Oklahoma lawmakers object to gift of Qurans, return their copies

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

OKLAHOMA CITY: After a colleague claimed the Muslim holy book condones the killing of innocent people, several Oklahoma lawmakers plan to return copies of the Quran to a state panel on diversity.

The Governor's Ethnic American Advisory Council gave the books to Oklahoma's 149 senators and representatives.

"Most Oklahomans do not endorse the idea of killing innocent women and children in the name of ideology," Representative Rex Duncan said.

The Republican expressed his feelings Monday in a letter to colleagues. At least 17 legislators have told the panel they will return the gift.
--
The lawmakers also received a copy of the Bible earlier this year from The Baptist General Convention of Oklahoma. "It's one of the nicest things I've received in my three years in the Legislature," Duncan said.

Read more: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/10/24/america/NA-GEN-US-Qurans-Returned.php

[rox63]

1. It sounds like they haven't actually read their bibles

Lots of innocent people get killed in that book too.

[hobbit709]

4. A RW politico actually reading the book he's spouting off from?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[kestrel91316]

12. Indeed: "Go kill the Amalekites", etc.

[Sequoia]

13. True...women, children and animals.

[atreides1]

2. They Should Read the Old Testament Sometime

A whole lot of killing of men, women, children, and animals! And their only crime was that they were not God's chosen people!

[rodeodance]

3. "After a colleague claimed the Muslim holy book condones the killing of innocent people,"

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. Damn it, there goes another irony meter n/t

[Canuckistanian]

37. And those things are expensive, aren't they?

Mine was always "pinned" to the maximum reading before it overheated.

[rodeodance]

6. "Duncan's statement is "disturbing" and "offensive" to Muslims."

Marjaneh Seirafi-Pour, chairwoman of the council and a Muslim, denounced Duncan's assessment of Islam.

"I know he referred to Islam as an ideology. That is not a fact. It is a religion. It is very peaceful, very inclusive," Seirafi-Pour said.

In Washington, spokesman Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said Duncan's statement is "disturbing" and "offensive" to Muslims.

"It just points to the amount of education about Islam and the American Muslim community that is needed in all levels in our society, including elected officials," Hooper said.

Seirafi-Pour said the gift was a way to introduce the council to lawmakers so they can use it as a resource to "serve their offices and constituents."

[unpossibles]

7. a Book!?!?!

what, did someone want them to learn or something! The horror!

and that bible part: irony is apparently not dead.

[harun]

14. Ahhh to think back to the good old days when our leaders read

books. Lead to such crazy thinking and crazy writing like:

The declaration of independence, the constitution, the bill of rights the federalist papers...

At least we had free thinkers at the beginning. Everyone knows everything now, they think reading a book is admitting someone else might be able to teach them something. Being that they already know everything about everything, books are just a waste of time now.

[Marrah_G]

35. Sorry I would have returned it also

[tabasco]

8. I see Stan the Stupid Virus has visited Oklahoma recently.

He has lots of relatives there from the looks of it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

24. LOL. Contagious, isn't it?

I have read the Quran (and ye olde and gnu testaments) on several ocassions. It is fine poetry, and great as a piece of historical literature. I was particularly struck about the admonishments on how to treat guests, regardless of their faith: with respect, love, friendship and to make sure that they are well treated.

I guess those christians in Okie could stand a dose of the Quran after all.

[xxqqqzme]

9. "...After a colleague

claimed the Muslim holy book condones the killing of innocent people..." That's always the safe bet, react to what someone else claims.

Do publicans have a violent reaction to facts? Get hives; go into convulsions? WHAT???

[Baby Snooks]

10. "The Muslims are coming, the Muslims are coming..."

Given the number of innocent Muslims that Christians have brutally murdered through the centuries, you can see why some Christians fear the Muslims. Especially the Christians who are also Republicans who have continued to endorse the brutal murder of innocent Muslims in Iraq.

I truly hope at some point there are only Democrats in Congress and they ban the Republican Party.

