Goode could have said “Irish” in a similar letter in 1850 and got away with it. He could have said “Chinese” in 1900 and got away with it. He could have said “Jews” in 1920 and got away with it.

In 2006 he can probably get away with “Moslem” in the same context. So the thought exercise really doesn’t apply, I’m afraid.

Posted by David Sewell on 20 December 02006 @ 4pm

Awesome.

Posted by Bill on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

Might hold water… if extremist Jews were putting planes into buildings, sought to impose a strict code of religious law, strapped bombs to their chests and blew up pizzerias, believed martyrdom and slaying infidels was a holy and pious act.

Etcetera.

If he had written the letter in a similar tone going after Nazis or Communists, no one would complain (and most would applaud such a letter). If a Nazi wanted to swear allegiance to the Constitution on a copy of Mein Kampf, I would be decidedly upset — because that is an ideology that seeks to usurp our system, not participate.

If he had cited the Wahabbist sect of Islam (which granted, he did not) I doubt there would be much controversy. The only fault this letter can be granted is that it paints with too wide a brush.

A mistake? Yes. Xenophobic? That’s a stretch.

Posted by Shaun on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

Shaun, connecting a U.S. Congressman to terrorism and immigration on the basis of his religion is, to put it bluntly, staggeringly stupid. I don’t know why you’d defend such a thing. Do you truly believe that Rep. Ellison supports “putting planes into buildings” or has “sought to impose a strict code of religious law”? Do you believe that he thinks “martyrdom and slaying infidels was a holy and pious act”?

Of course you don’t believe that. That’d be crazy. Which is why I don’t understand why you’d make that correlation.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

Not to mention the fact that Goode didn’t write about nazis, communists or terrorists.

Posted by Dan Kachur on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

Heheh…I’d say, “Silly Goode, you are confused — the ten commandments are from the Torah!”

Posted by Jon on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

To argue the exact opposite – that the terrorist threat against America does not stem from Muslim extremism – would be equally crazy as to paint all Muslims as terrorists.

As mentioned before, the only error committed was that Goode painted with too wide a brush. If the letter was re: Nazis, Communists, Wahabbis, pick-your-favorite-ideology-to-despise, no one would have a problem with the letter at all.

A scapel, not a hatchet. That’s the only lesson here.

Apart from that, I have zero problems criticizing belief systems that are anti-democratic in nature. That Goode (or his staff) chose the wrong word to express that sentiment should be criticized, but I don’t think that translates into xenophobia, racism (and I do consider the Muslims=Arabs meme to be racist unto itself), or any host of evils is hyperbole and nothing less.

Posted by Shaun on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

I think you’re being yoo cavalier in dismissing Shaun’s point. We’re in a war with militant Islam, Islamists, Muslim supremacists, or whatever you want to call them. Were we in a war with Israel begun by an unprovoked attack by them on American civilians and lustily celebrated throughout an imaginary “Jewish world,” than there’d be nothing wrong with what you posted. Indeed, I believe it would border on criminal negligence to dismiss the concerns of those who believed allowing further Jewish immigration might be dangerous and unwise.

Posted by Judge Smails on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

The difference between Muslim and Jew in that letter- is the public perception of Islam as an extremist faith, true or not when most people hear Muslim or Islam- they think terrorist or 9/11 WTC plane crashes.

Goode’s letter is less about a personal attack on Ellison and more about a convenient excuse to fan those flames.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

I have zero problems criticizing belief systems that are anti-democratic in nature.

With that in mind, would you criticize the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner as Congressman Goode criticized Islam? I don’t think anybody would argue that the structure of the Catholic church is democratic.

Posted by Harry Landers on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

We’re in a war with militant Islam, Islamists, Muslim supremacists, or whatever you want to call them.

What in the world does that have to do with Rep. Ellison? Do you mean that we’re at war with him?

Goode’s letter is less about a personal attack on Ellison and more about a convenient excuse to fan those flames.

It’s quite clearly a personal attack on Rep. Ellison. Look no further than this sentence:

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.

Goode — oddly referring to himself in the third person — is stating in a breathtakingly straightforward fashion a) that Rep. Ellison has no business being in the country, despite having been born here and b) that he has no business being in office, on the basis of his religion.

That is outrageous.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

I never said a thing about Ellison – not once – for me this whole thing has never been about him. You’ve got a hypothetical up there about Virgil having a beef with Jews instead of Muslims. That’s what I was responding to, nothing more.

Posted by Judge Smails on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

Waldo is right. Goode’s letter is not saying, “Our immigration policies put us at increased risk of terrorism.” He’s saying, “Our immigration policies put us at increased risk of having Muslim elected officials.” For Pete’s sake, standing for elected office is the textbook example of assimilation into American culture by minority populations. We are not supposed to be at war with American citizens trying to enter into the democratic process.

Posted by David Sewell on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

With that in mind, would you criticize the Roman Catholic Church in the same manner as Congressman Goode criticized Islam? I don’t think anybody would argue that the structure of the Catholic church is democratic.

When Catholics start preaching the violent overthrow of the American government, putting planes into buildings, blowing themselves up in pizzerias, etc… then you might have a point.

