The candidates all gave responses which alluded to their future plans on how to deal with Syria's Hezbollah links, and with Syrian President Assad in general.

First, the Democrats:
Obama: "I would engage Syria in direct bilateral talks."
Clinton: "I have long argued that diplomatic discussions with Syria can aid our efforts..."
Edwards: "We must reengage Damascus today with tough diplomacy..."
Biden: "There could be real benefits to hard-headed diplomacy..."

McCain on the other hand does not use the word "diplomacy" (or any variant thereof) in his statement. He said "the US and the international community must face Syria from a position of strength". McCain being a known warmonger hell-bent on not bringing American troops home, I can only hope that he doesn't mean "position of strength" as being the military opposite of "diplomacy."

McCain said that Hezbollah must be disarmed "one way or another" - I fear that his "or another" means deploying more American troops or American weaponry.

Then again, maybe America does need McCain -- how else are we supposed to spend a whole $2 trillion on Iraq by 2016?

Dutch far-right Parliament Member Geert Wilders (Freedom Party) today called for a ban on the Qur'an, calling it "fascist" and likening it to Hitler's Mein Kampf, and saying it encourages its followers to "kill...non-believers, beat and rape women, and to establish an Islamic state by force."

Wilders, who heads the far-right Freedom Party, which holds nine of the 150 seats in parliament, argued for the ban in a letter published in the De Volkskrant newspaper.

Wilders compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler's autobiography Mein Kampf and said that it has "no place in our constitutional state."

"I have been saying this for years: there is no such thing as a moderate Islam," he wrote, arguing that several chapters in the Koran called on Muslims "to oppress, persecute, or kill Christians, Jews, dissidents, and non-believers, to beat and rape women, and to establish an Islamic state by force."

Wilders wrote the letter after a weekend attack on young local politician Eshan Jami who founded a group to support people who have renounced Islam.

Jami, who was not visibly injured in the attack, is now under constant police protection like Wilders.

"Ban this wretched book like Mein Kampf is banned! Send a signal to Jami's attackers and other Islamic radicals that the Koran cannot be used in the Netherlands as an inspiration or an excuse for violence," Wilders said...

"I am fed up with Islam in the Netherlands: no more Muslim immigrants allowed. I am fed up with the worship of Allah and Mohammed in the Netherlands: no more mosques," he finished his letter.

The ban Mr. Wilders is calling for actually goes further than the ban on Mein Kampf, as Wilders would like to see possession of the Qur'an criminalized (whereas it is only illegal to sell Mein Kampf).

This is not the first time Wilders has come out against Islam: he called for a burqa ban in 2005 (and a "face-covering garment" ban -- i.e., niqab AND burqas -- in 2006) , which sought to make the wearing of a burqa punishable by 12 days in prison or a 3,350 euro fine. Wilders also called for a ban on Islamic banking (i.e., banking which complies with Islamic law). [Would he ban heter iska and Jewish Law-compliant banking?]

Attorney Els Lucas brought a lawsuit against the Islamophobic MP, calling his actions "very sad" and calling it "unseemly that a member of Parliament is expressing himself in this manner." Lucas accused Wilders of "insulting a section of the community," an offense punishable with a maximum sentence of two years in prison and a fine of up to €16,750 ($23,065). Wilders retorted, saying:

"I do not want to incite hate; I want the Koran to be banned. That is a political opinion. I am in Parliament in order to express my political opinion," Wilders said.

The original Volkskrant article (in Dutch) is here.

Things like this are beyond counter-productive, they are blatantly Islamophobic, blatantly xenophobic and bear more of a resemblance to Hitler than any text ever could. This man "was warned by the Dutch anti-terrorism chief that his anti-Islam statements had stoked anger in the Middle East, and that he was going too far" -- but when prejudice is at the forefront, all else takes a backseat.

Someone needs to hand him his brown shirt. This man should not be in Parliament. To give this man any less than an official sanction -- maybe the fine, maybe the prison term, maybe censure -- would be very insulting to the community and would be damaging to the Dutch image of openness and understanding.

The Netherlands deserves better. Hate-mongering politicians are never assets; they are only liabilities for the nations in which they hold office.

I don't think any more really needs to be said.

Save for, perhaps, "WTF!"

