I Am So Mortified that Virgil Goode Is My Congressman

Ronald Bailey | December 20, 2006

Virgil Goode (R-Va.), the congressreprobate from the 5th district of Virginia, has sent a letter to selected constituents assuring them that he absolutely will have nothing to do with the Koran. To wit:

When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

The local C'ville Weekly reproduces the whole sorry piece of bigoted crap here .

For shame Mr. Goode! For shame!

Addition: By the way, Goode's attack on immigrants is something of a non-sequitur, since the first Muslim congressman, Keith Ellison, is a native born American who converted. I wonder when Goode will come out in favor of banning the preaching of Islam, too.

Disclosure: I voted for Goode's Democratic opponent in the most recent election. Boy, do I feel vindicated.

Hat tip to Pamela Friedman.

Comments

|12.20.06 @ 3:29PM|#

Ron wrote "Disclosure: I voted for Goode's Democratic opponent in the most recent election. Boy, do I feel vindicated. "

Your a fool Ron. There are other alternatives in that race, libertarian for one. Even if there isn't you have the choice of not voting.
It's people like you,(ACLU member too) that the libertarian party does not need.
Jerk.

|12.20.06 @ 3:36PM|#

Terry: No libertarian ran this year in the 5th. And I agree with you that the Libertarian Party doesn't need me. As for being a "jerk", opinions vary.

Mona|12.20.06 @ 3:39PM|#

Well Terry, this libertarian also voted straight Dem in the past mid-terms -- first time in my life. Not saying I will again, but unless and until the Bush/Frist/nutbar/authoritarian/neocon GOP comes to its senses, I see the GOP as the greater evil.

And oh, the ACLU does do a lot of good work. Not all of it, but much is very important and worthwhile.

|12.20.06 @ 3:40PM|#

Goode's statements read like one of those puerile chain letters that pollute the internet shrieking about having to press "1" for English and how the american way is eroding. I'll be shocked if it doesn't meme-worm its way into email circulation.

And it's not really called "Swearing In Day" in Virginia, is it?

|12.20.06 @ 3:40PM|#

A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran

Does anyone here believe that this actually happened? I would call Bullshit except it is so obviously bullshit that it is hardly worth it.

|12.20.06 @ 3:41PM|#

Did Virgil reckon that he was expected to swear on the Koran if he is not a Muslim? I assume he's not. If he's an observant Christian, he won't swear on the Bible, either, just affirm that he will fulfill his office to the best of his obviously limited abilities.

|12.20.06 @ 3:42PM|#

no attention need be paid terry; he only comes around to insult other commentors/writers.

and as you can see, he has an @aol.com email address. the mark of a true n00b.

|12.20.06 @ 3:42PM|#

Terry,

What sort of people do you think the Libertarian Party needs?

|12.20.06 @ 3:53PM|#

Terry must be one of those LP members that I'm told are "all around" if I just look.

|12.20.06 @ 3:53PM|#

Also, notice that he, Virgil Goode, referred to the "Virgil Goode position" in his own supposed e-mail.
ick.

|12.20.06 @ 3:53PM|#

Maybe the LIBERTARIAN PARTY needs people who CARE about STOPPING the mexicans who ARE going to CRAWL over the wall and draw over THE walls.

|12.20.06 @ 3:55PM|#

76,

You must have meant A-rabs.

|12.20.06 @ 3:56PM|#

As a worshipper of Eros, I would expect them to allow me to take my oath while naked.

|12.20.06 @ 3:57PM|#

76,

libertarian are party care stopping the crawl

I can almost make out the secret message

|12.20.06 @ 3:59PM|#

The "Virgil Goode position"?

I can't find that in my copy of the Kama Sutra.

Tym|12.20.06 @ 4:01PM|#

Why does he need to swear in using anything, or the book of his choosing, and on second thought, wouldn't it be good if the book he uses to swear in HE ACTUALY BELIEVES IN.

|12.20.06 @ 4:04PM|#

Is "Swearin'-In Day" where all the people we chose on "Votin' Day" move into their new offices?

|12.20.06 @ 4:20PM|#

Goode's statements read like one of those puerile chain letters that pollute the internet shrieking about having to press "1" for English and how the american way is eroding. I'll be shocked if it doesn't meme-worm its way into email circulation.

