It's about time our great country sent a brown-skinned, fundamentalist facist to Capitol Hill.

One would think ol' Pat would know how to spell "fascist". Nowadays, of course, a "fascist" is anyone a left-winger disagrees with...so with all that heavy use, who has time for spelling?

Once he is in Congress, homeboy will mellow out a little.

Right now he is over-correcting on account of being a brown-skinned politician in the home state of David Duke. Jindal will always be a Republican, of course, but I suspect he will be more moderate in five years -- when he becomes part of the Establishment.

Still, don't expect him to do much for the community, except maybe symbolically.

Amardeep, brother, I love you dearly but I'm really perplexed by your optimism here. Jindal was like this long before he ran for office -- look at his college writings. I'm afraid he's the real deal, a true believer, a southern fundie. In congress, egged on by others, he may become worse.

Screw the "community" - few words are as overused and misapplied. In the past "the community" kicked out people of a different religion from the country (Bangladesh); "the community" felt certain businessmen needed to be kicked out of the country (Uganda); or "the community" felt that one group may have committed a crime, so the best course of action is to murder a bunch of people with a similar backgroun (Gujarat)

Try to judge Jindal as a individual. It's intersting that Leftists object to his Christian-influenced politics in the US, yet had he been running for Parliament in India with the same platform, the same Leftists would use him as an excellent example of India's tolerance and diversity.

Still, don't expect him to do much for the community, except maybe symbolically.

I too hope he doesn't do much for the "community", unless the "community" means the people he's been duly elected to represent.

The "community" are a bunch of holier-than-thou rent-seeking leftist activists who are modern day Bonifaces. They rant & rave against invented ills (Satan is as imaginary as hate crimes) and demand hard cash and ideological obedience in return for their exorcism of intangible phantasms.

GC,
By any chance are you going to see "Exorcist: The Begining," as soon as it opens in theaters tonight? I just thought that maybe...

Speaking of exorcism, Jindal literally believes in demonic possession.

By any chance are you going to see "Exorcist: The Begining,"

I am indeed :) You?

Speaking of exorcism, Jindal literally believes in demonic possession.

Not special to Christianity - Hinduism has just as many bizarre superstitions. I bet your mom has probably done the salt thing with the "evil eye", just as mine has. There aren't too many secular rationalists in this world (and even fewer that understand communism/marxism is a religion as well).

Is belief in demonic possession any more outlandish than belief in a pachaderm-headed deity or multi-armed goddess?

Many, many people are silent secularists, passive members of a religion to establish their bona fides and woo another voting bloc. They're the people whom you ask, 'Are you religious?' and, avoiding your eyes, say, 'I'm spiritual,' or, 'I'm agnostic.'

In contrast, Jindal was an active participant in an exorcism:

Kneeling on the ground, my friends were chanting, 'Satan, I command you to leave this woman.' ... With holy water and blessed crucifixes, I have even given her physical protection from the demons that have only reappeared...

I deeply distrust religious fundamentalists. Is Christianity any more or less pagan than Hinduism? No. But would you elect a fundie? That's the Jindal question.

Well, that's the price of "tolerance." Somehow, it has become more acceptable to see a bunch of half-naked men marching down a street in leather and g-strings, clamoring to be recognized as normal, than for a devout Catholic convert to believe in the rite of exorcism.

Personally, I don't care for either group, but it does it have much to do with a candidate's ability to represent a district in Louisiana?

So -- back to Jindal's ability to represent a district in Louisiana. I don't think he's able. Jindal represents wealthy business interests (and has only pandered to them), and not the interests of the PEOPLE of louisiana (things like jobs, education, health care...and other fundamental issues that elected officials are supposed to work towards for their constituencies).

It's evident from his current platform, and his past work with the bush administration, with the health care policy of louisiana, etc.

And i think i'll scream if i hear another indian-american praise him just because he's indian-american, without even knowing the issues he represents (I'm not talking about anyone commenting here -- just from personal experience with folks).

I was at a conference last year where a wine and cheese reception was being held for Jindal, by indian-americans. folks were opening up their wallets and writing him huge checks because he was Indian-American and because we should promote indian-americans in our government. But upon asking them what Jindal's platform was, they had no idea. Crazy.

Manish:

You can try to make a big deal out of religious belief, but the fact is that tons of people believe in that stuff. As I said above, I bet your mom does that salt stuff with the evil eye, as does mine. Yeah, I think it's stupid, but it doesn't affect her career.

I'm more scared of people who think socialism is a good idea than of people who think that ghosts exist (not least because the latter group is the vast majority of the population).

Anjali:

(things like jobs, education, health care...and other fundamental issues that elected officials are supposed to work towards for their constituencies).

