Once again, conservative Republicans have the courage to tell us what they really believe. Encouraged by our campaign for cons to speak truth to power, Rep. Virgil Goode says straight up how much he hates:
In a letter sent out to select supporters earlier this month reacting to the controversy (among certain extreme conservatives, at least) over Muslim representative-elect Keith Ellison’s (D-MN) decision to be sworn in on the Koran, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) warned that the U.S. must close its borders to guard against the influx of still more Muslims. In it, he also proudly recounts his retort to a Muslim student who asked him why he did not include the Koran with The Ten Commandments on his wall. "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office," he says he told the student.
Goode was a Democrat until the mid 90s or so.
–|PW|–
Pennywit…
Goode’s past political affiliations have sod all to do with his current and oh so apparent espoused views.
Get a grip
Yeah, the Republicans grab up all the good ones. Will you take Zell Miller, already?
Very silly.
Where is the hate? Where is the bigotry? For not wanting to put up the Koran? Is he a bigot if he doesn’t put up any and all religious texts?
Oh, the hatred! The bigotry! The fear!
The silliness of thinking there is something objectionable here…
Er…whatever you say, Frank.
Frank, Dugger, suppose there were a majority muslim district somewhere in the country, and that the muslim representative of that district said As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the Xth District of MyState in the United States House of Representatives, The Ten Commandments not going to be on the wall of my office. Are you honestly saying that you would find nothing objectionable in that?
In a vain quest for intelligent discourse from our rightward breathren.
… The Ten Commandments not going to be on the wall of my office.
Wilbur: Hasn’t the Supreme Court already said that?
You raise an interesting point. Why is it important that Muslims not be offended, but not so with Christians?
The hate? Maybe when he said that he FEARS that more Muslims will come to this country. If he said that about blacks/Jews/Catholics/anybody else, there’d be a shit storm. But I forgot, prejudice against Muslims isn’t objectionable, is it?
Frank, I don’t believe the SC has said doodly about having the 10 commandments on the wall of a congressman’s office. Hell, a congressman can even have a noose on his office wall! So put down that straw man and back away slowly.
As for not offending Christians, if a Muslim reprentative said something like that to one of his Christian constituents, particularly a student of any age, I for one would take him to be a bigtime asshole not worthy of my support.
Are you willing to say the same for Virgil Goode?
Wilbur,
To answer your question: I could care less. If its illegal, I might disagree with it, but so what. It would represent, presumably, the majority view (religious ) of his district. I don’t particularly agree with Goode, but I reject the hate/bigotry BS and the smear of Republicans.
Funny again how the left whines about association of their end of the entire political spectrum with the likes of Ward Churchill or Cynthia McKinney, but says naught when OW does this – which he does regularly.
He FEARS that Muslims might get into America. FEARS the possibility of Muslims existing near him.
How is that not bigotry?
N G : Bigotry is “fear”?
fear (fîr) pronunciation
n.
1. A feeling of agitation and anxiety caused by the presence or imminence of danger.
2. A state or condition marked by this feeling: living in fear.
2. A feeling of disquiet or apprehension: a fear of looking foolish.
3. Extreme reverence or awe, as toward a supreme power.
4. A reason for dread or apprehension: Being alone is my greatest fear.
big·ot (bĭg’ət) pronunciation
n.
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
By your (incorrect, IMHO) analogy, fear that America is in danger of becoming a Christian theocracy is bigotry, right?
God damn you can nitpick.
Either that or you’re unusually stupid.
You’re the one who made the “stupid” (your choice of words) statement, not me.
I’m merely echoing the sentiment of Dugger, and many others elsewhere, that saying something bad about someone, or a group of someones, doesn’t make you bigot.
If there is someone to be afraid of, it is people who kill their female family members because they are rape victims; people who set fire to cars owned by Christians; people who have killed Christians for practicing their religion; people who have rioted because a Miss World contest was held in their country, and people who rioted, burned, and murdered over cartoons.
Before I criticized Mr. Goode, I would ask, “Where are the outraged Muslims?”
By the way, where are the outraged liberals?
Frank, I do not want Christian fundamentalists in power, but I sure as hell have no problem with them living next door. There’s a difference. If they live their own lives and don’t try to run mine, they can do whatever the hell they want. Same story with Muslims — I can tell you from experience that they’re pretty good neighbors. Their kids are well behaved, they don’t inflict damage on the neighborhood, they don’t make a ton of noise. So they face Mecca and pray thrice daily and believe that Mohammed moved a mountain. Who the hell cares?