Until then, this is really an argument in semantic values.

As a postscript, those who argue the Catholic Church is anti-democratic simply haven’t read the Second Vatican Council or understand the Church, or merely enjoy participating in the last acceptable prejudice in American society…

Posted by Shaun on 20 December 02006 @ 5pm

Does Virginia allow recall elections?

Posted by UVA08 on 20 December 02006 @ 6pm

Waldo, I’m saying your “hypothetical” doesn’t work. It’s flawed. It doesn’t take into account the fact that the Islamic faith is perceived as a violent extremist religion, and the Jewish faith is not. It’s not a balanced comparison.

If the Islamic faith was not widely perceived as the religion of terrorists the whole thing would be moot, and the letter probably wouldn’t have been written.

I think Ellison and the Bible v. Koran issue is like the imaginary student in Goode’s office- an pretext that that gives Goode the excuse to rant about Muslims and immigration.

And I’m going to agree with Judge Smails when he says, “for me this whole thing has never been about him.”

As an unrelated side note:

Shaun wrote:

…or merely enjoy participating in the last acceptable prejudice in American society…

I though that last acceptable prejudice was against homosexuality. You can’t descriminate on the basis of religion but you can on the basis of sexual preference.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 20 December 02006 @ 6pm

I never said a thing about Ellison — not once — for me this whole thing has never been about him. You’ve got a hypothetical up there about Virgil having a beef with Jews instead of Muslims.

Again, this is not an abstract Goode vs. Muslims thing — he’s named somebody, and that’s Rep. Ellison. Imagine him saying the same thing about Sen. Joe Lieberman, as in my Jewish version of the same letter. Is it acceptable for him to attack Rep. Ellison as an enemy of the nation on the basis of his religion and, if so, would it be unacceptable for him to attack Joe Lieberman as an enemy of the nation on the basis of his religion?

You don’t need to answer that, but I hope you see my point.

As a postscript, those who argue the Catholic Church is anti-democratic simply haven’t read the Second Vatican Council or understand the Church, or merely enjoy participating in the last acceptable prejudice in American society…

Um.

You’d mean the last of two acceptable prejudices in American society — Catholics and Muslims.

Right?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 December 02006 @ 6pm

While out canvassing for Jim Webb, I had the following conversation with a voter. Paraphrasing his reply to my request of support for Webb,

“Why would I vote for a Democrat? They are the party of blacks and Jews. I am a member of the Virginia white man’s party, the Republican party.”

Virgil Goode has his constituency. I only assume he holds American Mulims in equal distain.

Additionally, I read that the “official” swearing in ceremony has no bibles, korans or any other religious book. You stand in the well, hold up your right hand and swear to “uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The bible pictures are more photo ops taken in the member’s office.

Posted by Charles Stanton on 20 December 02006 @ 6pm

Waldo, I’m saying your “hypothetical” doesn’t work. It’s flawed. It doesn’t take into account the fact that the Islamic faith is perceived as a violent extremist religion, and the Jewish faith is not. It’s not a balanced comparison.

This is not a question of abstract concepts. Rep. Goode is talking about a very specific, real person, his soon-to-be colleague, Rep. Ellison. Either this is acceptable — which would require the belief that Rep. Ellison personally supports the violent overthrow of democratic governments on the basis of his religious beliefs — or it’s not.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 December 02006 @ 6pm

Well, sure, now you make the distinction as to “Catholics… preaching the violent overthrow of the American Government…”, but I was only responding to your assertion that you “have zero problems criticizing belief systems that are anti-democratic in nature.” Call it semantics, if you will, but words are all we have here.

I can assure you that I take no enjoyment from participating in any prejudice, nor is anti-Catholicism acceptable in my society. I haven’t read the Second Vatican Council, probably don’t understand the Church, and would welcome an education. But, I find it hard to understand how the Church could be democratic. Aren’t there certain truths that are fundamental, regardless of the will of the majority of Catholics? Why would a religion be expected to be democratic?

Posted by Harry Landers on 20 December 02006 @ 6pm

Is it acceptable for him to attack Rep. Ellison as an enemy of the nation on the basis of his religion and, if so, would it be unacceptable for him to attack Joe Lieberman as an enemy of the nation on the basis of his religion?

Well when you frame the question like that- Unless their was evidence that Ellison were a member of a Mosque espousing extremist beliefs – my answer would be no. I don’t think any intelligent person believes that Ellison is an extremist. I don’t think he could’ve gotten elected if he were.

But again Goode wouldn’t get any traction with a Joe Lieberman attack because no branch or sect of Judaism preaches the violent overthrow of the U.S.

If Goode wanted to make sweeping generalizations about the Islamic faith he should’ve left Ellison out of it entirely.

And as I said before I think Ellison is simply a pretext- a jumping off point- for Goode to rant and against the Islamic faith and immigration (which he wouldn’t be able to do if their wasn’t a large public perception that equated Islam with terrorist).

Posted by TrvlnMn on 20 December 02006 @ 6pm

The salient point, and the one that most people gloss over rushing to comment on this guys boobery (and don’t get me wrong, his boobery is massive) is whiskey-tango-foxtrot does a Muslim Congressman taking a ceremonial oath of office on a Koran, have to do with illegal immegrants?