Is this a common meme for anti-immigration folks?

I know that when I had a debate with my inlaws about the "immigration problem" when I would ask them what their complaints about immigrants was it boiled down to resentment of the fact that "we are catering to foreigners" by having foreign language options available on automated phone systems, and resentment at the fact that they don't know english before coming here and don't bother taking english language courses while working long hours at minimum wage jobs.

Is the fact that there are foreign language options really that offensive to people?

They also seemed to believe that the government is "catering" to "them" -- but when pressed to describe how -- the only response I got was the "press 1 for spanish" example.

|12.20.06 @ 4:25PM|#

That wasn't really a slight against Terry btw, I just got a bit nostalgic.

lunchstealer|12.20.06 @ 4:32PM|#

Ron wrote "Disclosure: I voted for Goode's Democratic opponent in the most recent election. Boy, do I feel vindicated. "

Your a fool Ron. There are other alternatives in that race, libertarian for one. Even if there isn't you have the choice of not voting.
It's people like you,(ACLU member too) that the libertarian party does not need.
Jerk.

Note that when Terry mentioned the libertarian party not needing Bailey, he didn't capitalize it. Now, you might assume from his spelling, punctuation, grammar, and the general level of ummmm sanity of his post that this was the mistake of a dribbling moron, but you might be mistaken.

It's entirely possible that he wasn't meaning the Libertarian Party, and meant some other libertarian party, such as the GOP. I mean, these days the GOP is about as libertarian as a particularly authoritarian/statist toastrack, but nonetheless that may have been Terry's intention.

And when he says "Jerk," it's not a sentence fragment, but an imperitive sentence where the implied subject is 'you'. Therefore, he's not calling Ron a jerk, but suggesting to us all that we jerk, because perhaps that might seem like a good idea to him.

|12.20.06 @ 4:37PM|#

Immigration? Yes, we must stop those Muslim hordes from Mexico!

WTF??

A Sane Person|12.20.06 @ 4:43PM|#

Here is an idea, how about taking the oath of office on the U.S. CONSTITUTION! Would that be so crazy an idea?

|12.20.06 @ 4:46PM|#

I'm just reprinting my commetns from the Hertiage Foundation thread:

I truly wish we had a rapid expansion of Islam in this country, so that all the Judeo-Christian bullshit artists would have to come out of hiding about the supposed "value" of "religion" and really say what they mean--they want their generic brands of bullshit elevated, not "religion" generally.

|12.20.06 @ 4:47PM|#

"Here is an idea, how about taking the oath of office on the U.S. CONSTITUTION! Would that be so crazy an idea?"

Yes, it is an atheistic document, you heathen fool--no god(s) in it anywhere. Can't have that as a basis for anything now, can we?

|12.20.06 @ 4:52PM|#

A Sane Person,

That might be ok, if they actually believed that it actually is the law of the land, and not just a bunch of unimportant words put on a piece of parchment by some dead white guys a couple of hundred years ago.

lunchstealer|12.20.06 @ 4:54PM|#

A vaguely relevant item from said Constitution (Article VI, Paragraph 3)

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial 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.

|12.20.06 @ 4:59PM|#

"but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

That fucking Madison--almost as bad as Jefferson.

Terry (the truth comes out)|12.20.06 @ 5:15PM|#

Oh, Ron. My darling. My dearest. I love you, Ron. I've loved you forever. For the longest time now I've adored you from afar, hoping against hope that one day your eyes would open and you'd see me in the same light I see you.

But no! You don't! Callous bastard, leaning on whiny excuses like "I'm married" or "I'm a heterosexual" to explain why you continue to ignore me. Jerk. Fuckhead. Jackass.

Fine. If you won't love me then I'll make you hate me. Why do you think I keep insulting you on thread after thread? If I can't enflame you with one kind of passion I'll enflame you with another. Sure you spoke to me this time, but it's too little, too late. You WILL notice me, damn you to hell!

One day we'll meet in person. And our eyes will lock, and you'll know who I am, and become enraged by the way I've harassed you. As fury possesses you you'll reach out and crush me within your strong arms, and say "If you think I'm a fool regarding politics, that's nothing compared to what a fool I am for love." Then you'll throw me down on the bed and expend your long pent-up fury by . . . well, I don't want to spoil the surprise here.