1) Jobs are not something the government should be providing. See: USSR, PRC, North Korea...or structural double-digit unemployment in Franco-German sclerocracies.

2) Ditto for socialist health care. There is a reason why Canadian doctors are fleeing to the US and Europe & Canada are increasingly privatizing. That was also the reason for the Republican revolution in 1994. Only leftists think the way to reduce prices is by eliminating competition altogether.

3) Education - increased government spending doesn't make any difference. And recent studies show that charter & public schools have statistically indistinguishable results.

I agree with Anjali, in the sense that I am also disgusted with hearing Indian-Americans praise "Bobby" and pull out their checkbooks solely because his parents come from India. My parents have lived in Louisiana for 24 years, but when the Jindal campaign went knocking on doors for contributions, the only Indians that were contacted were the wealthier ones, who would make donations of at least $500, if not more. Jindal is just like his GOP counterparts, only interested in appealing to the rich, and not so much concerned with the issues of the poor. If he had spent more time appealing to African-American voters, maybe the outcome of the governor's race would have been different, but it is obvious that his priorities do not lie in the best interests of Louisiana's uninsured, uneducated, underpriviledged minorities. If the political, economic, and social system in Louisiana is ever going to get a much-needed change, Jindal is certainly not the most formidable catalyst for that change.

My big beef with Jindal isn't what he believes, per se, it's the fact that he's going to insert those beliefs in an active way into my life.

I'll gladly vote for deeply religious candidates who hold beliefs very different from mine, as long as they recognize that the public sphere is different from the private, and that the separation between church and state exists to protect both state and church.

If you read John Locke's "A letter concerning toleration" you'll see that the roots of religious liberty came from devout christians who wanted to preserve churches from the state. We've forgotten all of that now.

Let's get serious here. Jindal's a wingnut in every sense of the word:

• He doesn't believe in separation of church and state
• He ran ads for teaching creationism in public schools
• He's pro-Ten Commandments in government offices
• He's anti-abortion, with no exception for rape
• He's anti-gun control
• He's anti-gay marriage
• He attacks the film industry as sowing moral corruption
• He's pitching to the same Louisiana voters who supported David Duke
• He's raising dumb money from wealthy desis who ask no questions
• Some claim he converted to Christianity for political advantage, though there's no evidence for that (and his belief in exorcism suggests he's a hardcore convert)

He's another in a long line of minority extremists like Alan Keyes and Michelle Malkin. Here's what I do like about him:

• Bright, Rhodes scholar; another Rhodes scholar, 32 year old governor of a small Southern state, was Clinton
• He's desi
• Turned a $400M deficit into a $620M surplus in Louisiana at age 24
• He's for eliminating some business taxes
• He's for education reform

Here's a humorous post about Jindal's piece on exorcism:

If Louisiana wants to elect a man who believes in demonic possession, so be it. His colorful past will fit right in with the roster of wackos and miscreants who've held that office. What I cannot tolerate, from any person at any age, is writing worthy of Penthouse Forum. And that's exactly what this Jindal tale is. I kept waiting for "Susan" to remove her bra, then receive a mysterious knock on the door. Why it's her sexually curious identical twin! Bobby couldn't believe the luck ... if only they weren't possessed by Satan.

He's pitching to the same Louisiana voters who supported David Duke

That "fact" makes me doubt all the rest of your "facts". Duke is a white national socialist. Jindal is a brown capitalist. They are absolutely not appealing to the "same voters". How ludicrous.

As for the rest...

1) abortion isn't going to be outlawed without federal action, so that's a nonissue

2) almost everyone in louisiana is against gun-grabbers. It's the South, remember? Hardly a "wingnut" position.

3) Plenty of Democrats like Lieberman/Gore/etc. (and far leftists like Anjali/DRUM sistaz/etc.) attack the film industry as sowing moral corruption (though the far leftists call it something different). That's about as mainstream as you get in politics. Remember all that stupid leftwing stuff about how Columbine was caused by the guns in the Matrix moview?

4) anti-gay marriage...again, hardly an extreme position given that the majority of the country has this view.

Only by the standards of the San Francisco left is he "hard right".

This idea that Jindal was appealing to Duke voters is not supported by the facts. The districts that voted overwhelmingly for Duke when he ran - this time, they went to Blanco. These districts are normally firmly Republican, went to Blanco in the most recent election. Did they suddenly wake up and realize they agree with the Democrats, but just plum forgot? Asianweek magazine, no bastion of ring-wing conservatism, had this insightful piece:

Did Racism Beat Jindal?
http://news.asianweek.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=114eacdcbaa58b83d163f2ebf38ae89c&this_category_id=169

GC:

Duke is a white national socialist. Jindal is a brown capitalist. They are absolutely not appealing to the "same voters".