A Muslim Congressman, who was born in Detroit? And converted to Islam in college?

Is it that somehow, if we didn’t have all these illegal immegrants (which we know are overwhelming Middle Eastern) then Islam would have never been introduced into young Keith Ellison’s life and he would be taking his oath today on a Bible? It’s just nonsensical, and my apologies to those living in south-central Virginia, your representative to Congress is a moron.

But, in an argument that it’t relatable to insert “Jew” or ‘Hindu’ or “Wiccan” Rep. Goode didn’t say…
“If we don’t take the Virgil Goode position on Muslims we’ll start electing a bunch of suicide bombers to Congress.”

No, he went of on some boob-tastic rant about illegal immigration.

And finally, the knee-jerk reaction to paint Islam with a brush, that obviously since there were radical Islamists who commited acts of terror, this overreaction, is at least justified is a crock of crap.

Like all religions Islam has a lot of really horrible adherants. But, Keith Ellison is a member of Masjid An Nur, a local mosque in Minneapolis that works extensively in the community, and across faiths to build a stronger Minneapolis. http://masjidannur.org/

But (and this is in no way relatable to the attacks of 9/11, but) how many people remember the fundamentalist Jew who walked into a Mosque is Jerusalem a few years ago and started shooting people (IIRC)? Or how about the King David Hotel Bombing, which again IIRC, stood as the largest act of terrorism by a non-governmental group until the bombing of the American barracks in Beirut almost 40 years later?

Or how about Hindu extremeists who have killed more Muslims in India than Muslims have most anywhere else across the world with the exception of Darfur?

The world is a very gray place… it’s just a shame that Virgil Goode is so… well… white.

Sean

Posted by Sean on 20 December 02006 @ 6pm

If Goode wanted to make sweeping generalizations about the Islamic faith he should’ve left Ellison out of it entirely.

Well, I can’t say that I agree with you, but I understand what you’re saying. :)

whiskey-tango-foxtrot does a Muslim Congressman taking a ceremonial oath of office on a Koran, have to do with illegal immegrants?

I can only assume that Goode believes that we should have a religious test for immigrants, in order to bar Muslims from entering the country. I wonder how Muslim they’d have to be? What if they’re white, but they converted as adults? What if they’re brown-skinned, but are born-again Christians? What if they’re nominally Muslim — they don’t observe any holy days, observe the call to prayer, etc?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 December 02006 @ 7pm

“As mentioned before, the only error committed was that Goode painted with too wide a brush. If the letter was re: Nazis, Communists, Wahabbis, pick-your-favorite-ideology-to-despise, no one would have a problem with the letter at all.”

Staggeringly stupid was a good choice of words: Waldo just used it too narrowly to only apply to Goode instead of you as well. The letter specifically calls out a native born then converted Muslim, and talks about how this is the harbinger of a great threat. That’s flat out xenophobic bigotry, period, and you are just dodging and misrepresenting what Goode said to avoid that conclusion. Ellison is not in any way shape or form a terrorist, despite right wing kooks trying to make that association, and neither are the vast majority of American Mulsims, or even foreign born Muslims.

Posted by plunge on 20 December 02006 @ 7pm

I think the critical antidote to this vast wave of Muslimoids who are evidently teeming offshore, or at least in Michigan and Minnesota, ready to usurp the religious traditions we Americans have imposed on whomever was here before we arrived and have beaten into whomever followed us, is to allow more Roman Catholics and Christian evangelicals into the United States. I understand that many of those brown, Spanish-speaking laborers whom I see often at the El Paso convenience store down on Market Street are of one of these faiths. Perhaps they have friends from their home countries whom they could encourage to make their way to Virgil’s district, too. I’m sure representative Goode would be very pleased! How could he not be?

Posted by Brian C.B. on 20 December 02006 @ 8pm

Orrrrr….

—–
Thank you for your recent communication. When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have The Origin of Species in my other hand. I do not subscribe to using the Bible in any way. The Christian Representative from Virginia was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Homer Badde position on religion there will likely be many more Christians elected to office and demanding the use of the Bible. We need to stop religious tolerance totally and reduce legal practicing of religion and end the tax-exempt Church policy pushed hard by President Carxon and allowing many persons preaching the word of Christ to do so in this country. I fear that in the next century we will have many more Christians in the United States if we do not adopt the strict intolerance 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.

The Evolution of Man and Flying Spaghetti Monster are on the wall in my office. A Christian student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Jesus. My response was clear, “As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Falulaland in the United States House of Representatives, The Bible is not going to be on the wall of my office.” Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

Happy Agnostica,
—–

Yeah, I know, I’m talkin’ crazy. However, it’s not illegal to *be* a Muslim, to *be* a Christian, or to *be* a Jew. It’s illegal to try to fly planes into buildings. Forgetting that difference is what leads to problems.

