Freedom of religion? Not if you’re a Congressman!

Congressman-elect Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is going to be sworn in next month. Ellison is Muslim and refuses to be sworn in with his hand on the Bible. Instead, he has asked to be sworn in with his hand on the Koran, the holy book of the Islamic faith. Ellison would be the first Muslim to be elected to Congress, which I think is a great thing.

No big deal, right? After all, the Pilgrims fled Europe and sought out the new world in hopes of religious freedom. The very Constitution these Congressmen work to enact, uphold and protect calls for free exercise of religion in the very first amendment to the United States Constitution.

Well, Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) has a problem with this. In fact, I think it would be fair to describe his opposition to this request as “having his panties in a bunch”. Rep. Goode wrote a letter to his central Virginia constituents opposing Keith Ellison’s request. In his letter, Goode wrote:

“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,” Goode wrote.

Source: United Press International

Among others, the Council on American-Islamic Relations has called upon Rep. Goode to issue a formal apology. An apology has yet to be issued.

Personally, I think Goode has no business being a functioning member of our government if he finds it so hard to accommodate other belief systems, in a government that, in theory, is supposed to encourage variety. The ironic thing, is that Conservatives want to interpret the Constitution literally when it comes to issues such as abortion, Gay marriage, etc., yet when it comes to something they just don’t like, they try to mis-interpret that very same constitution, and in addition, invoke the misconceptions of and stereotypes of one of the world’s largest religions to support them. If we look at the First Amendment, in its entirety, we see that there is little confusion about what our founding fathers intended:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Now, after reading that, how can Rep. Goode believe for even a second that he is justified in trying to restrict another Congressman’s ability to practice his religion? If they wrote that Congress, as a whole, cannot pass laws restricting one’s freedom to persue their religion of choice, doesn’t it seem even more obvious that the same goes for a Congressman trying to restrict another Congressman’s freedom? After all, Ellison didn’t run on the platform of Islam during his election. The people of Minnesota spoke clearly when they elected him to begin with. It isn’t as if Ellison will be delivering an Islamic sermon during his swearing in ceremony. What we have here is yet another double standard by the Conservatives that makes their ideology and philosophies even less appealing.

If for no other reason, Rep. Goode looks like a gigantic overreacting, contemptuousness bigot since, as the Miami Herald reported on December 2nd, holy books will be optional during the Congressional swearing in ceremony.

Want to know more? Here are some other opinions, articles on this issue:

• America, Not Keith Ellison, decides what book a congressman takes his oath on
• BBC News: First Muslim congressman elected
• Keith Ellison Disrepects American Traditions

UPDATE: Here’s an interesting article on the situation from Yahoo! News

Related posts:

1. Update: Congressman sworn in with Koran
2. Iran fires back with its own cartoons
3. And Libs and Demos think the U.S. is a theocracy?
4. Having solved all other problems in San Francisco…
5. ‘This hole in the ground’

Digg

Stumble it!

Del.icio.us