Congressman Virgil Goode Needs Civics Lesson, say Humanists: Anti-Muslim Position Contrary to the Law of the Land
December 20, 2006
(Washington, DC, December 20, 2006)"By his recent letter, House member Virgil Goode has displayed a shocking
lack of respect for those of his constituents who don't share his Christian
faith: not only Muslims but Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Wiccans, atheists,
humanists and others," said Mel Lipman, a constitutional lawyer and
president of the American Humanist Association. "If Virgil Goode is to
continue serving in Congress, he needs a refresher course in basic American
civics."
Lipman's comment was part of the indignation expressed today by American
Humanist Association leaders when they saw for the first time the text of a
letter sent by Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) to his constituents on December 7 (http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=141404064431134&ShowArticle_ID=1104181
2060944420)
. In that letter Goode writes that "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." He added that we need to "end the
diversity visas policy pushed hard by President Clinton and allowing many
persons from the Middle East to come to this country" so as to "preserve the
values and beliefs traditional to the United States of America."
In response, Lipman added, "Goode should have learned that 'the values and
beliefs traditional to the United States of America' are that of secular
government in a pluralistic society."
The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution opens with the words, "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting
the free exercise thereof." And the 1796 U.S. treaty with the Muslim nation
of Tripoli says, "the government of the United States of America is not in
any sense founded on the Christian Religion." (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm)
This
treaty was approved by Congress in the administration of John Adams (http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115648/http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ct
rl/archive/boston_tripoli.html)
. And these documents constitute part of the
"supreme Law of the Land" as defined in Article VI of the Constitution.
The American Humanist Association has long held that the American principle
of government neutrality on religion requires that no official favoritism or
hostility be shown to those of any religion or no religion. Consistent with
this view, the organization has supported the use of secular oaths for all
government offices. In his letter, however, Goode takes the opposite
position, writing, "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 [sic] in any way."
"Properly speaking," Lipman concluded, "neither the Bible nor the Quran, nor
any other holy book, should be used at any swearing-in ceremony for any
public office. Those we elect must represent and serve all of their
constituents, not just those who are adherents of their favored faith."