I'm waiting, my love.

I mean, fuck you, you hypocritical piece of shit.

I love you.

No I don't.

I hate you.

No I couldn't.

FUCK YOU! No, better yet, fuck me.

|12.20.06 @ 5:20PM|#

I would have no problem believing that was really Terry if it weren't for the good grammar and spelling.

creech|12.20.06 @ 5:51PM|#

Goode's constituents sound like they'd fall for the old "My opponent doesn't deny he matriculated at State Univ., worked for his father where they practiced nepotism, and whose wife brags she was a well-known thespian
in New York."

|12.20.06 @ 6:45PM|#

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

|12.20.06 @ 7:34PM|#

Since the oath is to uphold the constitution, getting a copy of it and sticking your hand on it seems a bit like overkill. But maybe it would be nice to require all Congressman to, perhaps, read it at some point? Goode seems to have missed this step in his ascension to power.

|12.20.06 @ 7:47PM|#

Did Ellison really ask to be sworn in on the Koran, or is that an out-and-out lie? Because since the whole thing blew up there have been various people pointing out that the House swearing-in doesn't involve a Bible of any kind (although some lawmakers like to bring theirs, it's optional). So Ellison wouldn't actually have to ask to be sworn in on the Koran, he could just bring it along and hold it during the ceremony.

I'm referring to this part of the Goode epistle, which I found on CNN:

"A Virginia congressman will not apologize for writing that without immigration reform "there will be many more Muslims elected to office demanding the use of the Quran," his spokesman said.

Spokesman Linwood Duncan said Goode's letter was written in response to complaints his office received about Minnesota Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's request to be sworn in using the Quran."

Also, doesn't "Virgil Goode" sound like the name of some character in a Sinclair Lewis novel that eventually becomes synonymous with any politician who uses religious intolerance in a shamelessly cynical way?

brian423|12.20.06 @ 8:55PM|#

Ronald Bailey, the fourth Dixie Chick.

|12.20.06 @ 11:08PM|#

If this shitkicker thinks swearing on a Koran is bad, I can only imagine his reaction if an open atheist gets into office and refuse to swear to any deity on any holy book.

That will be a day long remembered... but unlikely to happen.

biologist|12.20.06 @ 11:39PM|#

The best thing about (some) Christians getting the holy underpants wadded about individuals not swearing on the Bible, is simply that taking an oath on the Bible violates one of Jesus' directives (or maybe it was just a recommendation) to not SWEAR by anything, simply to state that you would do something, then to do it.

ElGaboGringo|12.20.06 @ 11:56PM|#

The Jews did it.

|12.21.06 @ 6:50AM|#

one of the few times (very few) i'm actually glad virgil goode was my congressman...

|12.21.06 @ 2:46PM|#

Thank God Allmighty for Virgil Goode! It's about time a politician have the balls to condem the World's Greatest religion from the Very Deepest Pit of Hell! Islam demonstrates its self and its followers as Satan himself, the fallen angel and Author of Evil, by the Suicide\Homicide bombers, always lying, always deceiving, murder loving, lovers of Hell and Haters of God The Lord Jesus Christ, Father, and the Holy Spirit and Haters of God's chosen people, the Jews, and the nation of Israel. The bible proves it's self by the very nature of Islam. Praise the Lord Satan's time is short and he knows it!

|12.21.06 @ 3:49PM|#

Look, if I take one of your mimeographed pamphlets, will you just let me get to my office?

|12.21.06 @ 11:24PM|#

Rep. Goode publicly expressed what million of Americans are thinking privately. The notion that Islam is a "religion of peace" can be parroted by only the uninformed. Yes, there are peaceful Muslims, millions of them, but there were also many benign communists. Should that have changed our opinion of the ideology?

Rep. Goode did what Rep. Tancredi did for the Mexican border issue. They both put on the table the very issue that most politicos found convenient to ignore and now the Genie is out of the bottle. It was long overdue.

|12.21.06 @ 11:35PM|#

If 'moderate' is only used as a means to deflect valid criticism, than its time that some real action and goodwill be shown by moderates by making themselves available to protest in mass against alkaida and the extremists. There is plenty of extremism by Muslims in Saudi Arabia..England, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Sweden... etc. Let's not hush hush when it comes to those issues. If being American does not entail an urge to bring freedom to those who are not... than perhaps the so called cynics are not so far off the mark.

