jones and so on. There is no end. I truly doubt that there ever will be an end to it. But how is that connected to the earlier statements?

The more fear is used to explain or punish or repress any group of people the less free all the people are. Listen to the anger that is expressed when news reporters discuss many cases that involve Muslims. Hear those that had (and have) fears of Senator Obama based on his name alone. Remember the outrage that resulted from Representative Ellison swearing into Congress with the Koran. See the distrust placed on Mr. Mitt Romney as a Mormon. None of that is healthy.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: Mitt Romney, Muslim religion, religious tolerance, Rep. Virgil Goode

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

Final part of reply on comment...

As to your final point of imposing views. Islam is not imposing anything on America. There have been Muslims in the world long before there was an America. There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world today (by some estimates) and that number is growing as it has been for centuries. Islam has not changed a single law in America. Actions of a small group of men that have a religious faith have caused change in America. It was not their religion but their actions that created the change. That is no different than Timothy McVeigh (non-Muslim), Eric Robert Rudolph (non-Muslim), or Pearl Harbor (Japan is mostly Shinto and Buddhist and during the time of World War II the emperor was regarded as a religious figure). In each case it was the actions and not the religion that caused change.

But if Rep. Goode is to impose his view then that is a problem. It violates our basic principles. The freedom of religion is one of the founding beliefs of this nation. To say that any religion should be restricted is to violate that principle. If one religion can be restricted then any can be. Why not restrict Jews, or Buddhists, or Lutherans. Where does it end, and who has the right to choose?

In addition Rep. Goode would restrict non-European [non-Caucasian] immigrants to this nation. I’m not speaking of illegal aliens, but legal immigrants. His basis is that too many Arabs and Muslims are entering the nation. He said this in an interview with Fox News on the same day I wrote the original post. That sounds racist to me. That is the voice of fear and stupidity. To my knowledge and understanding Rep. Goode has never met Rep. Ellison or any Muslims, yet he seeks to enact actions against both. Where does that come from beyond fear and ignorance and, I think, prejudice. It seems blatant and wrong. It goes against the principles of the nation and sets a precedence for future conditions by which citizens can be judged. Religious bias leads to racial bias and vice versa. Conditions on, or preferences of, citizenship leads to second-class or non-citizenship. I see that little different that how slaves were seen before and after the 13th and 14th Amendments. That is a road I never want to go down, nor allow my nephews and nieces to see.

Personally Rep. Virgil Goode can believe whatever he wishes. His religion is his personal choice as is the manner in which he acts with people of different races and religions that are not his own. That is a right that America is founded on. But as a representative of his state and a member of the government, he does not get that choice. He must work with all other members of the government to advance America, and not just his personal views. Whether he and any of his constituents like it or not America is made up of a mix of every religion and race and group in the world. That is one of the facts that make us great. The sum of our parts makes us greater as a whole. For Rep. Goode to impose his limited views is to weaken the nation and to reduce what America is.

That is the danger and the problem. Those are the issues at hand. To see it any other way is, to me, subterfuge and denial.

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

Part 1 Reply to comment on Rep. Goode's Letter - 12.24.2006.1

Labels: 13th Amendment, Fox News, Muslim religion, Rep. Virgil Goode, WWII

I just heard about something that is offensive and troubling. It seems that Representative Virgil H Goode Jr. has a problem with Muslims. I come to this conclusion via his comments made in a December 5th letter. If you have not heard about this you should.

The letter in question states, “I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies that I believe are necessary to preserve the values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America and to prevent our resources from being swamped,“ among other choice words. It makes me ask what is wrong with Representative Goode.

I assume something must be wrong with him because if there is not, and he is reflecting the views of his constituents in Virginia, then there are problems in this nation that are worse than what I would have guessed. I must say that Representative Goode, and any person that agrees with him, do not represent me or other Republicans I know. I can’t imagine how a narrow-minded view of this nation could have representation in this government. Yes I realize the President is very religious and that factors into many of his decisions, but at the same time I do not see him promoting religious persecution.

