The War on Ramadan

It seems that last week, the House of Representatives passed on of those meaningless resolutions that congress is inclined to pass every so often -- this time one in recognition of Ramadan. Inoffensive, right? Well, hundreds of members of congress thought so, but 41 Republicans and 1 Democrat decided register their protest by voting "present." Rep Tim Walberg, pictured above, argued:

To offer respect for a major religion is one thing, but to offer respect for a major religion that has been behind the Islamic jihad, the radical jihad, that has sworn war upon the United States, its free allies and freedom in Iraq, is another thing.

And I'm sure the people of Iraq really appreciate Rep. Walberg's thinking on this subject. No doubt the view that Islam is the enemy in Iraq is going to win us a ton of popular support. Oh well.

Comments

Nice smile. Am I looking at the next American ambassador to Saudi Arabia?

Posted by sunsin | October 9, 2007 2:26 PM

Their reasons for "protesting" are, of course, ridiculous and unlikely to do our interests any good in the Muslim world. But what business does the House have voting its stamp of approval on a religious observance anyway? And why would any religious person want that? I mean, read that resolution, it's so patronizing -- we're going to tell you who's a good Muslim and who's a bad one. I think I might have voted against the damn thing.

I never cease to be amazed at the insistence of religious persons that the state step in somehow and bless their faith. It's fucking bizarre.

Posted by Glenn | October 9, 2007 2:31 PM

I think the should go after the Catholic Church next. COnsidering the Crusades, pedophile priests, the Inquisition, and their behavior in the new world at the time of colonization. Oh wait, my bad. Except for the pedophiles, these are behaviors the religious right applauds.

Posted by ET | October 9, 2007 2:34 PM

What a douchebag.

Posted by LnGrrrR | October 9, 2007 2:35 PM

Glenn, that dog won't hunt. Even Ron Paul voted yes on this one.

Posted by neil | October 9, 2007 2:35 PM

My favorite comment was from Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who said, “I voted ‘present’ because I read somewhere that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”

"Somewhere"!!! Do you think when he swore to uphold the Constitution, he even knew what it was?

Posted by Larry Epke | October 9, 2007 2:40 PM

I think a core reason why this crap about "Islamic terrorism" has become so embraced by the right is that this administration refuses to even acknowledge where the threat is really coming from:

www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com

It's not Islam, but Wahhabism that is responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda, the attacks on 9/11, and a majority of the suicide bombers in Iraq (and much more besides). Yet go to the White House website and search their archives for "Wahhabi". It's truly Orwellian, IMHO. We're all aware of the cheap rhetorical tricks this President has used to associate Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but this is even worse.

And yes, the next ambassador to Saudi Arabia, indeed.

Posted by Bill in Chicago | October 9, 2007 2:40 PM

Even Ron Paul voted yes on this one.

Well, I guess that proves it, then! QED!

My dog hunts just fine, thank you. You and ron Paul are entitled to your own opinion, of course.

Posted by Glenn | October 9, 2007 2:40 PM

warning: haircut anecdote coming (nonetheless, it is 100% authentic).

I was having my hair cut a few years back and the woman said to me, apropos of some recent bush speech, "it was all just...words."

that's how i respond to walberg: those are all just words. they don't actually add up to a thought.

i should know better than to expect the right-wing crazies to formulate thoughts, but i can't help but wonder about what it is that goes on in their brains....

Posted by howard | October 9, 2007 2:42 PM

Glenn,

There's an argument to be made that Congress should refrain from expressing any opinion on religious observances, but it's not one that Republicans like Tim Walberg & Tom Tancredo have any business making. The same congressmen who voted present on this resolution are the same ones who pass legislation attacking the "War on Christmas".

Posted by Peter H | October 9, 2007 2:47 PM

There's an argument to be made that Congress should refrain from expressing any opinion on religious observances, but it's not one that Republicans like Tim Walberg & Tom Tancredo have any business making.

Peter, I agree with you on that 100%. My point is not to defend the likes of Walberg, but to question why Congress feels the need to engage in these exercises at all.

Posted by Glenn | October 9, 2007 2:51 PM

Am I looking at the next American ambassador to Saudi Arabia?

Nope. The current Viceroy of Dumbfuckistan.

Posted by ed | October 9, 2007 2:57 PM

Hearts and minds, baby.

Hearts and minds!

-

Posted by Hank Essay | October 9, 2007 2:57 PM

Somebody thought that picture was good. Does much more need to be said?

Posted by Rob | October 9, 2007 3:04 PM

Larry Epke, I'm no fan of Pence, but unless you want people to think we liberals have no sense of humor I think you might want to consider the possibility that he actually does know about the Bill of Rights.

Posted by KCinDC | October 9, 2007 3:11 PM

What a bunch of idiots! As the old bard wrote.. "o these deliberate fools"

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | October 9, 2007 3:16 PM

There's just something wrong with those eyes.

Posted by Noahq | October 9, 2007 3:21 PM

This is just another symptom of the schizophrenia that has taken over the radical right. In the past, when the radical right was all about anti-communism, it was at least coherent that it felt communism was bad for the people it oppresses. But the right's embrace of both 'democracy in the Middle East' and a sort of Milosovic view of Islam (exterminate the Muslims) has created a serious disconnect between one thought and the other. However, there is an advantage to this disconnect. By rebelling against the elementary laws of logic, the right can literally say anything. In truth table terms, if your antecedant is false, the consequent can be true or false - it doesn't matter. Premising a contradiction makes all succeeding statements true.

