December 22, 2006

Virgil Goode's Letter : An Analysis

Rep. Virgil Goode has been savaged for his frank and uncompromising statements as to the use of the Koran in Rep. Keith Ellison's swearing-in ceremony. Some in the "Sinisphere" have been working hard to link the entire GOP to Rep. Goode's statements. I agree with Charles that while Rep. Goode could certainly have been more judicious in his use of the language and done a better job of making reasonable points more clearly, it seems to me the criticism of Rep. Goode has been overblown. Were his statements tough and politically incorrect? Most certainly. Were his statements "bigoted?" I suppose that depends, to some degree, on your definition of "bigoted." Generally, a "bigot" is someone who holds an opinion about something without a reasonable basis in fact. Saying something true but uncomfortable may be impolite, but it isn't "bigoted." I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself whether Rep. Goode's statements have a rational basis in fact. My own point-by-point follows:

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

This is, of course, a statement of fact. if Keith Ellison made the same statement, except replacing the word "Bible" with the word "Koran," would Goode's critics level a bigotry accusation at Ellison? Methinks not.

This is a statement as to Rep. Goode's opinion, and the meaning is not fully clear. We can assume he means that he doesn't believe the Koran should be used in connection with a swearing-in ceremony. More broadly, it could be interpreted to mean that he doesn't believe the Koran should be used for any purpose. This would be a silly reading of the language. Even those who have no respect for the Koran realize it can be employed for any number of useful purposes. Accordingly, I'm going with the former interpretation.

"The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district..."

Again, a statement of fact. Is anyone disputing this?

Assuming "the Virgil Goode position" equates to a restriction on immigration from Middle Eastern countries, that's a fairly reasonable prediction. More Muslim voters is likely to equate to more Muslim lawmakers. These Muslim lawmakers are likely to follow in the footsteps of Rep. Ellison and demand the use of the Koran.

A reasonable opinion held by a significant majority of Americans.

Yet again, statements of Rep. Goode's opinions on immigration policy--and ones shared by a significant portion of Americans. I may personally disagree with Rep. Goode if he is suggesting we need to necessarily reduce legal immigration across the board, and I don't think we should throw out diversity visas across the board, but I accept that reasonable minds can differ on both of these issues.

Another prediction--and a pretty reasonable one. If we do not restrict immigration, we will almost certainly have many more Muslims in the United States in the future. Massive immigration of people from completely different, non-western cultures unquestionably places our American values and beliefs in jeopardy. Further, immigration from third world countries is well-known to tax the resources of first-world countries.

So Rep. Virgil Goode doesn't see the Koran as being equivalent to the Ten Commandments, and isn't planning to put a Koran on his wall. That puts him in pretty good company, doesn't it? Do any of the journalists and bloggers calling for Goode's head have a Koran on their wall? Do they have plans to put one there?