Part 2 of reply on Rep. Virgil Goode's letter - 12.24.2006.2
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
posted by M. Vass @ Sunday, December 24, 2006
2 Comments
2 Comments:
First of all, Rep. Goode is no racist. In fact, the former Democrat was and is one of Douglas Wilder's biggest supporters (he nominated Governor Wilder during his first run).
Second, I believe it is very important that we have an honest public conversation about the compatibility of Islam, which does not afford the same status to non-Muslims as to Muslims (or women to men, for that matter) and American democracy. I have not yet found a convincing reconciliation between the distinctly hierarchical tenets of Islam, which are absolutely central to the religion, and a fundmanetally egalitarian document such as the US Constitution.
That's the problem which Rep. Goode seeks to address, however clumsily. I think his reservations about Muslim immigration are not due to any particular phobia, but rather to an uneasiness about the problem I describe above.
As such it would not be inconsistent with Islam for a Muslim leader to say:
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."
It was CAIR board chairman Omar Ahmad (although he denies it) quoted to reporter Lisa Gardiner, "American Muslim leader urges faithful to spread Islam's message," San Ramon Valley Herald, July 4, 1998. The reporter is adamant that this was said.
Another CAIR spokesman, the oft-seen Ibrahim Hooper, is again highly consistent with the central idea of Islamic superiority when he told the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
The racist or Islamophobe tag is an easy way to escape the critical debate about the incompatibilities between mainstream Islamic thought (and practice in countries where Islam is predominant) and the founding documents and principles of the United States.
That's all
Thank you for your comment and for reading the post.
I am unaware of Mr. Wilder or how he came to run for public office. It makes no difference to me what political affiliation that Rep. Goode maintains. In addition I do not see how running for a political office, or a political affiliation, affects whether or not they or anyone else may be racist. One fact has nothing to do with another.
If that were your only reason to defend Representative Goode versus my claim that he could be a racist it does not change my opinion. The letter and subsequent statements of Rep. Goode speak strongly, in my opinion, of someone that is reacting in fear and misunderstanding that is commonly found in racists. I hope that I am incorrect but it is the conclusion I have gathered from the man. He has made a first impression on me, as I knew nothing of his existence prior to his letter, and as I stated it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. If Rep. Virgil Goode wishes to respond to my comments directly, I hope that he would. Perhaps I have viewed his comments harshly, but until I have reason to believe otherwise I stand by my words.
As to your second point I agree that a public conversation is needed. Hopefully this post is only a small part of what will come in the future. Fear has blinded many to several facts. The facts are that Muslims have been around longer than America, that there have been Muslims in America long before the 1960’s, and that terrorism, as it is understood today, is a relatively old thing that started without Muslims. The term terrorism actually was created in 1795 in France by the revolutionaries there (though the modern connotation is considered to be derived after the Six day war of 1967) and was long used by the Irish against the British.
Fear has made many feel that a broad stereotyping of this one group is fair. I disagree, it is no better than the broad stereotypes used to describe Black Americans as sub-human, savage, ignorant, smaller-brained, and various other similar false statements. Any broad stereotype is incorrect; the Irish are not all drunks, the Jews are not all after money, the Polish are not all dumb, the British are not all prudes, and the French are all not rude and so forth.
Given that you make a point that the tenants of Islam may not be compatible with America. Then again they may. Too few Americans know enough about Islam to argue the point intelligently. My point is that before we start restricting people and religions we should know what we are doing. Acting in ignorance and fear will only result in long-term damage to the nation. And it provides the means for a slippery-slope to act in a similar manner against any other group that is unpopular. I see no reason why any other group could not face similar actions, like Jehovah Witnesses, or Asian Americans (again), or born again Christians, or Mormons, or any other group [especially if they are predominantly non-Caucasian, with little or no connection to Europe].
If that is what Rep. Goode wished to say then he should have. He has too many people on his staff to read and write any letter or press release. He had plenty of time to prepare for his first public interview on his comments. It could have been easy for him to clarify his thoughts if he felt otherwise, but he chose not to. Rather he chose to stand by his statements and to further espouse thoughts that I have and continue to feel are racist. His desire to remove the ability of non-European immigrants to enter this nation among his other statements leaves me little else to conclude.
In regard to your quotes, I have not found a copy of the first press release you quote. I did find another article that does include the original statement. Something that is important to note is that it is stated that “Gardiner, regarded as a reliable reporter, is now a legislative aide for California Democratic Assemblyman John Dutra. She said the statement in question is her paraphrase [the bold is done by me] but insisted it is accurate and will not retract the story.” This does not take away the quote or the question it raises but does raise a question of credibility. Your second quote does not have a date or title of the article and as such I will not consider it.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home