The statement came after three applicants wearing hijab were prevented from taking entrance exams at the National University on July 31. Tajikistan's Ministry of Education has banned the hijab for school and university students.

This is hijab -- no face covering, not a burqa, not an abaya. In other words, something that presents much less security risk (if any).

In absence of security risk, is this stam just a curtailing of religious expression?

Meg Natale, owner of the House of Little People on Maple Avenue, didn't mind that an agent from the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth & Families visited her childcare center last month to investigate a complaint made against one of her employees.

What infuriated her was that it seemed as though the only thing the employee was guilty of was being black.

"I wouldn't have a problem if they had a good reason," she said. "But it was because he was African that they were concerned."

Mr. Saine has been living in America for 12 years, and has long held American citizenship.

This is not the first time Mr. Saine has been victimized by racism:

Though Mr. Saine said that he has had a "very nice experience" overall in Barrington, he is not unfamiliar with prejudice.

While working at a bank prior to joining the House of Little People this summer, Mr. Saine recalled the time a southern white man questioned how he had even gotten his position as a black man.

"Right to my face," he said. "It offends me, but I try to seize to the opportunity to educate more people."

Mr. Saine said he made it a point to treat the customer nicely despite the insult, but even then the man would only concede that "he had more respect for people" because he was an African.

And of course, Mr. Saine was "respectful" because he's African...as opposed to African-American. (The sad thing is, were a pollster to ask this man after his exchange with Mr. Saine, "are you a racist?", his answer would probably be a resounding "no".)

One would be well-served to bear in mind that the entire "immigration debate" is not going on in a vacuum: the far majority of these self-styled good Samaritans (watching out for the "poor American worker") are not raising the banners of nativism over the heads of Russians, Germans, or Canadians -- but rather over the heads of non-white people with accents.

David Frum suggests that this explains the whole Democratic lead:

Maybe you've heard about the recent polls showing a huge Democratic advantage among young voters. The latest , conducted by Stanley Greenberg for the Democracy Project, shows (among other dismal tidings) a 19-point party identification lead for Democrats among voters younger than 30...

Read the report in full, however, and you come across an interesting nugget on page 6: White young people continue to favor Republicans by a thin but real margin of 2 points. The Democrats owe their advantage among youth to a huge lead among young African-Americans (78 points) - and a very large lead (43 points) among Hispanics.

In the past, Republicans could win elections despite their unpopularity among ethnic minorities. But with the huge surge of immigration since 1980 - and especially since 2000 - the voting map of the United States has been redrawn in ways inherently deeply unfavorable to the GOP...

Frum says explicitly, "[the] legacy that will damage [Bush's] party is the legacy of immigration non-enforcement." As Frum says, the growing Latino population is being enlarged by "[a] large new community of people who are both economically struggling...but who lack deep attachment to the American nation." (As Rick Perlstein notes, once upon a time, this exact same thing would have been said about Jews.)

Not to mention, as Digby's Hullabaloo points out, this was a partisan voter survey. Illegal immigrants can't vote and therefore were not surveyed. So the whole "immigration non-enforcement" line is really a moot point, this survey only surveyed people who could vote. However they got here, they're here legally now with voting rights (after a median wait of eight years from immigration to citizenship).

This is not about immigration or even psychographics per se. This is no more than yet another cloaking of the same old racism. Indeed, as Digby continues:

The sheer numbers of non-whites are changing things, and that has the rightwingers working themselves into a full blown panic. The Bushies were right on this one. They needed to cool the racist ardor of their base, but they couldn't get it done. And now you see neocons like Frum trying to join the wingnut populist bandwagon with thinly veiled racist appeals to solidarity...

(His conflation of "illegal immigrants" who allegedly have no stake in the country with the large numbers of young Hispanic Americans who were born here gives the game away.)

AGS [Alesina, Glazear and Sacerdote] report, using the World Values Survey, that "opinions and beliefs about the poor differ sharply between the United States and Europe. In Europe the poor are generally thought to be unfortunate, but not personally responsible for their own condition. For example, according to the World Values Survey, whereas 70 % of West Germans express the belief that people are poor because of imperfections in society, not their own laziness, 70 % of Americans hold the opposite view.... 71 % of Americans but only 40% of Europeans said ...poor people could work their way out of poverty."