America becoming a Christian theocracy would mean these folks would run my life. Same story with a Muslim theocracy, but the chances of that happening here are worse than Oliver’s chances with Jessica Alba. (Sorry, man.)
I’ll agree with Dugger on one area — who the hell cares what Rep. Goode puts on his wall?
D L: I don’t want theocrats of any stripe in power, but I certainly don’t want people in power that turn a blind eye to what we consider to be unlawful or violent behavior.
Imagine if a Congressional candidate were a former member of a right wing militia. He refuses to denounce the militia’s self – proclaimed right to engage in violent acts as they see fit to advance their goals.
Should he be a Congressman?
I say no.
What do you say?
Frank, what a stupid analogy. Being Muslim doesn’t make you anything like a “former member of a right wing militia.” It is a religion to which some very decent people and some maniacs ascribe – something I can say similarly about Christianity.
Is your argument so lame here that you can’t stay on topic? I say yes.
Imagine if a Congressional candidate were a former member of a right wing militia. He refuses to denounce the militia’s self – proclaimed right to engage in violent acts as they see fit to advance their goals.
Really now, who could possibly imagine such a thing?
Imagine, hell. I can point to one.
The name David Duke ring any bells? As in, former congressman from LA? As in, occasional poster at Stormfront.org (a neo-nazi group)? The former Grand Wizard of the KKK? You remember the KKK, right? Racist, far-right domestic terrorists?
If you want to get partisan, I’d remind you that Duke was originally a Democrat of the nearly-extinct old-South dixiecrat variety. (Other than Zell Miller, can anyone point to any on the national scene who haven’t long ago switched to the GOP?) His political ambitions didn’t really go anywhere until he switched to the GOP in ‘88. He then won a seat in the US Congress (one term only) as a Republican and has been a Republican ever since. Not that the party wants anything to do with him, but I’d like to hear more Republicans loudly denounce him and his kind before they go demanding we do so for McKinney, et al.
I’ll give Duke this, though: he certainly has no problems with Muslims. His anti-semitism has made him pretty popular in places like Iran and Syria where he has spoken at Holocaust-denial conferences and claimed that Nazi Germany was “very moderate” compared to modern Israel. But then, the original Nazis were all the rage in the Arab world for the same reason, anti-semitism.
Correction: he has no problem with Arabs as long as they’re not here. He remains president of the European-American Unity and Rights Organization, a group dedicated to halting all non-white immigration. He’d probably get along with Mr. Goode just fine since they seem to share that particular view.
To be fair, Duke has taken an anti-war stance. He agrees with the sane world that it is only creating more terrorism. Of course, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Goes to show how stupid the war is if even an idiot like Duke can see it.
Oh, by the way, I’ve never heard Duke denounce the violence of the KKK or Stormfront or White Power anywhere. Maybe he has, but really quietly since they are his biggest fans.
Like I said, it’s not necessary to imagine such a thing as you describe. I’ve been reading about this particular asshat for over 20 years.
Frank: I say “no” too. But just being a Muslim does not implicate you in membership in extremist militant groups. If a former member of al Qaeda were running for congress in my district, damn right he’d have to renounce it, and do a damn sight more to distance himself from his former life, before I’d even come within a mile of supporting him for office.
But back to the topic: Actually, Goode’s own words match up pretty exactly with the definition Frank supplied for “bigot”:
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Let’s look at what Goode said:
“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”
Notice that his fear is not confined muslim terrorists, but of muslims as a group. They represent a threat to “traditional beliefs” i.e. his own beliefs. We must therefore not tolerate their entry into the U.S.
Strongly partial to his own religion? check
Intolerant of those who differ? check
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,”
Here again he’s not expressing fear that muslim terrorists or criminals might slip through a lax immigration system, he’s afraid that more muslims might be elected by their fellow citizens in the democratic process. He doesn’t object to their policies or their misdeeds, he objects to their religion.
Strongly partial to his own religion? check
intolerant of those who differ?
check
Then there’s the 10-commandments incident: the issue is not whether Goode can put on his wall whatever he wants. He can. The issue is that he crows in this letter about being a bigtime asshole to a young constituent.
He could have responded to the young person respectfully, saying that since space on his office wall was limited, he preferred to put there something that had personal meaning to himself and to the majority of his consitutents.
Instead, he makes clear in no uncertain terms to the young person that his/her religion was not welcome on his wall, in his office, in this country and never would be.
And he’s proud of it.
Strongly partial to his own? check
Intolerant of those who differ?
check
Bigot? check
Frank and Dugger: soft on bigotry.