Thus, it is true that we are fighting Islamofascism and it is true that we have to fight to preserve the Islamic republic of Iraq. It is true that we only need to support the surge and it is true that Bush and Rumsfeld put just the right amount of soldiers in Iraq to lead to our heroic victory. It is true that the war is won and it is true that we can't withdraw our troops or the war is lost. It is true that we need to go to war with Iran immediately and it is true that we can't withdraw our heroic private security services, like Blackwater, cause we have too few soldiers. It is true that we honor our soldiers and it is true that soldiers are phony if they speak up. This is intoxicating - some people, as one can see by reading Roger Cohen's defense of the war hawk position, become permanently intoxicated. After all, when your premise is that you are right to be wrong, and they were wrong to be right, you can build amazing sophistical structures, and never notice that they keep caving in. If only the piles of dead Iraqis knew that they were victims of the guys who flunked the truth table test in Logic 101! Boy, I bet you they would be laughing like anything through their smashed up mouths.

Posted by roger | October 9, 2007 3:24 PM

I think I saw that face before... on the cover of MAD Magazine.

Posted by Richard Banville | October 9, 2007 3:28 PM

Boy, do these representatives hate Islam. So what are they going to do? Invade a Muslim country that was not threatening us and then bomb the ones we don't have enough troops to physically invade?

Ain't Christianity great? Oil, Christianity and power is what this is all about, isn't it?

Posted by Rick B | October 9, 2007 3:37 PM

From the link in the linked article, the list of those voting 'present':

Joining Tancredo in his “present” vote were Republican Reps. Robert Aderholt (Ala.), Todd Akin (Mo.), Gresham Barrett (S.C.), Jo Bonner (Ala.), Mary Bono (Calif.), Paul Broun (Ga.), Ginny Brown-Waite (Fla.), Michael Burgess (Texas), Steve Buyer (Ind.), John Carter (Texas), Mike Conaway (Texas), Nathan Deal (Ga.), Terry Everett (Ala.), Mary Fallin (Okla.), Randy Forbes (Va.), Trent Franks (Ariz.), Scott Garrett (N.J.), Louie Gohmert (Texas), Virgil Goode (Va.), Kay Granger (Texas), Robin Hayes (N.C.), Sam Johnson (Texas), Jim Jordan (Ohio), Steve King (Iowa), Doug Lamborn (Colo.), Kenny Marchant (Texas), Jeff Miller (Fla.), Randy Neugebauer (Texas), Tom Price (Ga.), Mike Rogers (Ala.), Mark Souder (Ind.), Mac Thornberry (Texas), Todd Tiahrt (Kan.), Tim Walberg (Mich.), Zach Wamp (Tenn.), Dave Weldon (Fla.), Lynn Westmoreland (Ga.), Don Young (Alaska) and Bill Young (Fla.), as well as Democrat Mike McIntyre (N.C.).

Posted by Warren Terra | October 9, 2007 3:50 PM

a ditto on your "Oh well"...

oh well, less reason for some Germans to have envy of how well certain things work in the U.S.:

Spiegel Online, September 13, 2007

A LESSON FOR EUROPE:
American Muslims Strive to Become Model Citizens
By Marc Hujer and Daniel Steinvorth

Posted by artappraiser | October 9, 2007 3:59 PM

One look at him and I get a recollection and understanding of all those closeted gay Young Republicans in Michigan.

Posted by tas | October 9, 2007 4:06 PM

Given Walberg's statement, shouldn't he at least have voted 'no'?

Don't get me wrong, I think the statement is abominable. But I think even fools should have the courage of their convictions.

Posted by southpaw | October 9, 2007 4:09 PM

But what business does the House have voting its stamp of approval on a religious observance anyway? ... I never cease to be amazed at the insistence of religious persons that the state step in somehow and bless their faith. - Glenn

Since the Federal government recognizes Christmas (as a paid holiday for most Federal workers), isn't it appropriate, just for balance, to make these relatively meaningless acknowledgments of the high holidays of other faiths? What does it really hurt?

Posted by Wapiti | October 9, 2007 4:54 PM

If someone wants to bitch about "a major religion" engaging in brutal genocides, war making, etc., there are no better candidates than Christianity and Judaism. Islam has a way to go to match them, mostly because Islam's wars have been limited to their own territories, whereas Christianity is supporting wars worldwide. Judaism was a warlike religion until they got their asses kicked by the Romans - and the spinoff Zionism is currently a war religion.

But ALL of them need to be eradicated. Only the Buddhists and the Taoists (and the neo-pagans) should be left alone. The first two are mostly spiritual philosophies rather than religions (almost most of their adherents don't understand that and treat them as religions) and the latter are mostly harmless and peaceful fringe cults.

Monotheism ranks with the state as the two worst concepts ever invented by the species.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 9, 2007 5:03 PM

Doesn't that face just scream out: "Hey, 5 billion years of evolution and I made it to the top of the heap!"

Posted by DCBob | October 9, 2007 5:25 PM

I would like to propose a constitutional ban on non-binding resolutions.

Posted by Boronx | October 9, 2007 6:00 PM

Apparently exterminating entire peoples is OK.

We just celebrated a holiday in the United States yesterday in honor of a genocidal maniac who exterminated entire races of peoples. My mailman and banker got the day off to celebrate.

But we can't get the day off to go vote.

Jeeebus.

Have you seen Alice? When she's ten feet tall?

Living in WackyWorld so long that all my neighbors think it's normal.

Posted by nuQlerOstrich | October 9, 2007 6:20 PM

The only possible effect these votes can have is that when conservatives say stupid stuff like this, it makes for great propaganda in the Muslim world.

Posted by Reality Man | October 9, 2007 7:23 PM

Yeah.

And they hate us for our freedom. [cough]

Posted by nuQlerOstrich | October 9, 2007 7:36 PM