Just note the following story below -


The Evening Standard profiles a group of British Muslims from the notorious Al-Muhajiroun, who admire Osama and talk openly about bombing London and the glories of violent jihad - all the while collecting British welfare money. Note that Sayful Islam explains his turn to radicalism by saying, ""I made a decision that I wanted to follow what Islam really said." (Thanks to LGF.)

Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men. Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.

"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."

"Pass the brown sauce, brother," says Abu Malaahim, the IT specialist, devouring his chicken and chips.

"I agree with you, brother," says Abu Yusuf, the earnest-looking financial adviser sitting opposite. "I would like to see the Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they can stay in mine - and if they need some fertiliser [for a bomb], I'll tell them where to get it."

His friend, Abu Musa, the security guard, smiles radiantly. "It will be a day of joy for me," he adds, speaking with a slight lisp.

As they talk, a man with a bushy beard, dressed in a jacket emblazoned with the word "Jihad", stands and watches over them, handing around cups of steaming hot coffee. His real name is Ishtiaq Alamgir, but he goes by his adopted name, Sayful Islam, meaning "Sword of Islam". He is the 24-year-old leader of the Luton branch of al-Muhajiroun, an extremist Muslim group with about 800 members countrywide, who regard Osama bin Laden as their hero.

Until recently, nobody took the fanatical beliefs of al-Muhajiroun too seriously, believing that a British-based group so brazenly "out there" could not be involved in something as "underground" as terrorism. The group is led by the exiled Saudi, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad, from his base in north London. Yesterday, in a magazine article, Bakri warned that several radical groups are poised to strike in London.

For all its inflammatory rhetoric, al-Muhajiroun has never been linked to actual violence. Yet, with the discovery last month of half-a-tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser - the same explosive ingredient used in the Bali and Turkey terror attacks - and with the arrest of eight young British Muslims in London and the South-East, including six in Luton, extremist groups such as al-Muhajiroun are under the spotlight like never before.

Detectives fear that the "enemy within", the homegrown extremists leading apparently normal lives in suburbia, now pose the greatest threat to security in Britain. Sayful and his friends fit this "homegrown" profile: three were born here, two came as young children from Pakistan; all were educated in local Luton schools; and they grew up in families of full employment - one of their fathers is a retired local businessman, two are engineers, and two worked in the local Vauxhall car plant.

The question is: how worried should we be? Is al-Muhajiroun nothing more than a repository for disaffected Muslim youths who have adopted an extreme interpretation of Islam - perhaps to cock a snook at the white establishment - but who are essentially posturing? Or does the group also perform a more sinister function, sucking in alienated young men and brainwashing the more impressionable into becoming future suicide bombers?

Although none of the arrested Muslims - aged 17 to 32 - appear to be current al-Muhajiroun members, rumours have circulated of informal links to the group. Moreover, parents of the arrested men have spoken anxiously of the "radicalising influence" of al-Muhajiroun militants who " corrupt" their children at mosques.

Nowhere has this public confrontation between radicals and moderates been more apparent than in Luton, which has the highest density of Muslims in the South-East - 28,000 out of a total population of 140,000 - and has long been regarded as a hotbed of extremism.

Sayful Islam, for one, is particularly proud of his contribution to Luton's hardline reputation. His exploits include covering the town with " Magnificent 19" posters glorifying the 11 September suicide bombers. "When I joined al-Muhajiroun four years ago, there were five local members," he says. "Now there are more than 50 and hundreds more support us."

The strange thing is that four years ago, Sayful Islam was a jeans-clad student completing his degree in business economics at Middlesex University in Hendon, north London.

The son of a British Rail engineer who came to this country from Pakistan, Sayful grew up in a moderate, middle-class Muslim family in Luton. At the local Denbigh High School, he is remembered as one of the smartest kids, and was selected to attend a science masterclass at Cambridge University. He would go on to marry, have two children and find work as an accountant for the Inland Revenue in Luton. He was thoroughly uninterested in politics.

