Couric & Co.
January 3, 2007 6:23 PM

Goode Behavior

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?
Tags:
goode ,
Keith Ellison
Topics:
On The Hill
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 31 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
by matyoo January 4, 2007 4:41 PM EST
To infidel57. The Three "wrong facts."

"Wrong facts" sounds like a yogiism. It doesn't make sense. It is either a fact or not a fact. It doesn't make sense to say a "wrong fact." In any case I get your drift.

The 1st is debatable. It depends on how you define profoundly religious. Studies show that Americans attend church at much higher rates than it's western counterparts. Furthermore the vast majority of Americans say they believe in god. 95% in many polls. As high as 80% if you account for nuances. Here's a great article that really disects the the poll numbers. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_25_121/ai_n8583017

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.

The third one. I think your getting caught up on semantics here. Katie says "should." You say, "ought." Many people use these words interchangeably. She never stated the founders promoted religion. She probably could have phrased the sentance better. Obviously she's not stating that the founders thought that every American has a duty to practice every religion known to man kind. She's clearly refering to the 1st amendment and the right to free excersise.
Reply to this comment
by rmoore080 January 4, 2007 4:40 PM EST
Senator Goode has every right to be concerned about an influx of muslims into our country. Prior to 9/11, I enjoyed a rather healthy respect for Islam, especially it's balance between religious and civic duties, and some of it's calm and reasoned approaches to handling discord. After that date, I waited for our American muslims to come together and denounce the atrocities committed on innocent civilians. I waited for protests, and articles, and maybe a book or two to explain the differences between the radical Islam and the rational version I had come to know.

But I have heard nothing from the mosques. When pressed, they will grudgingly admit that the attacks were a bad thing. But there is no condemnation or anger. There are no protests against the actions perpetrated by members of Islam in the name of Islam. No wonder our nation is beginning to question this 'religion of peace'.

Personally, I'm glad to see a muslim in congress - but I'm also glad to see there are members of congress who are going to hold our Islamic politicians to task. They cannot sit by without comment while representatives of their religion go on murdering sprees. If Ellsion is going to gather any credibility, he'd better start trumpeting his condemnations now.
Reply to this comment
by operaguy2 January 4, 2007 3:37 PM EST
Quote: Apparently you didn't notice your own contradiction. You complain about Katie's "wrong facts" and you complain that she's writing "opinion pieces".

Why did you put quotes around "wrong facts." Not to quote me, I hope as I didn't say she stated "wrong facts" as in "she should have picked other facts." So I reject that and of course I am not in contradiction. Hopefully, that's what you meant by 'there are no "wrong facts"', but again you would have been only responding to what you dreamed I said, not what I said.

Just in case anyone else also requires clarification, I will say it, additionaly, another way.

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

That should clear it up for you.

John Donohue
Reply to this comment
by eidco January 4, 2007 3:22 PM EST
operaguy,

Apparently you didn't notice your own contradiction. You complain about Katie's "wrong facts" and you complain that she's writing "opinion pieces".

An opinon piece may contain facts (BTW, there are no "wrong facts"), but it's not a requirement. Just listen to any sentence that comes out of the mouths of Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh.
Reply to this comment
by infidel57 January 4, 2007 3:07 PM EST
To gcrumpley,

You're exactly right. Prohibiting Christians from establishing a state religion is not an "attack." It's protecting the freedoms on which this country is based.

Challenging Christians on their beliefs is not an "attack". It is merely asking that they back up their statements with facts. The reason they feel "attacked" is because these challenges are embarrassing them since ultimately, lacking evidence to justify their beliefs, they must fall back on "faith", belief in the absence of evidence.

They think they should be immune to such challenges, yet they challenge every other religion. The word for it is hypocrite.

I like what H.L. Mencken had to say on the subject:

Reply to this comment
by operaguy2 January 4, 2007 3:07 PM EST
Addendum to my prior post...

I just re-read Ms. Couric's first paragraph. All three sentences are wrong.