And KXB:

This idea that Jindal was appealing to Duke voters is not supported by the facts.

Jindal staked out a far-right position to pitch Duke voters, as your own article says. He didn't win them, probably because he's not white.

It was just those Duke voters Jindal was seeking in his hard-right campaign.

GC:

Only by the standards of the San Francisco left is he "hard right".

(amused) So, if I were to grant all your points, which boil down to him holding deeply conservative positions, you grant he's also anti-separation of church and state, pro-creationism in schools, pro-Ten Commandments in gov't offices, and pro-participation in exorcism.

The conclusion is left as an exercise for the reader.

Point is, if you're a wealthy desi political contributor, don't buy a pig in a poke. We can do better.

I think Manish and gc bring up an interesting point: can someone with fundamental or evangelical values (and the two are not synonymous) be a representative to the people in a secular society?

And I think the answer relies on the individual him (or her) self. I don't think religious fundamentalism in and of itself should disqualify someone from office as long as they are honest about their beliefs when they are running and believe in, and uphold, the separation of church and state. Of course the line that denotes separation between church and state differs on who is applying the rule and this is where the problem lies.

Note, I'm speaking in hypotheticals here, not about Jindal in particular. For Jindal, I have no problem with his religion and even the exorcism thing but I don't share his beliefs on abortion, or stem cells (which I suppose are related. Hmmm. Did I just mess up my own point?)

I am, however, a fan of his elitist, serve the rich and favor the corporations GOP business talking points (joke, joke. even us nominal righties have some sense of humor...)

Ok, I don't like what I wrote at all. I guess I was trying to say that why should the religious be suspect?

Hmm, that was much shorter and more what I wanted to say.

why should the religious be suspect?

The merely religious aren't, of course. But fundie and evangelical tenets are anti-secularist, so the candidate has to come out and say 'Despite my religion, I believe in separation of church and state.' Here the candidate's saying precisely the opposite.

As long as you have the same standard for fundamentalists of all religions (and I can't think why you wouldn't seeing all I've read of your posts).

To my understanding evangelicals were different from fundamentalists precisely on that point - they believe that they have to accept Christ as their personal savior to be admitted to heaven, but that says nothing about society at large. Ok, that's garbled and I'm probably wrong not being Christian myself but I know evangelicals who are fine with the separation of church and state.

As long as you have the same standard for fundamentalists of all religions

Of course. E.g. the new, very religious Muslim PM of Turkey made the same church/state disavowal when he was sworn in.

evangelicals were different from fundamentalists precisely on that point

Good to know, I'm not really familiar with the distinction, thanks.

For example, how would we feel about a Catholic candidate for office who promised to veto any bill that involved federal money for condoms, since these are against church teachings ...

America is a representative democracy, of course. Which is to say, one American can articulate and defend the collective interests of other Americans, even if they don't agree on some/many/most metaphysical/religious issues.

Precisely because of this, relgious people should not be thought uniquely unfit to become members of congress, as a number of people have pointed out earlier (MD, Manish Vij, etc.), so long as church-state separation is respected.

I would certainly consider supporting a fundamentalist or evangelical Christian for public office, if he/she had political beliefs mostly consistent with mine. I think all this to be rather un-controversial.

But Mr. Jindal's congressional campaign raises a more fundamental issue, I think. I have been told that Mr. Jindal featured his conversion (from Hinduism) to Christianity rather prominently in his efforts to win public office. I should point out that I haven't followed Mr. Jindal's campaign very closely.

However, let's say this is a correct reading of his campaign, for the sake of argument. Further, assume that Mr. Jindal is a staunch supporter of church-state separation.

I would argue that such a campaign still raises serious questions for (devout) Hindu-Americans. Quite simply, one duty of a devout Hindu would be to defend the truth(s) of Hinduism in the public arena. And conversion stories from Hinduism, if couched as 'proof' of the inadequacy of Hinduism generally, would demand a counter from a devout Hindu-American.

Minimally, it would seem to me, that such a candidate could not be supported, in good conscience, by a devout Hindu-American.

I am raising this in a rather tenative manner. Among the points I'm unsure about is whether every devout every Hindu-American has such an obligation. In any case, I would welcome input by other commenters.

Tenatively,
Kumar

AFAIK, he didn't dis Hinduism, he merely played up his Christianity to offset the fact that he's desi.

Manish:

I know even less about the specifics of Mr. Jindal's campaign than you. So I'll defer to you on this point.

However, let's then substitute Candidate X for Mr. Jindal, and make my example entirely hypothetical. If Candidate X were to campaign in the manner I described earlier, it seems to me that (devout) Hindu-Americans would be obligated to dispute his/her assertions about Hinduism in the public arena.

Kumar