THEN he met Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad at a local event. Within two years, he had swapped his decently paid job as an accountant for an unpaid one as a political agitator. What turned him into an extremist? And how far is he prepared to go to achieve his aims?

Prior to seeing the group at the fastfood restaurant, Sayful meets me at his semi-detached rented home in Bury Park, Luton's Muslim neighbourhood. He no longer works, even though he is able-bodied, he admits, preferring instead to claim housing benefit and jobseeker's allowance. He smiles sheepishly and says the irony is not lost on him that the British state is supporting him financially, even as he plots to "overthrow it".

"I made a decision that I wanted to follow what Islam really said," Sayful begins, sitting on his sofa in his thowb (a traditional robe) and bare feet. "I went to listen to all the local imams, but I found their portrayal of Islam was too secularised. When I heard Sheikh Omar [the leader] of al-Muhajiroun speak, it was pure Islam, with no compromise. I found that appealing.

"At the same time," continues Sayful, "wars were happening in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan. People were being oppressed simply because they were Muslim. Although I had never experienced racism in the UK, it opened the eyes of a lot of Muslims, including mine."

But it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful's worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to al-Muhajiroun." Now he does not consider himself British. "I am a Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah."



According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants") is nothing less than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I support him 100 per cent."

Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?

"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to attack their invaders.

"Britain became a legitimate target when it sent troops to Iraq. But it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a covenant of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live here in peace."

HE USES the phrase "covenant of security" constantly. He attempts to explain. "If we want to engage in terrorism, we would have to leave the country," he says. "It is against Islam to do otherwise." Such a course of action, he says, he is not prepared to undertake. This is why, Sayful claims, it is consistent, and not cowardly, for him to espouse the rhetoric of terrorism, the "martyrdom-operations", while simultaneouslylimiting himself to nonviolentactions such as leafletting outside Luton town hall.

He denies any link between al-Muhajiroun and the Muslims arrested in the recent police raids. But, as I later discover at the fastfood restaurant, not everyone attaching themselves, however loosely, to al-Muhajiroun draws the same line. Two members of the group - Abu Yusuf, the financial adviser, and Abu Musa, the security guard - scorn al-Muhajiroun as "too moderate".

"I am freelance," says Abu Yusuf, fixing me with his piercing brown eyes. What does that mean? I ask.

"The difference between us and those two," interjects Abu Malaahim, pointing to Musa and Yusuf, "is that us lot do a verbal thing, [but] those brothers actually want to do a physical thing."

Referring to the latest truce offered by Bin Laden, and Britain's scathing rejection of it, Abu Malaahim adds: "He tried to make a peace deal. When terrorism happens, you will only have yourselves to blame."

How far are you prepared to go? I ask.

"You want to know how far I will go," says Abu Musa, his high-pitched lisp rising an octave. "When Allah said in the Koran 'kill and be killed', that's what I want. I want a martyr operation, where I kill my enemy."

Are you saying, I probe, that you are looking to kill people yourself ? "Yes," Abu Musa says, "to kill and to be killed." He emphasises each word.

What's stopped you doing it? "As you know from watching the news," intones Abu Yusuf, "there are brothers who do leave the country and do it." He is referring to the four Muslims from Luton who died fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the two British Muslims, said to have had ties to al-Muhajiroun, who last April left to become suicide bombers in Israel. "In-shallah [ Godwilling], there will be a time to go."

It is hard to know whether Musa and Yusuf are deadly serious or just pumped full of misguided, youthful bravado. Though I see coldness - even ruthlessness - in their eyes, I sense no malice. Both young men agree, perhaps foolishly, to be quoted using their real names, though they decline photographs - thus illustrating their uncertainty of which way to jump.

Muhammad Sulaiman, president of the Islamic Cultural Society, the largest of the 14 mosques in Luton, dismisses al-Muhajiroun as "verbal diarrhoea".

"They are an extreme Right-wing group - the Muslim version of the BNP," he says disdainfully. "They think Muslims should dominate, just like the BNP thinks whites should dominate. They use Islam as a vehicle to promote their distorted beliefs, particularly to unemployed young bloods who are vulnerable."

ALTHOUGH unemployment in Luton is just six per cent, the rate among Muslim youths is estimated at 25 per cent. "They are no more representative of our Muslim community than the BNP are of the white community."