1) The US is NOT a profoundly religious country.
2) We are NOT "only nation founded without one dominant kind of faith"; Soviet Union, PRC, various dictatorships, and most "democracies" did not or do NOT have a state religion built into their constitution.
3) The Founders did NOT "believe[] that every religion should be practiced without prejudice." There was no "should" in either their thinking or in the laws they established. They believed every human citizen ought to have the right to think and (if a few were so inclined) to 'worship' as they saw fit. They made no law proactively encouraging or establishing the practice of religions, and it is probable that they did NOT encourage it in their hearts as private citizens, either. Further, the Founders did NOT encode into law the right to be free of prejudice. Citizens, under our constitution, have the right to be prejudiced, and even act on those prejudices, as long as there is no aggression. [oh, that is not true anymore? sorry, I slipped back into the Age of Reason.]

Three wrong facts in the lead of a public essay. This is frightening, considering that Ms. Couric is one of the people delivering the facts (news) to America, nightly. Scary.

And why is Ms. Couric writing opinion pieces? Shouldn't she stand like a rock, as a reporter, for objective fact only, as her professional duty?
Reply to this comment
by infidel57 January 4, 2007 3:07 PM EST
To gcrumpley,

You're exactly right. Prohibiting Christians from establishing a state religion is not an "attack." It's protecting the freedoms on which this country is based.

Challenging Christians on their beliefs is not an "attack". It is merely asking that they back up their statements with facts. The reason they feel "attacked" is because these challenges are embarrassing them since ultimately, lacking evidence to justify their beliefs, they must fall back on "faith", belief in the absence of evidence.

They think they should be immune to such challenges, yet they challenge every other religion. The word for it is hypocrite.

I like what H.L. Mencken had to say on the subject:

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous."
Reply to this comment
by infidel57 January 4, 2007 3:06 PM EST
To gcrumpley,

You're exactly right. Prohibiting Christians from establishing a state religion is not an "attack." It's protecting the freedoms on which this country is based.

Challenging Christians on their beliefs is not an "attack". It is merely asking that they back up their statements with facts. The reason they feel "attacked" is because these challenges are embarrassing them since ultimately, lacking evidence to justify their beliefs, they must fall back on "faith", belief in the absence of evidence.

They think they should be immune to such challenges, yet they challenge every other religion. The word for it is hypocrite.

I like what H.L. Mencken had to say on the subject:

"The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous."
Reply to this comment
by rotscegner-2009 January 4, 2007 3:05 PM EST
I'm very glad Congressperson Ellison is able to express his faith in our great country of religious freedom.

Besides, oaths are only archaic formalities which have absolutely no effect whatsoever on anything (repeat that sentence several times silently to yourself, it may break through that fog).

Certainly his oath won't effect how he does his job as a congressperson, certainly hasn't had any positive effect on folks like Cunningham, Foley, etc ETC. (!)

You could raise your right hand and recite mary had a little lamb and it would work just as well.

Personally when I'm elected to congress I'll request to be sworn in using Dr. Suess's "Green Eggs and Ham", which is a perennial favorite in my library.
Reply to this comment
by gcrumpley-2009 January 4, 2007 2:50 PM EST
Mr. Hale,

In response to your statement: "I might add that Christians every day are 'attacked' for simply practicing their faith. When was the last time Ms. Couric reported on that?"

It seems odd that you play the victim while defending religious bigotry in the name of Christianity - which has done far more than espouse intolerance.

In the name of manifest destiny, Christianity has allowed itself to be used as a tool for controlling or eliminating other nations and religions, starting even before the Crusades through to modern days... justifying the slaughter of American Indians, black American slaves and the Jews in Nazi Germany.

No religion is spotless.

Now, tell me again, Mr. Hale: Just why shouldn't we endorse Keith Ellison's use of the Koran? Is any faith but Christianity just not perfect enough?
Reply to this comment
See all 31 Comments

About Couric & Co.

Go for a look behind the scenes at The CBS Evening News with Katie Couric for stuff we like and for surprises. It's also a place for you to post comments and join our conversation about the news.

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
  • MOST POPULAR
Discussed
  1. Can the Postal Service be Saved?

    (286 recent comments)