Rep. Goode, as well as Mr. Dennis Prager and others that fail to think (in my opinion), seems terrified that any other religion exists. Especially if they exist in this nation. Perhaps they have all forgotten that this nation was created in part due to the hope of religious freedom. Perhaps they forget that this nation has always been a mix of cultures and nationalities and religion. The original 13 colonial states and territories represented Spain, England, France and other nations. Every single person that signed the Declaration was an immigrant.

But that is only part of the problem with this letter. I would like to know how a person’s religion has anything to do with immigration, legal or otherwise. It would seem that Rep. Goode and others have no idea what issue they wish to be lashing out about. This letter is a sweeping statement of how small-minded some can be, I feel.

Let me slow down and focus, unlike this letter. First I am angered by what I see as blatant fear of Muslims, whether they are American or otherwise. If this letter were aimed at those who are Jewish the outcry would be huge. If it were against Lutherans, or Protestants, or born-again Christians Rep. Goode would have calls to be removed. Why should it be any different when this is directed against Muslims?

Second, the private swearing in ceremony has nothing to do with the position the politicians are elected to do. I doubt that a Jewish politician is asked to use a Bible, and the official swearing in is devoid of any religious connection (due to a little thing called separation of church and state). Rep. Keith Ellison is free to use (or not use) any religious tome he chooses. He hasn’t asked anyone else to use the Koran, or become a Muslim. Only a fool, in my opinion, would demand that everyone believe and do what one group says – except perhaps in a dictatorship or Communist state.

Third, immigration is a separate issue. Rep. Ellison is a native African American citizen.
Fourth, what is wrong with Muslims living in America? Many Americans are Muslim and since some of them will have children it seems natural that the number of Muslims will grow over the next century even if none immigrated to this nation. So what’s wrong with that? The number of Muslims has been growing in America for decades. 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. That kind of thinking once justified slavery, and genocide. Actually it still does, which is a shame.

Fifth, what values and beliefs is Rep. Goode afraid of losing? What resources could be swamped? The freedom of speech or religion? The freedom to elect representatives to our government? The desire to raise a family and do a good day’s work? How might an immigrant change that or any religious group? Should these “strict immigration policies” extend to Jews or Catholics or Lutherans? Should these “strict immigration policies” extend to non-Christian immigrants from France, England, Germany, Italy, Russia, or just those who come from those nations and are not Caucasian?

I have this to say, the world is not just one religion. It never has been. I doubt if it will ever be as long as humans walk the earth. Fear of the unknown is powerful and destructive. It benefits no one. In my opinion those who wrap themselves in such a cloak diminish what makes us human and American.

Legal immigration to this nation should not be based on religion or color. But this is the real world and color has always been a factor (I recall that the percentage of immigrants from European nations was roughly 70% of all immigrants) which is sad. Some wish that they can hide from the reality of the world. They feel like that American should be the all white nation that movies, television shows and their romanticized memories of the 50’s seem to depict. Thankfully this is not true.

Individuals of color and various religions have helped to create the nation we live in and the quality of life we enjoy. At least a third of this nation is non-Caucasian, and different religions are a reality. This is part of the strength of America. To limit that is to limit our greatness. To try to penalize citizens, or others in the world, for their personal freedoms is to descend to a nation more like Communist Russia (penalized Jews and Russian Orthodox Christians) or China or North Korea (filled with paranoia and still preparing to finish fighting a war that stopped 50 years ago) than to be what we are or hope to be.

This is not merely what I would call small-minded. This is stupid [I define ignorant as a lack of knowledge, stupid is the ability to have knowledge and the refusal to act on that ability] and dangerous. Perhaps people in Virginia think that Rep. Goode is a great elected official, perhaps he has done well for them. I don’t know as this is the first I’ve heard of the man, but the first impression he has made leaves me with a sour taste in my mouth. I can only hope more feel the same.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, born-again Christians, Dennis Prager, immigration policies, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Virgil Goode