Very good argument, Wilbur. Perhaps the fear of our enemies can blur the line between patriotism and jingoism — a “softer” form of bigotry.
As for being “soft on bigotry,” when there is something for me to do or say about it, I have, and I will.
Graciously put, Frank.
Okay, I know this is somewhat trite but in the words of Yoda, which are as true in reality as in fiction:
“Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”
Now I know it’s a movie quote. I know it’s from a fictional puppet created by Lucas and Frank Oz. That makes it no less accurate when applied to the real world.
The idea that this guy “fears” Islam and “fears” Muslims demonstrates a purposeful ignorance of the religion and an “up yours” attitude to the millions of its peaceful practitioners worldwide, not just in his country or (feel bad for them) his constituancy. Islam is nothing to be feared. Extremists are to be feared, and Islam certainly doesn’t have a monopoly on them, does it?
Do I care what the guy has on his office wall? No. It’s a personal preference – it’s his office. As long as he isn’t decorating my office I won’t decorate his.
Do I care that he’s flaunting the idea that it’s okay to irrationally “fear” a religious populous who are for the most part peaceful, good citizens? You bet. Right there is proof that not only are the terrorists winning, but that certain members of our government, like this turkey, are aiding and abetting them by playing to the “fear” and spreading it in the news, their goofy fundraising letters, etc. It’s insulting and insipid – not only to the Muslims but to every rational religious person of other faiths as well, and it’s exactly what Osama and his ilk have been after – escalate the fear to outright hatred to make the US the bad guy. The US will then invade and start wars, causing the suffering of both its own people abroad and millions of residents of the Middle East, the majority of which are indeed Muslim. These oppressed people will rise up against it, making Osama’s job that much easier. This is not brain surgery, nor is it without precedent.
Anyway, I’ll take the advice of a puppet over this nunce any day of the week.
Wilbur, and Frank,
Well, confession. I actually did not realize the definiton of bigotry was, in addition to hate, ‘intolerance.’ So from that standpoint, Goode could be considered a bigot.
But I have qualms. We all pretty much are intolerant about something or somebody, from the trivial to the not so trivial. I might technically then be intolerant of progressives, OW of conservatives or Republicans. But what does that mean – if neither of us act on it illegally? Maybe some of its true – in general. We all make choices and have ‘people’ likes and dislikes. That shouldn’t be illegal or even objectionable – unless we act negatively upon it. Its kind of like we are verging over into ‘thought crimes’.
And isn’t it equally ‘bigoted’ to impute to Republicans (’GOP bigot eruption’) the thoughts and actions of Goode?
LM, Does it occur to you in a post decrying fear, ignorance and bigotry, you accuse the government (certain individuals therein) of aiding and abetting terrorists?
And my Christmas moratorium prevents me from copmmenting on your accusation of the suffering we are casuing in the Mideast.
The one thing to realize about Goode is this: Just because someone shows every major characteristic of being a Nazi is no reason to call him a nazi.
Virgil Goode – Nazi?
Am I saying this: That Virgil Goode is a Nazi? No, I am not. I’m just saying that some people are saying Virgil Goode is a Nazi. Or, at least, Nazi-esque. That’s it.
–WKW
Dugger, I am perfectly well aware of my own words, and I stand by them.
Promoting the idea that we should be afraid, thereby living in TERROR of all Muslims because there are TERRORIST Muslims in the world is ludicrous, backward, and exactly what Osama and his buddies want. It is promoting them dually, in fact, because it – 1. makes people afraid of anyone Islamic and therefore spreads hostility to normal, peaceful Muslims, and 2. makes those normal, peaceful Muslims hate the crackpots who are afraid of them when they weren’t the ones flying the damned planes, were they? Are you going to tell me of the over three thousand dead in that catastrophe that not one of them was a peaceful Muslim just working in the towers or on one of those planes – that amongst our innocent dead every one of them was of Judeo-Christian faith? That’s just unreasonable and you damned well know it – just as unreasonable as fearing a group of people for the atrocities committed by the few. Sen. Goode might as well be a cheerleader for terrorism, because they’ve certainly beaten him and now he’s trying to sell his phobia to others.
I’m not buying. If this guy wanted to fundraise he should have said “Hey let’s get that rat-bastard Osama and fry his ass.” Now there’s a cause I’d give him every red cent for.
By the way – I have several peaceful Islamic friends and only one of them is actually from the Middle East. He’s a Saud. The rest are – this will scare you and the Senator I’m sure – born and bred white everyday joe average hard working Americans who converted prior to 9/11 and are now scared that state senators can get away with being so obviously anti-freedom of religion. Wow that kind of sounds like they’re terrified …
So, LM, are you saying that the problem is that your Muslim friends might be afraid?
