Not only that, but he can trace his family in America back to the mid eighteenth century.
Here in Virginia, as in the rest of the United States of America, our Congress represents us. Mirrors are often ugly things.
Tris
According to the Times, the Bible only get used for a private ceremony after the official one. No religious book is used for the real swearing in. Since it isn’t official, you can use anything you want in the private ceremony.
It’s funny that Goode is yammering about immigration when Ellison’s family has probably been here longer than Goode’s.
Mr Goode is certainly a douchebag but what has this got to do with racism? Islam is a religion not a race. And why should it be surprising that a committed Christian should denounce Islam as a false religion and denounce its propagation? This isn’t bigotry, it’s called religious belief.
As it happens, I cordially detest all religion, so a plague on both their houses, but let’s not get religion and race mixed up. That way lies the madness of my own country, the UK, which is busy legislating to make it an offence to criticize religious belief. (Perhaps an exaggeration, but only a slight one).
Not a slight exaggeration, but a major one:
he bill contains wording to amend the Public Order Act 1986:
* Section 29A
o Meaning of "religious hatred"
+ In this Part "religious hatred" means hatred against a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief.
* Section 29B:
o (1) A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred.
Critics of the Bill (before the amendments noted below, adding the requirement for the intention of stirring up hatred) claimed that the Act would make major religious works such as the Bible and the Qur’an illegal in their current form in the UK. Comedians and satirists also feared prosecution for their work. Leaders of major religions and race groups, as well as non-religious groups such as the National Secular Society, English PEN spoke out in order to campaign against the Bill. Supporters of the Bill pointed out that all UK legislation has to be interpreted in the light of the Human Rights Act, which guarantees freedom of religion and expression. They therefore rejected the suggestion that any Act of Parliament is capable making any religious text illegal.
The House of Lords passed amendments to the Bill on 25 October 2005 which have the effect of limiting the legislation to “A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening… if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred”. This removed the abusive and insulting concept, and required the intention - and not just the possibility - of stirring up religious hatred.
The Government attempted to overturn these changes, but lost the House of Commons votes on 31st January 2006.
That’s not what he’s saying, though. He’s saying that Muslims should not be elected to Congress, and that somehow immigration is responsible for one being elected. I happen to believe that neither Islam nor Christianity is the One True Faith, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t think Muslims and Christians should be eligible for elected offices.
Well at least someone isn’t blaming Mexicans for a change.
Still a Republican. 'nuff said.
Anybody have a link to anything that articulates “the Virgil Goode position on immigration”? I’m all prepped up to start hatin’ on him, and I’d like to be as specific as possible.
The saddest thing is he’s pandering directly to the real fears of many, and I have no doubt that a large section of the American populace will think him heroic for both what he said and the manner in which he said it.
As far as I know, his district has large numbers of Somali refugees who are now citizens, and who voted for him. So, the immigrant community is a big voter base for Ellison.
He thinks no non-immigrant would ever vote for a Muslim? I’m neither an immigrant nor a Muslim, but I would vote for a Muslim if he or she agreed with me on the issues I think are important. I vote for candidates who don’t share my religious beliefs all the time (at least, I think they don’t- I couldn’t actually tell you what religion any of the candidates I voted for in the last election were, though I suspect most of them are some flavor of at least nominal Christian).
Heh. I’d venture to say that not all Muslims are immigrants, but whatever.
Freedom of religion (as long as it’s Christian) for everyone! :rolleyes:
Well, it’s a seasonal thing. 
Yeah, but are you a liberal? Everyone knows that liberals aren’t real Americans, which technically makes you a foreigner.
On the positive side, I’m sure he can come up with an awesome campaign slogan from this: “Bigotry. Racism. Hatred. It’s all Goode.”, or something like that.
(By the way, I think quibbling about whether Ellison is an immigrant is missing the point. Goode is not necessarily wrong when he says that more immigrants will lead to more Muslim members of congress. More Muslim immigration will almost certainly do just that, eventually. He’s wrong when he acts like that’s automatically something to be alarmed by, something anti-American.)
No, he’s saying that Ellison won because large numbers of immigrants voted for him, and had they not been there, Ellison would have lost.
I don’t really see the problem in what he said, though. Goode’s constituants are, as a whole, opposed to immigration and opposed to what they see as the “non-Christianizing” of America. So it makes sense for him to issue some statement criticizing those things.
Other than, of course, the fact that pandering to ignorant bigots is always ugly…
No, he’s not. But he is wrong when he implies that no immigrants will necessarily lead to no Muslim members of Congress.
He’s a politician, and politicians in a democratic system pander to the voters. You don’t, they don’t vote for you. So what he said really wasn’t stupid at all. It probably will gain him more votes than it’ll cost him.
Bloody hell! I though America had a seperation of Church and State, and freedom of religion to boot. Yes, something like
What a pillock.