[SpiralHawk]

11. "If you ain't white, you ain't alright" - Indian Territory Republicons

"So we are afraid of everything, big deal. We are lead by a courageous military deserter, Commander AWOL Bush himself, and that makes us cool, don't it?"

- Indian Territory Republicons

[NaturalHigh]

15. Were they somehow obligated to accept the book?

:shrug:

Nobody is obligated to accept the Bible. Why should they be obligated to accept another religious text if they are not so inclined?

[0rganism]

16. as a matter of basic cultural diplomacy, they should have accepted the books

Come on, this isn't a tough one to figure out. What does it hurt to have one more book gathering dust on the shelf? And if you don't want 'em on principle, later sell them to a used book store or donate them or even recycle. Don't make a goddam public spectacle out of returning them because "they advocate the killing of innocents" or whatever. And don't compound that error by publicly referring to one of the largest and fastest-growing religions on the planet as an ideology.

Especially after you've accepted gifts of the bloody Bible from the local baptists saying, "it's one of the nicest things I've ever received," when you obviously haven't figured out what's actually in the damned thing.

This kind of zealous ignorant bigotry can lead to some uncomfortable situations later on down the line.

[NaturalHigh]

17. I've seen a lot of comments on DU...

from people upset that groups are handing out Bibles to their children at or near their schools. Why should uninvited gifts of Bibles upset people any more than uninvited gifts of other religious texts? Isn't that a bit of a double standard, or do you think that the students should accept the Bibles "as a matter of basic cultural diplomacy"?

[harun]

22. It wasn't to the general public, that's why (n/t)

[NaturalHigh]

23. That doesn't answer my original question, though.

Should these lawmakers have been obligated to accept a religious text from this group? That kind of goes against the whole freedom of religion idea, in my opinion.

[harun]

28. They aren't obligated to do squat, there are better ways to

handle it though. I can think of many other more tactful ways for them to appease their hater constituencies and not offend Muslims at the same time.

[0rganism]

29. there are many different kinds of obligations

Some obviously come with a sterner set of consequences attached than others, and some are only acquired by virtue of attaining a particular social status or in particular circumstances.

For example,
* persons quarantined due to highly communicable disease have an obligation to stay isolated from the general public
* drivers on public roads have an obligation to remain sober while operating vehicles
* wage earners with SSNs have an obligation to report earnings to the IRS and pay assessed taxes
* husbands have an obligation to give anniversary gifts to their wives
* diners at restaurants have an obligation to tip the wait staff
* if someone does you a huge favor, you may have an obligation to thank that person
* public servants have an obligation not to act like utter jackasses while performing their duties

Oh wait, did you catch that last one? That part is why this story is news at all.

When W does something especially stupid like threaten a global holocaust if Iran continues its nuclear research, many of us would read or hear about it and bemoan/ridicule/stare-slackjawed-at his overwhelmingly tactless idiocy. Likewise, when these elected lawmakers in Oklahoma spout really stupid offensive crap about a huge religion they clearly don't understand, they expose themselves to similar reactions as a natural consequence. If Joe Sixpack tells someone who gives him a Koran that he's not interested in a book that glorifies violence against innocents and gives it back, it may be perceived as personally rude, ignorant, and/or bigoted but it's hardly on the same scale as having a bunch of state legislators doing it officially, en masse. It's not even close.

Of course, there are others among us who believe such prejudice is perfectly justified and ideologically consistent, and they don't see anything wrong with such actions at all. There are also those who don't tip waiters on principle, those who drive while under the influence, those who ignore their anniversaries, and those who don't say "thank you" when someone does them a favor.

To the extent the legislators were "obligated" to accept the books, they opted out of their obligation and are facing what consequences there are for breaches of protocol at this level -- i.e., very minor ones. :shrug:

[northzax]

49. well, these are, of course, adults

who can make decisions for themselves.

[Marrah_G]

33. If you are a Christian and someone gives yo a bible it would be thought a welcome gift

I wouldn't send a bible to a Muslim.

