[Rocketfan]

It appears this letter is causing a pretty big stink.....Goode has vowed he will not apologize. But as usualy some people think his statements are wild and over the top.

WASHINGTON — Letter written by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) in response to constituents commenting on Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) using a Koran to take the oath of office:

Thank you for your recent communication.

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.

We need to stop illegal immigration totally and reduce legal immigration and end the diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many persons from the Middle East to come to this country.

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 and to prevent our resources from being swamped.

The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "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." Thank you again for your email and thoughts.

[TDDance234]

I love it.

[4everfsu]

I like that he took a stand., good for him

[adam42381]

I have no problem with someone using their "holy book" of choice to be sworn in. America was founded on freedom of religion. He is exercising that right.

[4everfsu]

Oh so someone swearing in on Mein Kaump would be ok for you? That could be that person's holy book. I must have misread American History but I thought this country was founded on the Bible not the Korah

[WinthropEagleFan]

What's funny is that the oath to uphold the consitution is officially done with the right hand in the air and no book present (bible or otherwise)...the putting the hand on the bible (or the Koran) is done after the fact...so this whole issue is way overblown in my opinion. The oath is done without regards to what religion you belong to.

Article VI of the Constitution says:

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.

[horrez]

Oh so someone swearing in on Mein Kaump would be ok for you? That could be that person's holy book. I must have misread American History but I thought this country was founded on the Bible not the Korah

I thought this country was also founded on the seperation of Church and State.

[Baldspot]

"Separation of Church and State" Which founding document specifies that concept?

[ATrain]

To answer your question Baldspot, a letter to the Dansbury Baptists in Connecticut (almost typed UConn-I spend WAY too much time on here and ESPN, LOL) by Thomas Jefferson. Apparently the Supreme Court has considered that letter to be a legal document regarding national laws.

Anyway, seeing as how I live in Goode's district (and voted for him), I am proud of him for taking a stand. Notice that he's not getting a lotta flack from those of us in Virginia's 5th.

[PeterParker]

Remember that many of the founding fathers were more of a Deist persuasion, not necessarily "Evangelical Christians," as many on the uberconservative side would like to channel. Remember that the father of the Declaration of Independence was a Deist, rejected the diety of Christ and created his own Jefferson Bible with all of the references to Christ's deity omitted. Yet, his profound thought process helped yield the Declaration of Independence, arguably one of the more important pillars of the Western World.

For those who need it, a loose primer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

Yet, in today's soundbite driven sugary cereal "church," had Jefferson existed today and wrote the Declaration after promoting his Jefferson Bible, he probably would have ended up having been the recipient of a nice little boycott, a strongly written letter and villafied by the talking heads that assume they speak for an entire group of people, while his Declaration might have been thrown out on account of its affiliation with him, instead of read, digested, and bounced against that wonderful thing called reason and evaluated on its own merit. Instead, there would probably have been 15,000 letters to the FCC, several more to the editorial section of the New York times, and a boycott of all "Wal-Mart" locations that chose to sell it.

The idea of bridging faith & reason (one of the underlying themes played out over and over again during the Victorian Period and reflected in the major literature of the day) and trying to find the intersection of the two would do the more "ultra" sides of the political spectrum good. The Hardline liberals would be good to temper the emotional zealotry that drives many of their views with the common sense that a semblance of a moral code exists woven into the fabric of the founding documents while it would be most advantageous for the uberconservative side to take a breath for a few seconds and to apply a reason and common sense filter for their initial reactions which often stem from the "idea" of what a Christian is supposed to think politically.

The genius of the founding players is that, while those thinkers lifted many of the inspirational concepts that underpin the constitution from biblical sources which were also reflected in other historical/religous texts, they understood that religion as tool of the government, or the government as a coercive entity of a defined religion was unhealthy for a thriving democracy, but rather that in its stead should reign supreme the historically tried & true ideals of logic and reason tempered by faith, thus the religious non-test cited by Realist above. The vibrant push-pull of ideas is a necessity in order to keep the system barreling down the proverbial center and keep it from being highjacked by any one segment of the society.

Invariably this will raise the ire of some of the more hawkish posters here; it will be interesting to see some of the more emotionally driven posts...just remember there is a view from outside the bubble and it is quite refreshing. 3-2-1 until the "pigeon hole-ing" begins...

[LUconn]

Why would you want a Muslim sworn in on a book he doesnt believe in anyway? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of him swearing in with it?

[mrmacphisto]

Oh so someone swearing in on Mein Kaump would be ok for you? That could be that person's holy book. I must have misread American History but I thought this country was founded on the Bible not the Korah

I'd like to see someone swear in on Mein Kaump (sp?) and then run for re-election.

[Fumblerooskies]

Virgil is from my hometown of Rocky Mount, VA and comes from a long line of democrats. He, too, was elected as a democrat, but broke away from the party and first went Indy during the Clinton impeachment hearings, and eventually switched to the GOP. He is a very decent and convicted man. However, I think he just lost the 2008 election with those comments. His district runs from southside to Charlottesville...
...and Charlottesville is a democratic stronghold.

[adam42381]

Oh so someone swearing in on Mein Kaump would be ok for you? That could be that person's holy book. I must have misread American History but I thought this country was founded on the Bible not the Korah

My point was that he should be allowed to be sworn in on a book that he holds sacred. Would you take an oath as seriously if you were forced to swear on the Koran? Probably not. For me, I would feel obligated to tell the truth from swearing on a Bible much more than a Koran or Book of Mormon, etc. That was what I meant by my statement. And, no, Mein Kampf shouldn't be allowed since it's not a sacred religious book.