Our bottom line is that Americans redistribute less than Europeans for three reasons:
[1] because the majority of Americans believe that redistribution favors racial minorities,
[2] because Americans believe that they live in an open and fair society, and that if someone is poor it is his or her own fault, and
[3] because the political system is geared toward preventing redistribution.

This weekend, state committee members amended the party's constitution. It now says that any officer who publicly endorses or contributes to a Democrat can be stripped of his or her office.

The committee's decisions can be appealed to the state committee. The change won't take effect until the end of next January, when the party has its annual Kansas Days convention.

Backers of the change say party officers shouldn't be helping Democrats.

Maybe the Republican party no longer makes sense?

Most of us don't make a strong connection between Sabbath spirituality and weekday work. But religious people need to practice their faith in the workplace if they are going to pursue their vocations with integrity. This means stopping work to pray at appropriate times, as faithful Muslims do. More broadly, it includes finding ways to integrate faith and work, create a more inclusive workplace and tap the resources of great religious traditions for ethical guidance.

And such behavior doesn't mean proselytizing on the job.

Since the 1980s, spirituality has begun to move into the workplace. The shift includes Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, as well as people who describe themselves as spiritual but not religious. Though only about 50 workplace ministries existed in the early 1990s, more than 900 are in place today, says Os Hillman, a Georgia businessman who has written The 9 to 5 Window: How Faith Can Transform the Workplace. Such ministries encourage people to see work as a calling from God.

Dozens of companies — from Coca-Cola to Microsoft — are becoming more "faith-friendly" as they welcome the spirituality of their employees, allowing groups to meet for Bible study or to discuss business ethics with a religious twist. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta has a Christian Fellowship Group, and the management at Bear Stearns, a Wall Street finance house, endorses and funds a weekly Torah class.

This faith at work movement is grounded in "desire for integration," says David Miller, a Yale professor and author of the book God at Work: The History and Promise of the Faith at Work Movement. Business people now want to bring their whole selves to work — mind, body and spirit — instead of having to "leave their soul with the car in the parking lot," says Miller, a former investment banker.

One commenter on the blog, hawki1, in his initially pro-diversity comment, lent his irrational voice to the discussion:

Would it be ok if a Wiccan or Satanist or other brand of religion leaves their book on the coffee table, or would that be offensive to many in the workplace? With Christian fundamentalists around, these books would not be around long!

How would known atheists be treated in the workplace? Should an atheist be allowed to be offended by the Bible or any other religious article sitting around? Or should an atheist just SHUT up and accept it or look for another job?...NO religion in the work place is NOT a good idea. If one person wants to practice in their office, fine but not as discussed here.

This is just another example of trying to incorporate religion into the workplace. Just happens to be that CHRISTIANS make up 90% of society so of course CHRISTIANS are all for it...The example of the Jew is just a smokescreen because in a primarily CHRISTIAN workplace (with fundamentalists) the Jewish banner and other religious banners would be QUICKLY REMOVED, don't kid yourself.

Yes, religion in the workplace IS a good idea. It makes for better employees -- who now don't have to leave the office to pray or find kosher food or learn Torah -- and it makes for, ostensibly, a more ethical work environment. (Granted, as we know, "religious/secular" and "righteous/wicked" are two drastically different, independent dichotomies.) Incorporating religious coercion into the workplace is something else entirely, and as Michael Newdow showed the world, atheists' concerns are valid in courts of law.

The atheist of hawki1's case would be able to sue. The Jewish employees would also be able to sue. As would the Satanist whose books got forcibly thrown away. Those actions would be illegal.

What is not illegal is allowing employees to freely fulfill their religious responsibilities and exercise their religious freedom. Why is a "G-d-free" (ch"v) environment instantly the preferable one, the one which must be fought for and preserved at all costs?

Coercion and expression are two different things. No one in the above article is forcing, or even attempting to convince, anyone to do anything. Equating religious expression with religious coercion gets people like hawki1 up in arms and eventually people become unable to pray in public. Eventually people get thrown off of entire airlines for saying G-d's Name in public.

Bring G-d to work. Today and everyday.

Well I wouldn't call the frum blogosphere "lit up" but there is definitely spirited dialogue.