Why should they be afraid?
Yes, it’s a trick question…
Am I saying they are afraid of the Senator? No.
Am I saying they are afraid of this ridiculous phobia that he is propogating and what it could lead to if left unchecked? Yes. And they probably should be. And so am I.
Why? Am I Muslim? No. But I am a citizen of a country whose tenets include freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and separation of church and state, and any time a public official promotes the idea that one religion is somehow more harmful than another, or should be shunned in favor of another, I get queesy. Really.
Every generation we’ve had to have someone to fear/hate. Today it’s Muslims because some are terrorists. Used to be Soviets because some were spies and KGB guys. With Kennedy it was Catholics – I’ll never get that one. At one point it was anyone whose heritage was Japanese – because they all have to be spies after Pearl Harbor, right? Let’s not forget those Germans (’cause everyone of those is a Nazi right)? Way back in the day it was the Irish – just because, it seems. Before that it was anyone black because they were lesser than everyone else and should be happy to be slaves. Before that it was the native Americans – well, we need your land so die, will you?
Do you not see a pattern here (and not just in the US – it’s everywhere in the world where you can cite these examples), or do you just refuse to recognize it? Ignorant people breed fear and hatred of things they do not understand. Come to think of it that’s the only thing I can say for the Senator – the terrorists do it on purpose. He just does it out of sheer ignorance.
I’m not apologizing for any of the nastiness of our history and neither should you – I didn’t do it therefore I shouldn’t have to. I do take from it that there is no reason to repeat those types of mistakes, which is what will happen if this guy actually gets a foothold with this tripe.
LM.
I’ve got my own ideas about casualties and cost but I won’t go there. Its Holidaymas.
I notice you backed off the “aiding and abetting.” Good. Admitting the msitake is step one to reform.
And -PSSST- Goode ain’t a senator.
Dugger.
I know he isn’t a Senator. Slip of the typing. Something tells me that given his current stance and his AIDING AND ABETTING he will be. The GOP loves a good Christian crackpot.
And I’m not backing off my stance. Promoting this stuff is aiding and abetting the terrorist cause whether you want to admit it or not. He who spreads the stupidity is just as guilty as he who started it.
LM
I make no typing crticisms. NONE. NEVER. Merry Christmas.
Goode is really a Dixiecrat, like Trent and Zell (a Goode old boy?) and what is lost here is his attempt to meld two major themes of the past 5 years, immigration and terrorism (muslims). However, we are in little danger of being overwhelmed by Mexican Muslims and the representative Rep Goode refers to is an African American who can trace his family in America back to the 1700s. This makes Goode look silly at best because the take of the average African who was being immigrated to the New World (the chain thing) would have probably been just as happy to stay where he was.
So if we follow Rep Goode’s logic, as long as we do not reinstitute slavery, we should not have to worry about Muslims overrunning the country.
To those who were offended by Rep. Goode’s remarks, I apologize.*
* Also known as the “Kerry Apology”
Except that Goode actually has something to apologise for.
You know, just about any site you go on where there are “right and left wing” views, there are arguments bounced back and forth like a ping-pong ball followed by justifications. Why is anyone even bothering to reason with these Neo-Cons? You won’t change their views anymore than you could any other cult’s belief system. They simply need to believe they are on the right side of history even as they go down with the ship. Try to explain things to them and its like talking to a cranky two year old.
These people hate you and hate your views, if they could, they would likely banish you or kill you outright, don’t you see that? If Democrats really stand for Progress, they would work on cleaning out their own house, in chasing out the traitors, the Zell Millers, the Joe Liebermans, the Ed Kochs and all the nameless “Conservative Democrats” and other Neo-Con collaborators.
Let these knuckle draggers call you names, let them spew their hallmark idiocy; it shows them for what they are and it makes your work easier. These people are nothing new, they sprout up like weeds every other decade or so, it’s the fault of the Democrats for letting them do so.
Organize, don’t agonize! Get off your duff and organize small circles of Democrats, Liberals, Greens, whatever the hell you want to call yourself, and help out your local community (lead by example – this is what I am doing in my own neighborhood). Make friends, have informal meetings and discuss “political watch dog” groups for your own communities, know your enemy and know how active they are. If your closest political rep. is a Dem., consider volunteering a day a month to help out around the office; help organize, unless of course you enjoy this toxic exchange that leads nowhere.