I would also return either one if they were sent to me.

[0rganism]

36. How many Muslims do you represent in the state legislature?

See, the focus changes when you're acting as an elected official, suddenly it's not all about you and your personal religious persuasion anymore. By rejecting the gift of the Koran in an official capacity as they did, the legislators are basically throwing a big fat FU to the entire Muslim population and declaring hostile intent. They compound this error by making public statements about how the people of Oklahoma would reject Islam. Worse still, it's clear from the objection the legislators raised (i.e., condoning the killing of innocents) that the Bible fails their "taste test" as well.

This is not a complicated scenario, really. It's very simple, and I'm surprised some people here are not getting it. The recipients aren't expected to use the book, they don't even have to keep it around gathering dust. Just politely accept it as a gift and move on, no harm no foul, quietly donate it to a used book store if it's very presence somehow offends.

As to your personal inclination to return either Bible or Koran if sent to you, I would hope your regard for the sender would make some difference. If it were given sincerely in the spirit of non-coercive friendship, perhaps you could try looking at it as a memento of what is important to the sender rather than a backhanded attempt to impose ideology upon you that must be forcibly and visibly resisted.

[Marrah_G]

38. It makes no difference

You can represent someone in government without accepting religious gifts.

It may well be a simple and silly matter to you. But I assure you, to many of us it is not so cut and dry.

[0rganism]

40. Actually, it makes a HUGE difference

If you bothered to look at the difference, maybe that would clear the ambiguity for you. Or maybe not, we'll see. :shrug:

Now don't get me wrong -- you certainly can represent someone without accepting religious gifts, and if all a legislator did was say (honestly), "Sorry, I can't receive this, my office doesn't accept religious gifts of any kind," and quietly returned the Koran to the donors without making a public stink, that'd be a semi-polite approach and would still leave room for representing Muslims. Not an ideal response, as it pretty much ignores the reason the books were given in the first place, but still it's one that respects the obligations of government to avoid religious entanglements and tests, and allows room for further cooperation.

Can you see the difference between that and what actually happened? No? Well, I'll try to spell it out another way. Pretend for a moment you're a state legislator, or city councilman, or other elected official with a strong religious bias.

If I were a devoutly religious person of different alignment in your district, and you went on record to the effect that on behalf of the people of our state you condemned my religion for what appear to be reasons simultaneously false, hypocritical, and sanctimonious, I'd be pretty pissed off at you right now. I would think there's no way in hell you could represent me, none at all.

What's more, if I were a thoughtful, tolerant atheist in your district, and you came forward with that kind of statement, I would also be pissed off and think you couldn't represent me. And if I were a member of other minority religions and ethnic groups, I'd be taking a long sideways look at you, wondering how long it'd be before you declared my ethnicity objectionable to the state.

You'd lose my vote regardless -- even if we agreed completely on everything else.

Of course, you might pick up more than enough votes to compensate from any religious bigots who happened to agree with you.

[Marrah_G]

41. Giving back a religious book is not condemning the religion

I doubt you and I will ever agree on this.

If I were talking to a friend and said " hey, i've never read "insert book here" but I've always been facinated with what you believe" and then he sent me a copy I'd be appreciative and gracious. If someone I don't know were to send me say, a bible, then frankly I wouldn't be so appreciative.

In my life experiance people handing me holy books, when they know I am not that religion, has never been a pleasant experience. ESPECIALLY those who didn't know me, but did know what faith I am. Faith, to me, is a VERY personal thing.

I'll leave this conversation as we simply, but politely disagree. And to me that's fine. I understand your points, I just don't agree with them.

I will never be a politician, because my religion would be a brick wall. The public would never accept a Wiccan.

[0rganism]

42. Hint: the legislators DID NOT JUST GIVE BACK THE BOOKS, they SAID THINGS.

I'd think, as someone who self-identifies as a member of a much-maligned ethnic/religious minority, you'd see the problem.