Rabbi Levi Brackman -- a rabbi who I have continuously held in extremely high esteem since I began reading his (often the sole) frum perspectives on YNet -- voices his regret for ever having backed Matis:

His lyrics no longer really reflect deep Jewish spirituality and his behavior on stage is becoming increasingly secular. Now that he has publicly distanced himself from Chabad/Lubavitch I am admitting that I was wrong to ever promote Matisyahu. It is my hope that he keeps his faith and does not go off the deep end and thus take others with him.

It makes it even worse when you hear how irresponsibly he speaks. We don't want our kids listening to Jay Z and sipping wine to relax. Thats not how a frum yid should act....I think Shluchim might need to reconsider how involved they get with him or his shows. I think we have to worry about what he could still say or do...

I really hope that Matisyahu does well. Both phy$ically and spiritually. I hope and wish him well, but I'm officially OFF the Matisyahu fan club train...because of his comments and his attitude. He may be doing a lot of good for the non religious world and maybe even the goyish world. But for the Frum world I'm afraid that he can only do harm.

Perhaps there's a kabbalistic term for the emotional source of all these blog posts. Perhaps we could call it "Olam ha'Overreaction." As Yossi B (future hiphop stage name?) writes on his blog ChaBlog-Lubavitch, Matisyahu is being misunderstood and overly criticized, and Yossi blasts Rav Brackman's equating Matisyahu with a "secular Jewish" musician saying:

You know, [you're] right. Bob Dylan and Matisyahu are pretty much the same. One barely licked the edge of Torah his entire life, and one says Chitas and Davens every day, but no, your right he is like every other secular Jewish singer. Matisyahu is not made for your little kids in your house, and I hope you don’t have a problem with your teenage ones listening to him because that’s just… odd.

...I think you need to ask yourself who is the good Jew in this situation. No disrespect intended.

I think this is symptomatic of a breakdown in understanding between those religious Jews who were raised religious (FFB) and ba'alei tshuva/converts. For FFB Jews, much of this soul-searching process does not happen -- my father was Yekkish (German Jew), my grandfather was a Yekke, I went to Yekkishe yeshivos, I pray at a Yekkishe shul, so I'll be Yekkish until the Next World. The most dramatic paradigm shift is for girls who get married, when they switch from "minhag X" to "minhag Y". Those of us who are religious by choice, however, have no such pre-fab outlooks, we are constantly re-evaluating, constantly re-examining ourselves and seeing whether or not we feel "at home" anymore.

Basically, the future face of world Jewry -- or at least European and American Jewish populations -- will have a beard and a head-covering.

The Charedi Orthodox Jewish population is increasing far faster than its secular counterpart, and by 2050, the majority of the European and American Jews could be charedi:

Ultra-orthodox British and American Jews are set to outnumber their more secular counterparts by the second half of this century according to research by a University of Manchester academic.

Historian Dr Yaakov Wise says the increase in religious British Jewry - recognisable by their traditional dress - is now outstripping the decline in the overall Jewish population which has been shrinking by one to two per cent each year since the 1950s.

European ultra-orthodox Jewry is expanding more rapidly than at any time since before World War Two. Almost three out of every four British Jewish births, he says are ultra- orthodox who now account for 45,500 out of a total UK Jewish population of around 275,000 or 17 per cent.

According to Dr Wise and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem's Professor Sergio Della Pergola, Israel is experiencing similar changes. Dr Wise said: "If current trends continue there is going to be a profound cultural and political change among British and American Jews - and it's already well on the way."...

"Approximately half of all the Jewish under fives in Greater Manchester are Ultra-orthodox. And in Greater London the Ultra-orthodox now account for 18 per cent of the Jewish population, up from less than 10 per cent in the early 1990s."

He added: "My work and that of Professor Sergio Della Pergola reveal a similar picture in Israel. By the year 2020, the Ultra-orthodox population of Israel will double to one million and make up 17 per cent of the total population."

"A recent Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics report also found that a third of all Jewish pupils will be studying at haredi schools by 2012, prompting emergency meetings at the Education Ministry."

In America too, where the Jewish population is stable or declining, Ultra-Orthodox Jewish numbers are growing rapidly. Professor Joshua Comenetz from The University of Florida says the Ultra-orthodox population doubles every 20 years, which he says may make the Jewish community not only more religiously observant but more politically conservative.

