Bydio

My response to a post on The Jawa Report:

“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.”

If there are any Muslims in his district, he’s not representing their religious beliefs in his government office (I assume it’s his gov’t office). If he was merely representing his own religious beliefs, this would just be an inelegant letter (though as a politician, he should be more politically savvy with his words), but he’s saying this as a Representative of “the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia”.

If his Judeo-Christian display — and disregard of any other religion — is only as a Representative of Virginia, then he’s wrong.

I’d bet money that the stuff on the wall is up there because he’s down with Buddy Christ, and that’s fine by me, but his letter is puerile because of its implications that swearing in with the Bible is better than swearing in with the Qu’ran.

“When I raise my hand to take the oath on Swearing In Day, I will have the Bible in my other hand.”

As opposed to that OTHER book.

Adding to that the xenophobic undertones of anti-Muslim sentiments on immigration and religious displays in his office, you just have someone who appears to be more of a hick than a thoughtful politician.

Virgil Goode may be a great guy, but he comes off as a blustering simp in his letter.

More:

In my opinion, Muslims who come to the U.S. seem to assimilate quite well. We have hardly any daily Muslim violence here compared to what many European countries face on a daily basis. I like to think it’s the lack of Socialistic programs — compared to the scale of European Socialism — that allows people of other cultures to integrate more thoroughly to “America: The Concept”.

Rep. Goode did mention a drain on our social services as one of the reasons he’d like to curtail Muslim immigration. Maybe an inability to utilize U.S. social services by anyone who isn’t a citizen would allow all immigrants who come here to be of a more desirable stripe. After all, when you have to hustle to put food on the table, and see the success of others in your peer group, you have less time and tolerance for radicals.

This is not to say we don’t get radicals, or that more radicals won’t come to the U.S., but it seems to me the vast majority of Muslims in this country are not radicals, and assimilation into our American culture is what most of the Muslim immigrants want.

As for Rep. Goode’s office wall, I don’t really care what he puts on it. However, he gives no explanation why he wouldn’t put a Qu’ran on his wall when asked about it by the Muslim student. From the tone of the letter, I interpreted his rejection not to his not being Muslim, but to his seeming general dislike of anything Muslim.

I personally have not read the Qu’ran, but I do read Robert Spencer’s Jihad Watch blog every day. I highly recommend it.

Thank you for your questions and comments, MCPO Airdale.

You’ve gotta put some time aside to check this out.  IdeaChannel.tv is offering the 1980 Series, and the 1990 followup, of “Free To Choose.”  Watch the 1980 Series first, then watch the 1990 Series.  Simply put, Milton Friedman shows you the way to economic prosperity on a national and global scale.

Fifteen episodes, each is about an hour long, but every minute is well worth the time.  The DVD is available, too, but it’s expensive (*cough TORRENT cough*).  If you’ve ever wondered why our system is the way it is today, and why it’s so inefficient, then watching Uncle Milty will help you understand.

Go watch “Free To Choose” right now!

From The Housing Bubble Blog:

The Tampa Tribune reports from Florida. “The U.S. Secret Service and local authorities arrested two people Wednesday during a sting at a local title agency, part of a ‘red-hot mortgage fraud scheme’ playing out across the country.”

“Anthony Capsouto, a Nevada mortgage broker, and Muhammed Sekertekin, an illegal immigrant from Turkey, were arrested during a settlement closing in Tampa, the Tampa Police Department said. The men were trying to obtain a fraudulent mortgage in Sekertekin’s name on a home (in) Apollo Beach. The men wanted to inflate the recorded sales price of the house from $690,000 to $910,000. At closing, $210,000 was to be paid back to a company started last month by Sekertekin.”

“At the closing, Capsouto insisted that the information about the $210,000 payoff be omitted from the settlement document, said Tampa police Detective Jim Bartoszak. That is a violation of state and federal law. Also a violation, Bartoszak said, was Capsouto insisting the addendum not be sent to the lender.”

“The men were arrested at the settlement table. ‘We think they were going to default on the loan and run away with the money,’ Bartoszak said. ‘It’s a great scam. How do you ruin the credit rating on a guy who’s here illegally?’”

This is another problem with illegal immigration, but the real problem is deeper than that.  Credit is based entirely on a person who can be monitored as a citizen.  Social Security numbers, drivers license numbers, bank account numbers, etc.  All these are for tracking and monitoring a person by private and government agencies.

I know, another anti-government screed by some bearded woodsman with a rifle who’s holed up in a shack… I know the stereotype that comes to mind.  That’s not me, but it’s what you think.

Just give it a thought; find a logical argument against what I think and show me where I’m wrong.

From The Volokh Conspiracy Blog:

As I said, my libertarian sympathies lie with the school, and given relevant Hawaiian history, I don’t have any particular distaste for the Schools spending money left by a Hawaiian princess for Native Hawaiian education on Native Hawaiians. But I think it’s too clever by half for courts to hold that minorities are protected from discrimination by a law that grants them the same rights as “white citizens”, if “white citizens” (among others) do not have these rights to begin with. Put another way, it’s hard to read the language of the 1866 Act as doing anything other than creating legal parity between whites and others. Any interpretation of the Act that disrupts that parity with regard to any right that is perceived to come within the protections of the Act lapses into incoherence.