Posted by Brian J. Geiger on 20 December 02006 @ 8pm

Brian G. wins. :)

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 December 02006 @ 9pm

To argue the exact opposite – that the terrorist threat against America does not stem from Muslim extremism

I’m FAR more afraid of my own government than I am of getting blown up by “terrorists,” and I’ve held this opinion consistently since 2001. In my mind, George Bush is a far greater threat to America and the quality of human life in this country than ANY Muslim, violent extremist or otherwise (and they’re 99% “otherwise”)

Posted by james on 20 December 02006 @ 9pm

Seems like the parade of bigoted scum is just getting started:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200612200005

Barak HUSSIEN OBAMA!!! How can we trust him to be loyal to the US when his father was a filthy Muslim?

This just in: Shaun Kinney still thinks George Allen never said the n word in his life!

Posted by plunge on 20 December 02006 @ 9pm

A first for Virgil? He’s made the front page of CNN.com, #4 story:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/20/lawmaker.koran/index.html

Story illustrated by the meanest looking photo you’ve ever seen.

Waldo, you get the prize for predicting this story would go national.

Posted by David Sewell on 20 December 02006 @ 9pm

I’m not sure that that this story isn’t done getting bigger still. I talked to two reporters today from two outlets who are running stories tomorrow. But that may well be the end of it.

As Duane Gran pointed out, Christmas will likely end this story, as it tends to do with any minor political narrative. If Rep. Goode doesn’t say anything to the press, and no prominent Republicans go after him for this, then the story will surely die. No fuel, no fire.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 December 02006 @ 10pm

As Duane Gran pointed out, Christmas will likely end this story, as it tends to do with any minor political narrative. If Rep. Goode doesn’t say anything to the press, and no prominent Republicans go after him for this, then the story will surely die.

I think you’re probably right but I figure it was worth noting…

If you go to google news – and search the word Goode. The story about his letter is the first article at the top of the page with 200 (and counting) news outlets either printing a story or using one of the “service” stories.

Goode also made drive time radio in Los Angeles on the market’s biggest conservative/libertarian talk radio station. The show posted the Cnn article on their showpage- which means that the Goode topic got at least 10 minutes of airtime.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 20 December 02006 @ 11pm

That Google News could can be misleading, because a great many newspapers include just about all wire service stories on their website, but print very few of them.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 20 December 02006 @ 11pm

Okay. I give. You’re right.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 20 December 02006 @ 11pm

Shaun, you said:

When Catholics start preaching the violent overthrow of the American government, putting planes into buildings, blowing themselves up in pizzerias, etc… then you might have a point.

Okay, I’ll take your bait — thousands of Catholics preached the violent overthrow of the British Government (our strongest democratic ally in Bush’s war) in the North of Ireland. They may not have put planes into buildings, but these extremist Catholics blew themselves (and hundreds of innocent civilians) up in pizzerias, fish shops, pubs, and other public places. Extremist Catholics are responsible for the most deadly terror attacks in Great Britain in the last three decades.

Would that make it okay for a British politician to write a similar letter to constituents stoking fear of the election of Catholics to public office in Britian?

Goode’s letter is an example of un-American religious intolerance at its worst.

Posted by Maura on 20 December 02006 @ 11pm

Smails and Shaun,

You’re both bigots. When you defend this letter by attacking muslims, you’re just being a bigot. Not only do you woefully misunderstand Islam, but you woefully misunderstand bigotry. When you apply a label to someone (like “muslim”) an attribute to that individual a stereotypical trait (like “potential terrorist”) which has, for you, been previously connected to the label but not the individual, that is bigotry.

The thing that makes a stereotype bad is because it’s wrong. It’s guilt-by-association, it’s prejudging, it taints and short-circuits the learning process. In short, Shaun and Smails, stereotypes make you stupid, and your bigotry is merely your mind re-affirming that stupidity, because stereotypes are easier than treating people with fairness and respect, and stupid bigotry is just a whole lot easier than being a civilized human being in 21st century America.

Are we so weak and stupid that we can’t afford to keep living if we make ourselves treat others with respect? Grow up, guys.

Posted by Michael on 21 December 02006 @ 5am

Michael,

Your post reminds me of a cartoon I’ve seen recently. I can’t find it but believe I can do it partial justice in words.

A guy comes home from from work and finds his wife at the door ready to frisk him before he enters the house.

“What gives?” asks the husband.

“Well, someone keeps bringing dead birds into the house and it seems awfully unfair to stereotype the cat by only searching him.”

Posted by Judge Smails on 21 December 02006 @ 10am

“Well, someone keeps bringing dead birds into the house and it seems awfully unfair to stereotype the cat by only searching him.”

Sheesh, maybe she should have tried lynching some of the negroes in the area before she blamed her own husband.

/sarcasm

Posted by james on 21 December 02006 @ 10am

…and your joke gets bonus points for being sexist as well.

Posted by james on 21 December 02006 @ 10am

As hard as you try to make this into a repeat of the heady days of Selma & Montgomery where white liberals (quite spectacularly) rode to the rescue and fought unjust oppression shoulder-to-shoulder with a put-upon minority, it’s not.

All I’ve ever advocated was being more circumspect on who we allow to immigrate in light of the demonstrated violent tendencies of a small part of a group and other cultural pathologies that appear to make it difficult for Muslims to assimilate to tolerant cultures such as ours where theirs in not the loudest voice.

