Here's something both disgusting and hilarious. It's not a new story, but I was unaware of it, so perhaps you were, too.
Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota, was elected to the House of Representatives in the 2006 midterm election. Ellison, as it happens, is the first Muslim member of Congress. I was surprised by that; I would have thought someone from New Jersey or perhaps Michigan would have reached that milestone sooner.
True to form, the wingnuts are going, well, wingnutty over this. (No links: I will not link to such filth.) That certainly brings their bigotry into sharp focus, doesn't it? They're always claiming that "TWOT" is not a war against Islam, that they don't hate ordinary Muslims, that they know Muslim does not equal terrorist. Then what's the problem??
Ellison, being Muslim, requested to be sworn into office on a Koran. Of course this logical request was gasoline on the wingnut fire. They went completely insane. Gibson and Malkin should be able to milk this clear to summer.
But wait, this gets better. Way better.
The Koran that Keith Ellison used for yesterday's swearing-in ceremony? It belonged to Thomas Jefferson.
That, my friends, is the best punchline I have heard in a long, long time. As someone said in this DU discussion thread, I dare them to call Thomas Jefferson a terrorist!
If you know anything about Jefferson, you know that as a deist, he would have been appalled by the current Christianized US.
The symbolic swearing-in on a religious book should itself be considered un-American, mixing church and state as it does. Elected officials should place their hand on a copy of the US Constitution, as that's what they are promising to uphold. But that America doesn't exist. In the real USofA, is not one religious book as good as the next? Apparently not. The wingnuts' "logic"? The Koran is a book of lies. The Christian Bible is a book of truth. Forget reading on the bus, a brief Technorati search on this topic completely turned my stomach.
But this Jefferson twist, this is friggin hilarious. Even Fox News couldn't make this one up.
Many thanks to Redsock for sharing the laugh with me.
28 comments:
This story had been going around down here for about a week.
Ellison made a point of introducing himself to Goode. There is video of it on some of the blogs.
This story had been going around down here for about a week.
Yes, I know it's not exactly breaking news. But the Jefferson denouement is still delicious.
I saw a brief mention of this on the local Atlanta news intro yesterday evening but there was no mention that the Koran belonged to Jefferson. Perhaps if I could have been bothered to stomach the entire news broadcast they would have gotten to it. At least I hope so.
I've been following this too. It's been great. And you know what's best off all? Goode represents the Virginia district where Jeffereson lived with that Koran.
The symbolic swearing-in on a religious book should itself be considered un-American, mixing church and state as it does. Elected officials should place their hand on a copy of the US Constitution, as that's what they are promising to uphold.
They do, actually. The absolutely stupidest part of all of this is that Ellison won't be swearing on the Koran or the Bible. The swearing-in does not involve any holy books at all, and never has. Congressmen are allowed to bring one if they like, but that's up to them. There's usually a second, photo-op "ceremony" that usually involves holy books and all that, but it's the first one that's the official one. Goode's ranting about how Ellison should be swearing on the Bible is completely idiotic because not even Goode swore on the Bible.
Ellison's move is brilliant. You'll remember that he's the one who was faced with an obnoxious Fox News interviewer asking him how we can be sure that he isn't working with the enemies of America, since he's Muslim and all.
This is the first time this has happened in the states? Wow. We've been doing it for many, many years now and it was just an interesting sidebar when it first happened.
I guess I just don't see it as newsworthy. Who cares, really?
And you know what's best off all? Goode represents the Virginia district where Jeffereson lived with that Koran.
Love it!
I guess I just don't see it as newsworthy. Who cares, really?
What's newsworthy is that so many Americans do care, and the bigotry their interest exposes.
It might also be considered newsworthy that up to this point, no Congressperson has been Muslim. That seems odd and wrong to me, considering the significant Muslim population in the US.
This is the first time this has happened in the states?
Actually, it isn't. Jewish congress people have sworn in holding Torahs before. Many have foregone any holy books at all. However, right now, some congress critters think that it's perfectly acceptable to accuse their colleagues of being in league with murderous nutcases based on their religion, and think that it's perfectly reasonable to insist that a Muslim swear on someone else's holy book (while at the same time no doubt insisting that under no circumstances would he ever swear anything on a Qu'ran).