OK, first of all, I pray that G-d allows me to have a hand in separating those two distinct terms: "religiously observant" and "politically conservative" are, especially in America, not the same thing, and may even be diametrically opposed. The current Right Wing regime in America violates Scriptural tenets routinely. And fellow Jewschool blogger Josh Frankel turned me on to the fact that Torah Law written before Roe v. Wade was often unflinchingly pro-choice, whereas after Roe v. Wade, "moral majority"-type language began to push its way into halachic responsa. (His findings are noted in a to-be-released research paper.)

But this, I feel, is going to underscore the fact that -- if by virtue of no other reason than sheer numbers -- the haredi population is becoming much more diverse and much less monolithic. "Ultra-Orthodoxy" will look very different in 2050. By 2050, I will surely not be the only charedi Orthodox hiphopper -- perhaps we will see Jewish hiphop charts routinely posted in Jewish bookstores. Matisyahu will certainly be old hat.

By 2050, perhaps all yeshivos will be online and have broadband access. Perhaps ShalomTV will expand into a number of networks and we will have Torah-friendly TV programming available in all observant homes.

And G-d willing, Moshiach will have long since come.

Perhaps by 2050 we will even have a new category: "mega-Orthodox", to distinguish from the progressive ultra-Orthodox people beginning to get more of a voice. Perhaps the ultra-reactionary elements will split off and form more groups determined to make their world into a perfect replica of 1650 (instead of the current status quo of 1850).

But regardless, with expansion inevitably comes change, and I think as these "under 5s" grow up, their world will change rapidly with them. And they're going to view all of it through the lens of Torah.

Ken yirbu.

The Netanya City council passed a by-law yesterday forbidding the sale of pork within city limits. YNet brings us the story:

The Netanya City Council approved a bylaw prohibiting the sale of pork in the city on Tuesday. Those opposing the law called it "religious coercion and violation of the dominant status-quo in the city".

The bylaw was passed despite the legal council’s opinion that it would not be approved by the Interior Ministry or the High Court of Justice due to the fact that before such a decision is reached a poll must be taken among the population in areas where non-kosher meat vendors may choose to set up shop.

Netanya Mayor Miriam Fierberg urged also Israeli MKs to legislate a law to completely prohibit the sale of pork products in Israel.

Some 70 stores specializing in pork products can be found in Netanya's city center, and most of their customers are immigrants from the former Soviet Union.

And let us not forget that a large percentage -- and in recent years, a slight majority -- of the immigrants coming in from the Soviet Union are not Jewish. One non-Jewish Russian IDF soldier was even found to be a Neo-Nazi, and Israeli neo-Nazi activity is on the rise.

Fifty percent of Netanya's City Council members are religious or traditional, which led to the passing of the bill, with only three out of 25 council members opposing it; one council member abstained.

When a country calls itself "the Jewish state" and you move there, you might think you would pay just a little respect to Judaism. No one is asking for strict kosher supervision, no one is mandating even the Scripturally ordained separations between meat and dairy. All the Netanya city council is saying is that someone must go elsewhere to buy their pork chops.

While I can't see Israeli MKs lining up to pass an all-out ban on pork products in Israel, Ms. Fierberg's sentiments are coming from the right place. She wants to see at least some semblance of Judaism transposed onto "the Jewish state". And the reason I can't see it happening is, to me, quite lamentable -- you simply can not force people to respect the faith of their ancestors. You simply can not compel people to believe that G-d cares about them in their daily lives, down to what they ingest. You simply can't.

The chiloni (non-religious -- "secular", as I found when I was there, is actually a bit of a misnomer with many) Israeli is becoming increasingly detached from Judaism. Much of this is because of corruption in the Rabbinate, much of this is because of a breakdown in (or downright absence of) dialogue between religious and non-religious communities. And you have outreach organizations working round-the-clock to try to fix these rifts. And, G-d willing, the problems with the religious communities will be repaired at some point, and we will see people making religious decisions based on what they are turned on to, not what they are turned off from.

But you have to draw the line somewhere. Somewhere there has to be someone saying, "if we have a star of David on our flag, and Hebrew as our language, we've got to have some Judaism over here."

And if the line can't be drawn at pornography, can it at least be drawn at pork?

Johann Hari, writing for The Independent (UK) gives us a startling insight into many of the neocon minds which are lamentably in vogue in the Capitol Hill circuit these days. Mr. Hari went aboard the National Review cruise, and the conversations he was unfortunate/fortunate enough to overhear were brimming with racism, xenophobia, and Islamophobia so virulent that it should make any progressive person shudder.