But then, I'd also think legislators at first accepting the Korans, then turning around and rejecting them for religious (and fairly myopic) reasons, and then publicly declaring that Oklahomans reject Islam as an ideology which favors killing innocents could reasonably be described as a "worse case scenario."

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Marrah_G]

44. I would never send a religous book to someone who had not expressed interest

That is just how I am. I do not agree with how the guy handled it, as far as what he said. But I also would never blame someone for not accepting a religious text from someone. I would feel the same if someone were sending a Muslim politician copies of the Bible or Torah.

Yes the guy is an ass. Yes he should be condemned for his statements against Muslims and pushing others to condemn them also. What I take issue with is the act of giving back the book. I cannot find fault with it as I would do the same. I would not have said the things he said though. I would have simply said "thanks but no thanks"

I hope that makes my position a bit clearer.

[happyslug]

45. And returning a gift is viewed as an insult among arabs.

Thus I would take the gift and keep it to avoid INSULTING the gift giver. Furthermore in many cultures when you visit someone you are expected to give that person a gift, even if the purpose of the visit was trade. The raise of the Middle Class in Europe starting in the late Middle Ages ended this tradition among Europeans, but it was and is known to have existed NOT only among Arabs but also Native Americans during the Colonial period (At least one White man taken prisoner by Native American in the 1700s survived by convincing his Captors he was NOT "Dutch"
i.e German for the Germans were known NOT to give out gifts and as such were subject to additional brutality when they fell in with Native Americans, more a comment on conflict of Cultures than anything else).

My point is if one is in a high Government position, such as a legislature, one should ALWAYS take gifts, even if unwanted. This will show one is willing to work with another. At the same time, one should should turn that gift over to the Government TILL ONE HAS A RULING FROM your Superior (Or other source of law regarding the transaction, in this case the State Attorney General) that you could keep the gift.

We are in a period of Globalization, one has to learn to deal with other cultures, and cultural conflicts will occur. The above is the best way to avoid such conflicts AND comply with our Culture of NOT taking or making such gifts.

[pegleg]

18. Try handing out Bibles in Saudi Arabia or Iran and see what happens.

[JCMach1]

19. So the solution is to become them?

:eyes:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. There are groups of christians, jews and other religions

actively practicing their own religions in Iran. What is not permitted is the Mormon cult, Scientologists or other brain-washing groups.

I say good for them.

As for Bush's best friends in the House of Saud, women cannot even drive cars there. Just the way Bush'sx evangelical friends would like it here. Man is superior to woman, and women have no rights. Except Bush wants to increase that to everyone here.

[pegleg]

30. Muslims can be executed for becoming Christians and arrested

for possessing a bible.

[Robb]

31. Clearly I need to re-read Oklahoma's revised statutes, then.

I withdraw my original objection. These lawmakers were merely acting out of fear for their lives, not from a position of suffocating ignorance and bigotry!

[happyslug]

47. But how often does that occur? I have heard it in Afghanistan but not Iran.

Furthermore the Koran does "protect" other believes in "the book" Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. Thus, while they MUST pay an extra tax as non-moslems, they have the right to practice their religions (Anti-Semites in the Middle East is tied in with Arab nationalism them with Religion (and same with Iran). Now Radical Moslems have adopted this anti-jewish attitude, often for nationalism purposes then Religious ones.

Furthermore when the rule was passed (By Mohammad himself) he was in a conflict with other arabs in Arabia and as such any defectors were viewed as Traitors more then religious defectors. This attitude has continued since that time and is still the law in most Moslem Countries. The big issues is how often is it enforced, the last time I read anything about enforcement it was about Egypt under the existing Government NOT Saudi Arabia or Iran (With Afghanistan the big exception). The Christian Churches complain about this law, but most obey it (For example Protestant missionaries in Egypt aimed their message to the Christian Community in Egypt which still makes up 15% of the Egyptian Population).