I guess I just don't see it as newsworthy. Who cares, really?
The significant newsworthy part is that a US Congressman is attacking another in such a blatantly bigoted way. This is newsworthy because democracies require that voters know just what their representatives are doing and how they think. This kind of mentality has to be communicated to the voters.
The less significant, but more uplifting, newsworthy part of this is the cleverness of Ellison's response to Goode's attacks -- using a relic belonging to one of the holy Founding Fathers (which many in the US seem to have turned into saints, if not demigods, in their personal mythology) to undermine Goode's argument.
That there haven't been any Muslim representatives before this isn't quite as newsworthy, given the relative size of the Muslim population to the population at large -- though it's not something that should be ignored. However, the deficit of women in Congress is much more statistically significant.
Jewish congress people have sworn in holding Torahs before.
Of course, Jews were not The Enemy, at least not in the mainstream. And those swearing-ins may not have happened during such a conspicuously Christianized time.
(which many in the US seem to have turned into saints, if not demigods, in their personal mythology)
Founding Father worship is completely ingrained in the US educational system. There's no escape from that one.
the deficit of women in Congress is much more statistically significant.
Absolutely. But statistics aside, I find the overwhelming white-male-protestant makeup of Congress abhorrent.
Founding Father worship is completely ingrained in the US educational system. There's no escape from that one.
That one has always been a curiosity for me. How does it get so ingrained?
What does the education system do to make people think that the US constitution and the first N amendments to it are sacrosanct?
I'm familiar with indoctrination from a cultural standpoint (hollywood insists people kiss on a first date, wear makeup, etc), but I don't quite understand how that happens in a formal education system.
What about critical thinking?
What about critical thinking?
Oh ha ha ha ha ha!!!! Critical thinking!! In the educational system!!! Scott, you are such a comedian.
* * * *
I will say I am personally an enormous fan of the US Constitution. I think of it as one of the three great contributions of the US to human civilization. I stole this from historian Gerald Early, but only because I agree so wholeheartedly.
If the US adhered more closely to the Constitution - in fact, if it were governed by its precepts in general - it would be a much healthier democracy, and a better place.
This is totally separate from the worship of the Founding Fathers. The two don't necessarily go together. Those who worship those men often don't know anything about them but a few out-of-context quotes - and don't give a shit about the Constitution.
(The other two contributions are jazz music, and baseball.)
some congress critters think that it's perfectly acceptable to accuse their colleagues of being in league with murderous nutcases
Not to get too far off the subject, but most of people in Congress ARE in league with murderous nutcases.
They fall into two categories:
(1) those that joyously support the political party currently living in the White House and guilty of murdering as many as 750,000 people in Iraq and Afghanistan; or
(2) they are quite happy to sit quietly while the murders are being committed.
Not to get too far off the subject, but most of people in Congress ARE in league with murderous nutcases.
You're absolutely right.
But of course the words murderous, barbaric, terrorist, and such are only applied to one side. "Can you tell the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter..."
Elected officials should place their hand on a copy of the US Constitution, as that's what they are promising to uphold.
Hey, I never thought of that. Now that's an apt idea! No one seeking office could possibly object to that method of swearing in as being preferential or divisive.
This is totally separate from the worship of the Founding Fathers. The two don't necessarily go together. Those who worship those men often don't know anything about them but a few out-of-context quotes...
I don't know if it's been mentioned here yet but the current issue of Harper's has an article about exactly that... the deification of the Founding Fathers. I haven't read it, but I'd like to. There's an image in the article of George W. Bush praying at the presidential podium, while the ghosts of Lincoln and Washington lay their hands on his shoulders. The idea truly revolted me.
I haven't read it, but I'd like to.
We get Harper's. I'll save the article for you.
I haven't seen it myself, so thanks for the heads-up.
Good discussion - I especially enjoyed James' info, re: Goodes's district in Virgina, the Torah use by Jews sworn into office and why the story is newsworthy.
Thanks, James!
I recently started reading the Harper's article, but then we got busy moving.
That picture of Bush, Washington and Lincoln is (I believe) actually sold as a picture to hang on your wall (padded, most likely).