I am travelling on a bright white cruise ship with two restaurants, five bars, a casino – and 500 readers of the National Review. Here, the Iraq war has been "an amazing success". Global warming is not happening. The solitary black person claims, "If the Ku Klux Klan supports equal rights, then God bless them." And I have nowhere to run.

From time to time, National Review – the bible of American conservatism – organises a cruise for its readers. I paid $1,200 to join them. The rules I imposed on myself were simple: If any of the conservative cruisers asked who I was, I answered honestly, telling them I was a journalist. Mostly, I just tried to blend in – and find out what American conservatives say when they think the rest of us aren't listening....

I would be remiss if I didn't quote the following:

Ward Connerly is the only black person in the National Review posse, a 67-year-old Louisiana-born businessman, best known for leading conservative campaigns against affirmative action for black people. Earlier, I heard him saying the Republican Party has been "too preoccupied with... not ticking off the blacks", and a cooing white couple wandered away smiling, "If he can say it, we can say it." What must it be like to be a black man shilling for a magazine that declared at the height of the civil rights movement that black people "tend to revert to savagery", and should be given the vote only "when they stop eating each other"?

I drag him into the bar, where he declines alcohol. He tells me plainly about his childhood – his mother died when he was four, and he was raised by his grandparents – but he never really becomes animated until I ask him if it is true he once said, "If the KKK supports equal rights, then God bless them." He leans forward, his palms open. There are, he says, " those who condemn the Klan based on their past without seeing the human side of it, because they don't want to be in the wrong, politically correct camp, you know... Members of the Ku Klux Klan are human beings, American citizens – they go to a place to eat, nobody asks them 'Are you a Klansmember?', before we serve you here. They go to buy groceries, nobody asks, 'Are you a Klansmember?' They go to vote for Governor, nobody asks 'Do you know that that person is a Klansmember?' Only in the context of race do they ask that. And I'm supposed to instantly say, 'Oh my God, they are Klansmen? Geez, I don't want their support.'"

This empathy for Klansmen first bubbled into the public domain this year when Connerly was leading an anti-affirmative action campaign in Michigan. The KKK came out in support of him – and he didn't decline it. I ask if he really thinks it is possible the KKK made this move because they have become converted to the cause of racial equality. "I think that the reasoning that a Klan member goes through is – blacks are getting benefits that I'm not getting. It's reverse discrimination. To me it's all discrimination. But the Klansmen is going through the reasoning that this is benefiting blacks, they are getting things that I don't get... A white man doesn't have a chance in this country."

He becomes incredibly impassioned imagining how they feel, ventriloquising them with a shaking fist – "The Mexicans are getting these benefits, the coloureds or niggers, whatever they are saying, are getting these benefits, and I as a white man am losing my country."

But when I ask him to empathise with the black victims of Hurricane Katrina, he offers none of this vim. No, all Katrina showed was "the dysfunctionality that is evident in many black neighbourhoods," he says flatly, and that has to be "tackled by black people, not the government. " Ward, do you ever worry you are siding with people who would have denied you a vote – or would hang you by a rope from a tree?

But, on the other hand, we do, after all live in America, a country with freedom of religious expression.

So then, what in the hell is this?

From The Hill.com:

Protesters interrupt first ever Senate prayer by Hindu

For the first time in its history, the Senate Thursday opened a session with a prayer by a Hindu. Protesters interrupted the proceedings on two separate occasions and were arrested.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invited Rajan Zed from the Hindu Temple of Northern Nevada in Reno.

Before Zed could begin speaking, protesters attempted to drown out his speech. Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.), who presided over the Senate at the time, had to ask the Sergeant at Arms to restore order before Zed could commence, and once again during his speech after another protester shouted, citing the Ten Commandments, “You shall have no other gods before you.” The guest chaplain appeared rattled by the cries, but remained composed and continued his prayer.

Zed chanted from Sanskrit holy texts, including portions of the Vedas, Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gita. He prayed, additionally, for the senators to serve wisely and selflessly. Zed concluded with a prayer to comfort the family of former first lady Lady Bird Johnson, who died Wednesday.

