Goode Behavior

By: Katie Couric
Topics: On The Hill

America is, of course, a profoundly religious country. But it comes as a surprise to many people that America is about the only nation founded without one dominant kind of faith. The Founders believed that every religion should be practiced without prejudice.

So it's disappointing today that a new member of the House of Representatives continues to be attacked simply for practicing his faith.

Keith Ellison, an African-American Islamic convert from Minnesota, announced that he would take his oath of office with a Koran rather than a Bible—actually, a Koran that belonged to that famous anti-American Thomas Jefferson, who collected texts from many religions.

Congressman Virgil Goode of Mr. Jefferson's Virginia (my home state—which, in this case, I'm embarrassed to say) announced that he wouldn't touch the Koran, wants to prevent Muslims from immigrating to this country, and strongly implied that Muslims can't represent American values.

It's hard to see how these position are helpful to winning the war on terror—which requires that the vast majority of Muslims, who are moderate, and practice what President Bush has called "a religion of peace," believe that America is attacking terrorists and not them.

Keith Ellison, who can trace his US ancestry back to 1741, refuses to attack Virgil Goode. He condemns the use of terrorism. Shouldn't Ellison be held up as an example of America's tolerance and pluralism, not insulted for being different?

30 Comments +

Add a Comment

See all 30 Comments


by matyoo January 5, 2007 7:49 PM EST: Opinions are not statements of fact. They are personal beliefs. Facts back up your opinion and let others know why you hold such opinions. They also help to persuade people to agree with you.

e.g. Socialism is not a humane form of government.

That's an opinion. Now I can let that stand on it's own, however; if I want to persuade people into forming the same opinion, it's a good idea to state some facts that support this statement.

Definition of opinion here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3Aopinion

A fact is an indisputable truth.

e.g. Arnold schwarzenegger is the governer of California.

He is! Whether you like it or not. You cannot dispute it. It is verifiable. If need be someone can provide the offial document or whatever that states it.

Definition of fact here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=define%3Afact; Reply to this comment


by matyoo January 5, 2007 7:22 PM EST: operaguy2

The first one. It's an opinion. She believes the US is a profoundly religious country. She probably basis this on some facts she did not state in this article. Some disagree with her. It's her characterization. She doesn't have to start every sentance with, "I believe" for the reader to figure out that's what she thinks.

Here's an example to illustrate this.

A: Bill looks a lot like his father.
B: No he doesn't. He looks nothing like
his father. He looks like his mother.

Who's right? A or B? Well that depends on your opinion. Or better yet, your characterization.

You really do need to read what you write. In your penultimate post. You numbered 3 points. I was refering to your 2nd one when you quoted Couric as saying "only nation." She said "about only nation." There is a difference. If what she said is not true feel free to provide the list, but be sure to refute what she's says, not what you heard.

number 3. She didn't say the father's thought freedom from prejudice should be encoded in the law. Again, it is clear here that she is referring to the 1st ammendment. She is trying to say that the founding fathers believed that people should be free to practice their religion without being persecuted. If this isn't true than who know's why they added it to the constitution?

And yes, some of her wording throughout the article could be better, but it is clear to any sympathetic reader what she means. Whether or not you agree with her.; Reply to this comment


by operaguy2 January 5, 2007 6:09 AM EST: matyoo: The 1st is debatable. It depends on how you define profoundly religious.

With her "of course" Ms. Couric feels she has called upon something NOT debatable, but rather common knowlege or common sense. So, she invalidates your objection. I 'got' what she meant and implied stipulation -- I just contend it is untrue. Ask her what her how she defines "profoundly religious."

The second one. She didn't say, "only nation founded without one dominant kind of faith." She said, "about the only." as in one of the only.

I never responded to "only nation" so why do you raise that? And I countered "one of the only" with a significant list that shows 'about the only' and "one of the only" to be both false. I don't have a count, but I'd bet close to half of nations have been "founded without one dominant kind of faith."