So, while I’m sure it’s fun to fantasize that you’re a digital version of 60’s freedom-rider seeking out injustice and intolerance, it just doesn’t square with reality.

Posted by Judge Smails on 21 December 02006 @ 10am

“immigrate in light of the demonstrated violent tendencies of a small part of a group and other cultural pathologies that appear to make it difficult for [right-to-life zealots and millenialist Davidian-like cults and freakish libertarian fundamentalists] to assimilate to tolerant cultures such as ours where theirs in not the loudest voice”

I definitely think that stopping Eric Rudolph before he immigrated would have been the best idea possible. Ditto Timothy McVeigh. Short of that, no more Christians or gun nuts, right?

Posted by Brian C.B. on 21 December 02006 @ 10am

As hard as you try to make this into a repeat of the heady days of Selma & Montgomery where white liberals (quite spectacularly) rode to the rescue and fought unjust oppression shoulder-to-shoulder with a put-upon minority, it’s not.

Man, I totally read that as “Thelma & Louise,” and I thought dang, did we even see the same movie?

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 21 December 02006 @ 10am

I feel the inexplicable need to continue re-explaining my first point: I do believe Goode painted with too wide a brush. While this point is being ignored (yes, I know — it’s not convenient to recognize that when tearing down Goode and any explanation is the objective), I’m going to side on the fact that most folks here are intelligent, and want to hear a reasoned explanation rather than a knee-jerk and impolitic letter as the end-all-be-all.

Similarily, I’m not going to respond to comments that fail to recognize the terrorism we face today comes from Islamic extremism. Sticks and stones, fellas… you look silly doing it.

Furthermore, this is not a question of “bigotry”, but rather the metaissue of the “Clash of Civilizations” topic that many in Europe are dealing with today. How do you deal with an innocent population where terrorists freely hide amongst? This isn’t an issue specific to the United States — it is an issue in Great Britain, Lebanon, Germany, Italy, Indonesia, Iraq, Palestine, Israel, Russia, and a host of other nations.

That’s why I like this point, because it’s a true situation that went (and has gone) terribly wrong for too long.

(T)hese extremist Catholics blew themselves (and hundreds of innocent civilians) up in pizzerias, fish shops, pubs, and other public places. Extremist Catholics are responsible for the most deadly terror attacks in Great Britain in the last three decades.

Would that make it okay for a British politician to write a similar letter to constituents stoking fear of the election of Catholics to public office in Britian?

But that’s precisely what happened in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain.

What happened over time (and what the current situation is now) is that you have two dynamics at play: (1) the IRA and affiliated groups are really socialists at heart, and (2) the Catholic/Protestant distinction cuts across that strata of extremism.

Not all Catholics are extremists, not all Protestants are extremists. But there are extremist Catholics and extremists Protestants. Neither are truly inspired by religious doctrine, but rather by 800 years of social conditioning that have formed a subsection of society rather than a religious group.

The question I would ask is this: Is the terrorism we are experiencing inspired by religious ideology, or by secular ideology?

In NI, it is a secular ideology using Irish nationalism to further its aims. Concerning al-Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, NFLP, and others, they are all inspired by religious interpretations of Islam.

Now it is fact that the current wave of terrorism directed against the United States (and the Western world for that matter) comes from Muslim extremists, much in the same matter that terror in Great Britain stemmed from “Catholic” (as a social group, not as a religious belief) extremists.

Was it right for the RUC to suspect Catholics – and more particularly, avowed socialists – entering its ranks? You bet. Discouraging them from participating in elections? Happened all the time… on both sides. Northern Ireland is a mess.

I would offer the following points:

(1) One cannot approach terrorism with a “cookie-cutter” approach to policy. On that much, I think we can all agree.

(2) Goode’s letter painted with too wide a brush.

(3) Nonetheless, there are ideologies (religious and secular) that have no place operating in a democracy, specifically those working towards anti-democratic principles that undermine rather than participate.

(4) The current wave of terrorism directed at the United States stems from Muslim extremism.

(5) Not all Muslims are terrorists, but terrorists are Muslims. This extremism cannot be confined to a particular sect, but rather cuts across Sunni, Shi’ite, Wahabbist, and Sufi sects.

(6) Muslim culture is different than Western culture, and there is indeed a clash between the two.

(7) This clash will be met by different sects with different approaches, none of which will seem adequate by all sides.

(8) Cooler heads must prevail.

(9) We (meaning the West) are not innocent victims in the matter.

All this talk of bigotry, ignorance, etc. only helps to drive the wedge. George Wiegel has already written at length about the failure of the secular West to cope with the challenge of Islamic culture in Western Europe (namely that secular culture isn’t robust enough to survive). Reactionary talk rather than “gee, maybe the other guy has a point” only serve the ignorance we all want to end.

Islamic values are not Western values. Terrorism aside, we as a society must ask how we are to cope with a religious system that is alien to our own. Scream tolerance if you wish, but it isn’t working in France and Germany where the Muslim population is radically altering the political landscape there. Scream bigotry if you wish, but recognize that ideas of “freedom of religion” in many countries means freedom not to proselytize, and not freedom of religious as Jefferson and the Founders understood.