The opening prayer is normally given by the Senate chaplain, Barry C. Black, a Seventh-Day Adventist, but senators are permitted to invite guest chaplains from their home state.

The Senate Chaplain’s office confirmed that Zed was the first Hindu in history to lead the Senate’s opening prayer. In 2000, Venkatachalpathi Samuldrala performed the first Hindu opening prayers for the House of Representatives.

And this is not going on in a vacuum: From Harvard Professors to Pat Robertson, various people have gone on anti-Hindu tirades in public. Pat Robertson called Hinduism "demonic" and Jeffrey Long, Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at Elizabethtown College in Pennsylvania, said that "though it is less well-known in this country, anti-Hindu bigotry is every bit as ugly and dangerous as anti-Semitism or racism."

Vinay Vallabh of the Executive Council of the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) noted that websites promoting religious hatred and intolerance towards Hindus and Hinduism are proliferating, and in the HAF's report, noted:

According to statistics provided in the report, "demonic" and "satanic" are the terms most commonly used today to describe Hinduism by numerous anti-Hindu websites easily accessible on the Internet. “The proliferation of websites promoting religious hatred is an unfortunate consequence of the universality of access to the internet,” said Vinay Vallabh, lead author of the report, and member of the Foundation’s Executive Council.

“We must vigorously identify, condemn and counter those who use the Internet to espouse chauvinism and bigotry over the principles of pluralism and tolerance.”

Senator Liana Janackova from Ostrava (Northern Moravia, Czech Republic) is causing a ruckus with her openly anti-Roma (who we unfortunately still refer to as "Gypsy") sentiments, as filmmaker Zuzana Brejcha quotes:

"I don´t have space for them. I know it's unjust towards you, but I would just have to take dynamite and shoot them..."

"I don´t agree with any integration of the Gypsies in the district, sorry, I am a racist. We have chosen (the part of) Bedriska, so they will be there, from my point with a high fence, (under) electricity, I don't care..."

Janackova conceded, however, that she did say that she had no place to move Romanies so she would rather take dynamite and blow them away.

Disgusting.

Now, on the one hand, this is another irrelevant hum-drum expose of "look at what this candidate did years ago", collections of things with no bearings on the politicians' actual ability to perform their jobs. However, what I find particularly disturbing is how the article begins:

Does the Republican Party have a zipper problem?

And if so, how much will voters care?

Now that Larry Flynt has claimed David Vitter as his latest quarry, there's plenty of chatter about whether one too many family-values champions of the GOP has been caught not quite walking the walk.

Let's stipulate right up front: There's been no shortage of Democratic politicians caught doing something with women not their wives....But the Mark Foley scandal put the hypocrisy question on full display. The ex-congressman was, you may recall, co-chair of the caucus on exploited children even as he was sending nasty IMs to young men in the House page program. Newt, of course, was doing it with a House aide while demanding Clinton's impeachment over Monica. And the reason that Hustler was happy to out Vitter for playing speed-dial with the D.C. Madam's operation is that the Republican senator from Louisiana was an outspoken proponent of the sanctity of marriage and other moral causes.

Chances are, you're clutching a Bible, or are speaking to people who are (or who will when they get home). Chances are, some Scripture has gotten mentioned as a proof.

A 2004 press release from David Vitter shows the candidate calling himself "a U.S. Senator who will stand up for Louisiana values", and as one angry blogger notes, bringing his proof from a 2004 Time Magazine piece, Vitter owes much of his political life to a 1999 adultery scandal in which then-Representative Bob Livingston resigned, vacating the House seat.

I am all for people accepting repentance of a public figure as valid. But when you're someone like Vitter or Newt, branding yourself as the "moral compass", and you know that you're doing something completely against Scripture (I mean, things which are written literally right there in black and white IN the 10 Commandments, "do not commit adultery"), calling out other people on their sins (for instance, women who have abortions, which, according to Evangelicals, is a sin) is a horrible move.

I think the GOP would be well served by a positive moral campaign. Instead of concentrating on what other "liberal" people are doing wrong, why not concentrate on what could be done right, for a change. Advocate charitable donation. Advocate child welfare. Advocate morality without condemning.

Otherwise, your house gets shown -- by Larry Flynt of all people -- to be made of glass, and you will come to regret all the stones you've thrown.

This is the wing that we Orthodox Jews are supposed to align ourselves with?