Your third response to me either chalks it up to Ms. Couric's bad writing, or twists my objection. So here again: "The Founders believed that every religion should be practiced without prejudice." I contend this is untrue. The Founders did NOT believe that 'freedom from prejudice" should be encoded into the law of the land.; Reply to this comment


by operaguy2 January 5, 2007 5:50 AM EST: (continued)

She clearly makes three statements of fact in the first paragrah.

She then goes on to state her opinion in the second paragraph, namely "...it%u2019s disappointing..."

The third paragraph is a complete statment of fact. To check if it is true or not, one would have to investigate if Keith Ellison really DID "...announce..." as Ms. Couric asserts.

The fourth is a statement of fact with an opinion place in parenthasis. To check if the statement of fact portion is true or not, one would have to see if this person actually DID "...announce...", which I have not checked. Her statement of fact might be true, it might not.

Paragraph five, the penultimate paragraph (with disdain on your insult) is completely her opinion. I offer no comment on that opinion at this time.

The sixth paragraph contains three statements of fact in the first two sentences. They may or may not be true. The third and last sentence of this paragraph is an opinion begged as a question.

Hopefully this helps you.; Reply to this comment


by operaguy2 January 5, 2007 5:49 AM EST: "Opinion pieces are not statements of fact, they're opinions."

I contend that this assertion is untrue.

For it to be true, an opinion, and an opinion piece, would need not found itself on facts, nor present them in support of the opinion. All would be just blather, emotion, arbitrary, to be digested whole, tried on for feeling or rejected for equally irrational reasons. Completely floating and groundless.

I am sorry you think that; at least Ms. Couric does not, as she loads her piece with statements of fact to support her opinion. See next post.; Reply to this comment


by operaguy2 January 5, 2007 5:25 AM EST: ok, ok, ok, I did in fact write the words "Three wrong facts." That was a slight, very slightly weak formulation. You could have easily granted the grace to put it in context of my FULL post which clearly asserted that "her three statements of fact are untrue." Instead of debating the jist, we now have a stupid red herring. Not to mention, my weak usage was not really that far off. Have you never heard the phrase "Miss, you got your facts wrong." That is very common. So, fini, enough.; Reply to this comment


by matyoo January 4, 2007 7:46 PM EST: Yeah. LOL!

If you have wrong facts then you must have right facts. How about true facts and false facts? Can there be such a thing as a factless fact? What would it be?

In this Dr. Seuss kind of world, maybe you could have cornless corn. What would it look like? Just a cobb? But a cobb of what? Certainly not corn, but it appears it is a type of corn nonetheless as that's how we've stated it. Wrap your brain around that.; Reply to this comment


by eidco January 4, 2007 6:43 PM EST: BTW, operaguy.

I really agree with your previous post beginning:
"The problem is that people are vouching for the truth and honesty of their character on any mythical book in the first place."

I'm sorry if I appear to be at odds with you. Your views seem very close to mine and I'm surprised at your compaints about Katie's opinion piece because her views are similar, too.; Reply to this comment


by eidco January 4, 2007 6:32 PM EST: To John Donahue (operaguy),

The reason I put quotes around "wrong facts" is indeed to quote you. Your penultimate paragraph begins with the sentence:

"Three wrong facts in the lead of a public essay."

Perhaps you need to reread your post.

Anyway, you seem to have missed my point because you did it again:

"The three statements of fact enunciated in the first paragraph of Ms. Coric's opinion piece are not true."

Opinion pieces are not statements of fact, they're opinions. Of course it's only my opinion, but if you don't like opinions, don't read them.

I hope I don't have to explain the word "penultimate" to you.

To matyoo,

At least YOU got my point about "wrong facts". :); Reply to this comment


by ftyteddyg January 4, 2007 4:58 PM EST: Seriously,
Who really cares what Ms. Couric thinks? She is a second rate news anchor working for a third rate news organization.; Reply to this comment