There are additional issues to contain as well. What role does power play in a Muslim worldview compared to power in a Western worldview? Has anyone asked whether we want America to become a confessional state?

These are all issues Europe is grappling with, and that Goode’s letter addresses in a haphazard and admittedly crude manner. They are issues nonetheless, and the longer they are ignored the longer they will metastize.

Disagree with the letter if you must — I certainly do in parts. Illegal immigration is a problem, terrorists and drug traffickers do use a pourous border to infiltrate this country, Muslim extremists continue to seek ways to do everyone harm.

Don’t ignore the finer points a boorish letter presents. The issue is not going away, and a typical Ugly American “we can handle it, you’re a moron, hyperbole solves all problems” response isn’t going to work.

Posted by Shaun on 21 December 02006 @ 11am

…and your joke gets bonus points for being sexist as well.

What was sexist about it? a) it was a joke b) there are lots of women that still choose to be homemakers and there’s nothing wrong with their choice if it’s that.

Posted by TrvlnMn on 21 December 02006 @ 11am

What was sexist about it?

It’s very mildly sexist. Replace the woman in the story with “polack” and see if it still reads the same way. Of course there’s nothing wrong with being a homemaker, I’m just wary of jokes about dumb women and smart men.

All I’ve ever advocated was being more circumspect on who we allow to immigrate

As much as I’m reluctant to admit it, Intelligent minds may disagree on the subject of Immigration.

You, however, have loudly and frequently advocated discriminating against individuals solely on the basis of their religious beliefs, attributed to millions of people the faults of an extremely small and nonrepresentative minority group, claimed that Muslims should be arresting for praying aloud in public, and told mildly sexist jokes in favor of racial profiling.

So, while I’m sure it’s fun to fantasize that you’re a digital version of 60’s freedom-rider seeking out injustice and intolerance, it just doesn’t square with reality.

Yeah, I’m having a total blast riding the digital freedom bus, wearing my e-sandals and drinking my internet-latte, on my way to my snotty acamedic pleasure-palace where I can hang out with my buddies in Al-Qaeda, laughing at all the dumb rednecks who shop at Wal-Mart, and plotting new strategies for the homosexual agenda. Being a liberal is great! You guys don’t know what you’re missing!

Posted by james on 21 December 02006 @ 12pm

It’s amazing how the same person can be so genuinely hilarious (your final paragraph above) and at the same time such a humorless scold, “I’m just wary of jokes about dumb women and smart men.” Sniff. That wasn’t what the joke was about, Henny.

I do, however, appreciate your grudging acknowledgement that, “As much as I’m reluctant to admit it, Intelligent minds may disagree on the subject of Immigration.” Wow. That’s big of you.

Posted by Judge Smails on 21 December 02006 @ 1pm

Yeah, I’m having a total blast riding the digital freedom bus, wearing my e-sandals and drinking my internet-latte, on my way to my snotty acamedic pleasure-palace where I can hang out with my buddies in Al-Qaeda, laughing at all the dumb rednecks who shop at Wal-Mart, and plotting new strategies for the homosexual agenda.

Yeah, that pretty much summed up the typical college liberal. ;)

Posted by Shaun on 21 December 02006 @ 1pm

Shaun:

Point 5: “Not all Muslims are terrorists, but terrorists are Muslims. This extremism cannot be confined to a particular sect, but rather cuts across Sunni, Shi’ite, Wahabbist, and Sufi sects.”

This isn’t true. Not all terrorists are Muslims. Though I’m certainly not trying to issue any sort of equivalence argument that Al Qaeda and Tim McVeigh or abortion clinic bombers or even the IRA are in the same league, scale-wise, it is still important for this discussion that we understand terrorism to be tactic, and not one that is unique to Muslims, but is instead unique to extremism (as suicide efforts figure very prominently in terrorist tactics).

In fact, the idea that somehow the conflict in Northern Ireland is really divorced from religious extremism and is instead a cultural and politically ideological conflict and at the same time, terrorism amongst Muslims is NOT cultural or politically ideological, but is instead tied to the religion itself is overly simplistic. You ask, “Is the terrorism we are experiencing inspired by religious ideology, or by secular ideology?” In both cases, it’s both. You can’t draw the line and tell me that school murders in Northern Ireland are entirely due to the children disagreeing about the teachings of Marx, and neither can you tell me that it’s a purely religious interpretation of the Koran that causes people to strap bombs to themselves.

And I don’t know that my characterization of what you were saying was what you intended, but it’s certainly the distinction you drew.

I don’t believe that “all politics is local,” but I do believe that a hell of a lot of it is, and that the “War on Terror” is a war on a tactic employed by a diverse set of forces (the majority of which and the ones we’re focusing on being Muslim extremists of various stripes). The problem is that the idea that “terrorism” can be equated to “Muslim extremism” gets us involved in more and more conflicts, making us ever more enemies. We do this because we imagine these groups to be more linked to each other than they are, but by giving them a common enemy, we’re helping them network and recruit and generally grow stronger.