Check it out here (another version here).
Wow, is that ever disgusting.
padded, most likely
Oughta be, for sure.
That picture is revolting.
Not to get too far off the subject, but most of people in Congress ARE in league with murderous nutcases.
Generally, the murderous people they're in league with aren't nutcases. They're the more dangerous type.
About the only nice thing about my time in Barstow, California was seeing Muslim truckers in a truck stop bathroom. (Washroom)Made me homesick.
If I ever have kids I'm going to inform them that two of the heads on Mount Rushmore are NOT Christians. (Lincoln never believed in the divinity of Christ)
That picture is revolting.
I don't doubt that either Lincoln or Washington would sympathize with Bush's desire to protect the people, homes, and property of the United States. But as a fighter for the basic freedom of human beings on the one hand, and an anti-colonialist fighter for political liberty and the right of self-determination on the other, I think Lincoln and Washington would sooner put their hands on a red-hot stove than the shoulders of this murderous colonialist. In truth, they'd probably despise him.
(Lincoln never believed in the divinity of Christ)
Weird... even when I was a kid, I was never quite able to cozy up to that notion myself. It seemed then, and still seems now, kind of blasphemous. I can see Jesus as a very, very special person, a prophet, a special messenger... but God? That seems wrong.
Generally, the murderous people they're in league with aren't nutcases. They're the more dangerous type.
Oh yes, good point. For example, Bush is a nutcase. Cheney is not.
About the only nice thing about my time in Barstow, California was seeing Muslim truckers in a truck stop bathroom. (Washroom)Made me homesick.
You know you're having a bad time when that's the best thing about the trip. But then, you already knew that...
I don't doubt that either Lincoln or Washington would sympathize with Bush's desire to protect the people, homes, and property of the United States. But as a fighter for the basic freedom of human beings on the one hand, and an anti-colonialist fighter for political liberty and the right of self-determination on the other, I think Lincoln and Washington would sooner put their hands on a red-hot stove than the shoulders of this murderous colonialist. In truth, they'd probably despise him.
I think you're right. Now I *really* want to read that Harper's story. I unearthed the magazine, and Allan said he'd make copies.
(At this point someone always mentions copyright infringement. Copying a magazine article for personal use constitutes fair use - and the writer doesn't get royalties, so we're not stealing anything from him. I promise.)
It seemed then, and still seems now, kind of blasphemous. I can see Jesus as a very, very special person, a prophet, a special messenger... but God? That seems wrong.
The entire notion has always seemed fairy-tale-like to me, on par with the divinity of Zeus or Queztlcoatl or Baal. It absolutely baffles me that anyone can cop to Christianity in a literal sense.
To me the whole Christ mythology was so clearly was meant to be symbolic - it's no coincidence that it's similar to dozens of other mythologies involving exile, ressurection, ingesting the body of the diety, and so on - that I can barely comprehend that some 21st Century humans take the story literally.
This is very different from believing or not believing in a diety. That's a separate issue that IMO comes from within. But attaching the belief in a god to a fairy tale and claiming that story occurred literally, as written... whew. It's beyond me.
Hmmm. Having some problems with Blogger's comment form (not the first time). Apologies if this posts twice...
I agree that Ellison's use of Jefferson's Koran was brilliant politics. However, it "works" mainly because Americans are just generally ignorant of their own history (sound familiar?).
Jefferson was the hardliner of his day with respect to the Muslim world, and as President ordered the invasion (or was it just an incursion?) of several North African states.
I have no idea how the Barbary Wars are remembered in North Africa and the broader Muslim world today, but I doubt that US Marines landing on "the shores of Tripoli" was the image Ellison wanted to conjure up.
Hmmm. Having some problems with Blogger's comment form (not the first time).
I do as well - constantly, including on my own blog. Very annoying.
I doubt that US Marines landing on "the shores of Tripoli" was the image Ellison wanted to conjure up.
Ha! Good point. But then, the symbolism wasn't intended for the Arab world in any way. Ellison is an American, and the symbolism was intended for other Americans, who (as you point out) wouldn't know anything about that. The only Barbary Coast they've heard of is a casino in Las Vegas.
Post a Comment