Sulaiman insists that Sayful Islam and his crew are not welcome at the mosque. He cannot prevent them praying there, but he will never give them a platform. "I've told Sayful to bugger off and ejected him many times," he says brusquely. "Even Sayful's father, who I know well, thinks his son has been brainwashed."

But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa, "behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."

They also mock the idea that they are attracted to al-Muhajiroun because they have suffered alienation from white society. "Do we look like scum?" they ask. "Do we look illiterate?"

As they call for the bill, Abu Malaahim flicks open his 3G mobile phone and, with a satisfied grin, displays the image, downloaded from the internet, of an American Humvee burning in Iraq.

Abu Yusuf says: "That's nothing. I downloaded the picture of the four burnt Americans hanging from the bridge." It's oneupmanship, al-Muhajiroun style.

Sayful, the only married one in the group, prepares to go home to his wife and children. Before he departs, he says he has a message to deliver.

"I want to warn that the police raids - if repeated - could create a bad situation.

"Islam is not like Christianity, where they turn the other cheek. If they raid our homes, it could lead to the covenant of security being broken.

"Islam allows us to retaliate. That would include" - he tugs his "Jihad" coat tight against the night air - "by violent means."

I have yet to see moderate muslims protest against Alkaida, or march for the rights of those non-muslims in muslim countries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, Mr. Ellison is in an excellent position to be a positive public muslim influence that will initiate and encourage moderate muslim marches against the crisis in Darfur, and all over the world where islamic intolerance is the law of many lands.

|12.22.06 @ 12:27AM|#

Several questions...

1) Did anyone actually ask Goode to swear on the Quran? If not, why did he feel compelled to say he would never do it?

2) Does Goode really feel European (i.e. "white") immigrants are good and other immigrants (i.e. "minority") are bad, as his words seem to indicate. If not, how else are we to interpret them?

3) Does Goode understand that Ellison is American, born and raised?

4) I wonder if Goode realizes that the single biggest act of domestic terrorism, aside from 9/11, was committed by a white, non-muslim American?

5) Does Goode realize that these self-defined "American values" he claims to cherish so much, are not the values this country was founded on?

6) You think Goode has been following the Trump/O'Donnell feud and figured it would help his ratings to start one of his own?

revco|12.22.06 @ 9:29AM|#

Hard to believe GOODE graduated Phi Beta Kapa and has a JD degree. Doesn't he realize there are troops from Virginia fighting his kind of extremism with a different label, over there in Anbar Province. Anyway, the Goode news is he'll never make it to presidential politics with verbiage like that. You would've thought he'd learned something from his x-Senatorial colleague from VA.

|12.22.06 @ 7:56PM|#

i wish that americans would kick out every single muslim from the usa and completely ban muslims from entering usa. ofcourse, other than bush's friends from saudi arabia and other oil rich muslims that he needs. if they would do that and canada would do that, i would simply pack my bags and go back home. if americans hate koran and islam so much, simply kick each and every single one of them out of the western world and send them packing back home. somewhat an impossible thing to do, but america can do anything. make life easy for everyone

Dustin|12.22.06 @ 8:18PM|#

This is a letter that I wrote to the congressman, I think some of you should read it also.

I read about a letter that you sent to your fellow representative, Keith Ellison. I agree that no one should swear into public office and place his or her hand upon the Q'uran. However, our reasons are polar opposites. I do not think anyone should place his or her hand upon a bible, torah or any other religious symbol. While your view is based on fear and bigotry, mine is based upon our founding fathers and their views about the government of the United States.

I do not know how you could become a lawyer without knowing the history of your own country. The United States was founded as a secular democracy, to insure freedom of religion. The founding fathers went to great lengths to make sure that no mention of God went into the constitution. That is why it states "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." You will notice that there is no mention of God in the preamble. The constitution also states: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Your basis for chastising your fellow citizen based upon his religion is at best irresponsible. Next, you will be criticizing him based upon his skin color. Bigotry based upon religion is still bigotry. You are a disgrace to the office that you have been elected into.

Peter|12.24.06 @ 9:09PM|#

Virgil's comments makes me sick. Everyone needs to remember, he is our "leader" and the people can hold him accountable to his "leadership". To his credit unlike Allen, at least he held his racist comments until after the election.