Continuing to focus on “Muslim extremists” (which is becoming “Muslims”) will only be a self-fulfilling prophesy of turning more and more Muslims against us as a nation.

Two post scripts:

“Cooler heads must prevail.” On this, we can most certainly agree.

This is coming from a feminist: James, the joke wasn’t sexist. Applying your “polack” test, we can take any joke where one party is exhibiting foolishness and claim discrimination towards that party. If, due to a distaste of “jokes about dumb women and smart men,” we always make the men the butt of our jokes, wouldn’t that be entrenched sexism itself?

Posted by Ben C. on 21 December 02006 @ 3pm

Great post Ben.

This isn’t true. Not all terrorists are Muslims.

Granted, but for the purposes of defining the terrorist threat against America it suffices to say that the statement generally holds true, that al-Qaeda is inspired by an extreme interpretation of the Quran and Islamic.

You can’t draw the line and tell me that school murders in Northern Ireland are entirely due to the children disagreeing about the teachings of Marx, and neither can you tell me that it’s a purely religious interpretation of the Koran that causes people to strap bombs to themselves.

Purely, no. Oversimplistic? Yes… but this is a comments unfortunately. Brevity will have to be forgiven, I hope. :)

Truly I wish it could be expanded, but even with Congressman Goode’s comments there is a silver lining behind the cloud — that being that we can have better, in-depth discussions as to what terrorism is and how to tackle terrorist threats.

Continuing to focus on “Muslim extremists” (which is becoming “Muslims”) will only be a self-fulfilling prophesy of turning more and more Muslims against us as a nation.

I disagree. I don’t believe focusing on Muslim extremists hinders the effort because it focuses on the prime motivation for this wave of terror.

Similarily, to say the IRA is “Catholic terrorism” misses the point, because the terror is not Catholic-inspired. It’s Irish nationalism blended with Marxism.

The ETA? Basque nationalism.
PLO? Secular Palestinian nationalism.
Fatah? Likewise.
Hamas? Shi’ite religious terror.
Islamic Jihad? Sunni religious terror.

In this vein, I don’t beleive it is a disservice to identify the root causes that spawn terrorism (and offers an insight as to how to deal with the primordial soup that creates the conditions for terror). However, it does take a set of intelligent minds not to fly off the handle when the instinctive “eye-for-an-eye” response to terrorism takes place.

Black and white is easy, and foolish. Frankly terrorism is not a new concept, but the West is one of the first not to approach terrorism by punishing the root-and-branch. We prune.

It’s more difficult, but certainly more ethical — and it comes at the price of increased casualties on the home front and time.

There’s no cut and dry answer. History shows that once terror becomes an option, the solutions are found in either (1) long drawn out negotiations such as in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Israel, or Northern Ireland, or (2) one side wipes the other out.

Negotiations involving entire cultures are going to take years. There is no cut and dry answer other than to say the problem exists, and we must be peaceably committed to seeking a solution that doesn’t cave on specific values we hold in the Western world (human rights, women’s rights, freedom of religion, freedom of culture, etc).

Posted by Shaun on 21 December 02006 @ 3pm

“We’re in a war with militant Islam, Islamists, Muslim supremacists, or whatever you want to call them. Were we in a war with Israel begun by an unprovoked attack by them on American civilians and lustily celebrated throughout an imaginary ‘Jewish world,’ than there’d be nothing wrong with what you posted.”

That quote very nicely personifies why it is so embarrassing to be an American these days. We have forgotten that the roots of being American are in Liberty, not in fear.

The core argument expressed is that if we’re attacked by a minority extremist faction of a particular religious group, we should fear everyone who is a non-extremist member of that group. We should do everything in our power to keep all such people out of America. And if they’re already here, we should fear them even more, persecute them where possible, and eliminate them when we can get away with it.

That’s pure fear-based reasoning and nothing else. The message is, “Be afraid. Be VERY afraid! BE MONSTROUSLY AFRAID! THE WORLD IS OUT TO GET US!!!”

Acting based on fear breeds greater fear. That’s how totalitarism ultimately succeeds…by building on fear and more fear to take away more and more liberty until no liberty is left at all.

I think it’s long past time that America forget and abandon the idea of acting out of fear and start remembering that it was Liberty that build this country, Liberty that makes us strong, and Liberty that will ultimately be our salvation as a nation.

Posted by Walt Thiessen on 22 December 02006 @ 8am

You’re putting a lot of words in my mouth. “Eliminate them when we can get away with it.” ??? C’mon.

But for all you anti-sexist tolerance-above-all types, is it not a little strange to condemn me for being sexist, intolerant, whatever in one breath, and then champion more MUSLIM immigration in the next without even a hint of irony?

Posted by Judge Smails on 22 December 02006 @ 9am

All I’ve ever advocated was being more circumspect on who we allow to immigrate in light of the demonstrated violent tendencies of a small part of a group and other cultural pathologies that appear to make it difficult for Muslims to assimilate to tolerant cultures such as ours where theirs in not the loudest voice.

Smails, I’d like to know what you consider the “cultural pathologies [of Muslims]“. Do you mean Muslims, Arabs, people from the Middle East, terrorists, or some union or intersection of one or more of those labels? The only group that I see having distinct “pathologies” is the terrorist set — and that’s not exactly a culture.