I agree with Mr. Volokh’s libertarian leanings, the school should be able to do what it wants with the money, but the courts are fucking around, making sure that whitey gets the shaft.  That ain’t cool.

In the article ““Muslim Feminists” in NY want to start Qur’an council“, Jihad Watch quotes from Reuters:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Muslim feminists from around the world vowed to create the first women’s council to interpret the Koran and overcome two stereotypes about their religion: Muslims are terrorists and Islam oppresses women.

The United States of America has a proud tradition of freedom from religious persecution as a tenet of our society.  No matter if you worship trees or fairies or imaginary men in the sky, it’s your choice, and no one can harm you on your basis of belief.

A secular government allows people to make their own choice — to self-determine — on how or who to worship, if you worship at all.  A secular government is freedom from religious persecution because it allows anyone to step away from a religion if they find it doesn’t agree with their sensibilities any more, and to not fear reprisals from others of the religion one leaves.  The force of the faithful will be met with the force of the government, set up to protect its citizens from unwarranted harm (can’t insulate people, after all; risk is part of living).

So what happens when the belief of one religion goes against the supposed norms of the society one lives in?  Here is where secular government needs to step aside; it’s that freedom of religion thing.

If a woman wants to be led by a man in Shari’a fashion, she should be allowed to determine that course herself.  If she doesn’t want it, she should be allowed to step away from the religion and go free.  The choice is hers.

Further, if that woman chooses the path of Jihad, and chooses to agress against others based on their religious beliefs, or lack thereof, then she should expect to meet Allah sooner than she may’ve wanted to, based on the accuracy of the aim of a citizen of the secular society.

So, if you want to wear your burkha or nijab, go right ahead.  Don’t expect people to treat you with openness, though, since you’re covering yourself according to your faith.  And if you raise your children to worship the Jihadi way, expect to be heartbroken when someone kills that child — following your teachings — who doesn’t think they should be attacked because they don’t believe what you believe.

The sword is double-edged and very sharp.  While a government might equivocate, its individual citizens aren’t usually very tolerant of being attacked and killed.

**********************

Speaking of raising children in a religious manner, this has become a very tricky subject to broach in this society.  Saying or doing anything that might be construed as “harm” to a child is something that can land a person in jail.

I guess I’ll dare the wrath of the masses and try to — as best as possible — speak my mind.

Instead of diving into the sexual aspect brought up in the Jihad Watch article and the Qur’an, I’ll try to focus on more general issues.  One issue that comes to mind is the faith healing aspect that surfaced a few years ago.  If I recall, a child — or some children — died because the parents believed in faith healing and not taking medication or surgery.

Many people were troubled by this, and I can understand their frustration and shock at someone not trying to help their child the best way they know possible.  But that’s the crux of religion, and family in particular: it’s not up to you to decide what’s best for one family, or how they practice their religion.  Even if their children die, even if they kill themselves, as long as they don’t harm you or your family, then you have no say in the matter.  Their children are theirs to raise as good or as bad as they see fit.

I know, it’s harsh.  You scream and rail inside, wanting to save those poor children from a life not as good as what you think they deserve.  Doesn’t everyone have the right to life?

Sure, they have the right to life by being born.  They also have the right to death because they will die, sooner or later.  They have the right to live as they choose, or how their parents choose until they reach the age of majority.

Let’s flip the scrip and have them impose their will on your children.  You want to take your children to a doctor because they’re sick, but you will have to do it clandestinely or you will be put in jail and your children will be taken away, or you can call upon your faith — the accepted course of action — and hope things turn out okay.  Now, if your child dies on the operating table, the faith healers are vindicated in their beliefs, expounding about how dangerous such a practice can be, and not only do you lose your child by trying to help them the best way you thought you should, but you now have to go to jail for it.  If your child lives through the operation, and it’s found out that the child was indeed secretly whisked away to a doctor *gasp* for help, then your child is safe, you feel good in that you did the right thing, but you still go to jail.  Sure, your child is alive, but your family is broken because someone else didn’t like your personal course of action, and you imposed that sacreligious action upon your children (how DARE you?!).

Sure, it sounds ridiculous to most people, but if you can impose your will on someone else, but they can’t impose their will on you, then there’s something inherently wrong with your philosophy.  Sometimes, you just shouldn’t meddle.  Individual wills should not be imposed on others based on personal belief.  Try to convince them with dialogue, certainly, but using physical force on someone so they conform to your beliefs is anathema.  This philosophy should be in your heart: leave me alone.

So while we can consider how the treatment of other people’s children may be a tragedy, if you aren’t willing to have them impose their will on you and your children, then you need to leave them alone.

The only time you should get involved is when something physically affects you.  There are plenty of issues out there affecting you right now that you should be involved in, but how the Joneses — or Abdullahs — raise their children isn’t one of them.

Now go hug your kid(s) if you’re glad you have them.

Update 20061201: I may be using poor examples or analogies here… something’s eating at me about this for days and I can’t put my finger on it… will have to revisit later.