thisisbabylon.net

I think this is just a sign of things to come. The Kansas Republican Party is creating a loyalty committee to "discipline" officers who support Democrats.

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?

Posted by Y-Love at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Henry G. Brinton, pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church, wrote this blog for USAToday saying, succinctly, that one need not feel compelled to "leave G-d out of the workplace." On the contrary, employers are beginning to see the benefit of allowing employees to incorporate faith into their daily professional lives. One does not have to leave "beliefs at home".

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.

Posted by Y-Love at 01:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

So this week's New York jewish Week chronicles the fall-out over Matisyahu's revelation that he "no longer identifies" with "the Lubavitch sect" of Chassidus. The revelation, to quote the Jewish Week, "lit up" the Orthodox blogosphere.

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.

Matisyahu is going through no more than any other ba'al teshuva or convert goes through. The first few years after making the transition to Torah are often marked by a lot of soul-searching. The BT/convert often examines themselves vis-a-vis their beit din/rabbi, vis-a-vis their yeshiva, their shul -- everything can come into and out of question. And to the untrained FFB eye, this can often look far more earth-shattering than it is: Matisyahu, unlike Mr. Rubin said in a comment to Rabbi Brackman's blog, never said "Chassidus makes me feel boxed in". Only that he didn't want to be boxed in to Chabad. (Word on the street is that he's gravitating towards Breslov, actually.)

Also, what bothers me is that the main issue Mr. Rubin raises is external to halacha, and external to the Shulchan Aruch: sipping wine before a show is, flatly, "not how a frum yid should act. Yidden drink wine at a Simcha, or a spiritual gathering...[w]e don't just causally drink wine to relax while listening to goyish rap music." Was this wine treif? Can anyone pick up the Shulchan Aruch and point to any line and say "it is evident that Matisyahu violated this law"?

No, it is only the extra-halachic concern which Mr. Rubin says constitutes the "lifestyle" which no religious person "wants their children to be exposed to." This wine could have been consumed after recitation of 80 Tehillim, and said "wine" may have been about 3 fluid ounces, but no matter. Matis "can only do harm" now.

Matisyahu is a frum Jew. A Jew who I'm sure respects the concept of da'as Torah. However, these nebulous "a frum Yid just does not do X" can be traumatizing -- because they make Torah Judaism much harder than it is delineated to be in Halacha. The bar feels as if it gets higher and higher -- and much of this is solely due to our communities. My rav says, for instance, that music's permissibility (not including lyrical content) is only determined by the emotions it evokes -- listening to radio-clean gangsta rap would be assur for the person it angers or makes belligerent, not for the person for whom it is calming and gets one into a G-dly mindset. (For instance, listening to System of a Down makes me extremely G-d-aware.)

Such extra-halachic guidelines can be traumatizing to someone who is religious by choice because they're not written anywhere -- these are things which "you just know" or "you just do/don't do". Things which are not taught in any class, which should just be "inferred". This extra-halachic criticism is often heaped on those of us who enter the mainstream (non-Jewish) media world -- because we have to conduct ourselves slightly differently than our shtetl-centered counterparts.

And, one is behooved to look at the big picture -- by listening to said Jay-Z song (which could have been perfectly edited -- dan l'kaf zechut!) and sipping said (Baron Herzog? Zakon?) wine, he was chilled out enough to turn on potentially thousands of people to the light of Torah, the light of G-d. An extra-halachic, culturally imposed guideline -- not even a Rabbinical injunction -- somehow invalidates this? (Granted, if the commenter on life-of-rubin is true, there may have been some Sabbath violation involved in his Alaska show. That's a real issue. Not this.) I agree with Yossi, if that's why one forbids their children to listen to lines like "there are many names for One G-d", that is takeh odd.

I don't know Mr. Rubin's background, but one thing I'm almost certain of -- he's misunderstanding Matis. Matis is not "frei-ing out", he has merely chosen a different chassidus, a different path of being ultra-Orthodox. And if Matisyahu is helping far-flung people get in touch with the Divine Light, and turning on Jews to their spiritual heritage, I think the Rebbe ztvk"l would give him a hearty "bracha v'hatzlacha" ("Blessings and success!").

After all, "the Messiah comes" when the "fountains of Torah spring forth" to unforeseen places -- and who's doing a better job of helping that along, a guy sipping kosher wine before performing to thousands, or one angry father who forbids his children from hearing Torah-driven music?

Posted by Y-Love at 04:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

The University of Manchester (UK) released today it's findings on World Jewry.

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.

Posted by Y-Love at 02:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Kol ha'kavod, Netanya! One love, nothing but love, and hi-fives all around.

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?

Posted by Y-Love at 09:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"I lie on the beach with Hillary-Ann, a chatty, scatty 35-year-old Californian designer. As she explains the perils of Republican dating, my mind drifts, watching the gentle tide. When I hear her say, " Of course, we need to execute some of these people," I wake up. Who do we need to execute? She runs her fingers through the sand lazily. "A few of these prominent liberals who are trying to demoralise the country," she says. "Just take a couple of these anti-war people off to the gas chamber for treason to show, if you try to bring down America at a time of war, that's what you'll get." -- from "Ship of Fools" by Johann Hari

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?

Posted by Y-Love at 05:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Obviously I'm uncompromisingly monotheistic. I recognize the supremacy and primacy of the Torah, and of G-d. The Torah is very unwavering, no form of alien worship of any other powers is allowed.

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.”

Posted by Y-Love at 05:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

We've got racist hate speech par excellence coming out of this Central European republic.

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.

Posted by Y-Love at 11:27 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Washington Post "Media Notes" blog, a collection of right-wing inability to, in short, "keep it in their pants".

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?

Posted by Y-Love at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)