Additionally, you have yet to make a distinction between the small percentage of Muslims who are terrorists and the small percentage of Christians who are terrorists.

Posted by Tim McCormack on 22 December 02006 @ 10am

Christians…evil??? what are u all talking about. We all know baby Jesus (he is Middle Eastern btw not to say Arameic not to say a effing Arab cause he wasn’t Hebrew). In the Passion of the Christ evil Mel Gibson made him speak Arameic and that sounded more like ugly uncompassionate arabic than hebrew melody; Jesus made Christians and Jews good and everyone else evil. Those damned moslems and their religious convictions. We wouldn’t see religious freaks in politics in a “civilized” Chrisitian country. Those damned Islamics they thrown planes into buildings with no apparent reasons. What in sweet baby Jesus sakes have we done to them to hate us so much. We are bringing them democracy. Crazy islamists will never understand democracy cause they are not Christians.

So yeah, let’s close our borders to non white Arabs and their stupid believes and why not remove their rights while we’re at it. Let’s repudiate anything coming from that Godforsaken region. Yes, yes brothers…we are at war and we should not make any prisonners. Throw that Koran in the john and don’t forget that Torah and that Bible and that Jesus while we’re at it. Let’s close our borders because Islam is a real big threat. It’s the clash of civilizations…sweet baby Jesus predicted it so yes we, Christians, have chosen the right path and not those damn wacky Araby.

I’m a God’s soldier. Let’s support the troops. Hurray for the troops. Let them kill and rape and have a two weeks sentence cause they are the troops and we have to support them. Hurray, let’s all buy American flags made in China cause there’s no such thing as globalization at least with those damn Middle Eastern savages and those stinky we*backs.

Posted by Jules Gapman on 22 December 02006 @ 10am

Tim,

I think it’s fair to call the second-class treatment of women and the absolute intolerance for any criticism of their religion pathologies in the Muslim world. They’re unable to reform Islam b/c the Koran is the literal word of God and they don’t feel like you can jack around with it.

I think it’s a complete red herring to compare “Christian terrorists” with Islamic terrorists as if there’s some kind of equivalency. Who’s actively planning and carrying out largescale acts of terror? In almost every simmering armed conflict in the world today, one of the belligerents is Islamic. Their opponents, the Russians in Chechnya, the Indians in Kashmir, the Jews in Israel, the US in Afghanistan and Iraq (I could go on) are as religiously and ethnically varied as mankind, yet we’re all fighting Muslims. I wonder why that is?

Posted by Judge Smails on 22 December 02006 @ 12pm

I think it’s fair to call the second-class treatment of women and the absolute intolerance for any criticism of their religion pathologies in the Muslim world. They’re unable to reform Islam b/c the Koran is the literal word of God and they don’t feel like you can jack around with it.

Please understand, JS, that everything that you said would make equal sense if you replaced “Muslim” with “Christian,” “Islam” with “Christianity” and “Koran” with “Bible.” Let’s try it:

I think it’s fair to call the second-class treatment of women and the absolute intolerance for any criticism of their religion pathologies in the Christian world. They’re unable to reform Christianity b/c the Bible is the literal word of God and they don’t feel like you can jack around with it.

It makes equal sense. And, as with your criticism of Islam, it applies to only a limited segment of Christians and Christianity who, I think we can agree, do not represent the whole group’s beliefs.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 22 December 02006 @ 12pm

It makes equal sense? No, it makes no sense. When was the last time you heard about a seething mob of Christians rioting b/c someone, somewhere threw the Bible in the toilet? Hell, we use tax dollars to pay talentless hacks to take a piss on a Crucifix and call it art. Your relentless desire to equate Christians with Muslims, as if both religions have the same degree of problems, doesn’t pass the laugh test.

While anyone can point to passages in the Bible that show male over female superiority, tolerance of slavery, and other things we find abhorrent, Christianity has evolved and discarded most of these notions.

And the Bible, unlike the Koran, is most definitely NOT the literal words of Jehovah. Matthew, Mark, Luke and the other fella.

Posted by Judge Smails on 22 December 02006 @ 1pm

It makes equal sense? No, it makes no sense. When was the last time you heard about a seething mob of Christians rioting b/c someone, somewhere threw the Bible in the toilet?

I didn’t mention toilets or riots, and neither did you. Again, I wrote:

I think it’s fair to call the second-class treatment of women and the absolute intolerance for any criticism of their religion pathologies in the Christian world. They’re unable to reform Christianity b/c the Bible is the literal word of God and they don’t feel like you can jack around with it.

Evangelical Christians the nation ’round agree that women are inferior to men. Their position is in the home, rearing children, subservient to their husbands. There are millions of Americans who believe this (see The Promisekeepers) including several Virginia political bloggers. Evangelicals and fundamentalists likewise believe that the Bible is the literal word of God and they “don’t feel like you can jack around with it.” Again, millions of Americans believe this, including more than a few Virginia political bloggers.

There is nothing about your statement that does not apply equally well to Christians.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 22 December 02006 @ 1pm