I read a report from the Vatican about a proposed Fundamentalist attempt to convert people in Iraq. The Cardinal who wrote the report almost made me laugh (in agreement with his observations). The Cardinal called conversion a serious object that requires a deep understanding of a country and its history, which the Fundamentalist do not have. It requires an understanding of the religion the person has at present and how that relates to a person's place in society (Both in terms of his or her extended family AND the society as a whole). Fundamentalist do NOT understand either concepts. The Cardinal's position was that this proposed "Conversion" was doomed to failure do to NOT understanding these concepts and dismissed the effort for that reason.

The Cardinal then pointed out the biggest problem for most people who want to concert in Middle East Countries is NOT the laws that prevent such conversion, but the fact the rest of the person's family will disowned the converted and with that disavowed goes that person's safety net. In simple terms you have to convert the ENTIRE EXTENDED FAMILY or you will get no one. At the present time the Fundamentalists do NOT understand the above and are failing. They will continue to fail until they understand the above and learn to wait. This is why I suspect I have NOT heard of anybody being executed under the above Islamic Rule, in a country WITHOUT a Welfare program how can one risk abandonment by one's safety net (i.e. your extended Family)? You can not so conversions just do not happen and with no one converting no one can be executed.

[JI7]

43. you want the United States to be like Saudi Arabia and Iran ?

[Toots]

20. Arron came to Moses and asked what should be done about the old man that

went out on the Sabbath to gather fire wood to keep warm. Moses asked God and God said the man must be put to death for to work on the Sabbath was to commit a great sin..

[The Stranger]

21. The BIble endorses the killing of innocent people -- start with Joshua and just read on.

[truebrit71]

26. Umm, the Bible says the same thing no?

Bunch of fundie morans... :eyes:

[DemBones DemBones]

27. Stupid move. When someone gives you a Quran or a Bible,

say "Thank you very much" and nothing else. Gifts should always be accepted with pleasure even if you don't like the gift. If you choose to read it/them, fine. If you don't, fine. Making a big deal out of it is offensive.

Of course these gifts are intended to proselytize legislators but you can't be converted without your consent.

I do tell people who offer me a New Testament to give it to someone else because I have more than one copy already and don't need another. But if you're a legislator, you have to take all the gifts or refuse all the gifts.

How nice are those Bibles, I wonder? Are they those big black bound in leather Baptist Bibles? (Try saying that fast.)

Bibles can cost a couple of hundred books. Qurans can be quite expensive, too, judging by the one my daughter received as a wedding gift.

[Marrah_G]

34. Nope

Sorry, I hand them back and say no thank you I am not a "insert religion here".

I have zero interest in any of those texts.

[Marrah_G]

32. I would have returned the book also

I'd also return A bible if it was sent to me.

[Canuckistanian]

39. That's the best answer

...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

United States Constitution, Article VI, section 3

[happyslug]

46. I repeat my post # 45 here

Thus I would take the gift and keep it to avoid INSULTING the gift giver. Furthermore in many cultures when you visit someone you are expected to give that person a gift, even if the purpose of the visit was trade. The raise of the Middle Class in Europe starting in the late Middle Ages ended this tradition among Europeans, but it was and is known to have existed NOT only among Arabs but also Native Americans during the Colonial period (At least one White man taken Prisoner by Native American in the 1700s survived by convincing his Captors he was NOT "Dutch" i.e German for the Germans were known NOT to give out gifts and as such were subject to additional brutality when they fell in with Native Americans, more a comment on conflict of Cultures than anything else).

My point is if one is in a high Government position, such as a legislature, one should ALWAYS take gifts, even if unwanted. This will show one is willing to work with another. At the same time, one should should turn that gift over to the Government TILL ONE HAS A RULING FROM your Superior (Or other source of law regarding the transaction, in this case the State Attorney General) that you could keep the gift.

We are in a period of Globalization, one has to learn to deal with other cultures, and cultural conflicts will occur. The above is the best way to avoid such conflicts AND comply with our Culture of NOT taking or making such gifts.

[0007]

48. Egads!