Just when you thought citing the bible for political purposes was solely the province of the Right, our quick perusal today of Leviticus turned up these verses:

And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God. (19:33-4)

If there’s a so-called “Defense” of Marriage Act, based largely on prejudices inspired from odd passages from Leviticus, shouldn’t there also be an accompanying amnesty statute for illegal immigrants?

Two good articles from Post today.

The Manhattan Institute finds that immigrants in America adapt quickly. Though measuring economic, cultural, and civic integration is difficult, it’s useful to look at the index as a good way to compare different groups rather than interpreting 100 as a full integration (whatever that really should mean). Either way, the numbers tell a story that contrasts sharply with what one will find in the Parisian banlieues.

Despite this, sadly, there’s still plenty of racist hostility to blacks, as Sen. Obama’s campaigners are finding. It’s a story barely reported on the campaign trail over the past few months, but Sen. Clinton may have hinted at it when she discounted Obama’s electability. At first I thought she was referring to his liberal, if scant, voting record. Now I suspect she may have been referring to something else.

I’ve often thought of elitism as meaning that one simply has high standards. A dictionary’s definition is probably more nuanced (dare I say elitist?) than mine, but I suggest a read of Paul Farhi’s article in Friday’s Post about the term’s use in politics:

It doesn’t matter that those who run for president are almost always better educated, better dressed, more telegenic, far wealthier and more articulate — all in all, drawn from an elite class — than just about every voter in the country. We know it, but prefer to hear about log cabin beginnings and back stories brimming with Horatio Alger spunk and Norman Rockwell imagery. We want politicians, in the cliched formulation, that we’d be comfortable having a beer with (tellingly, no one ever says “have a nice glass of merlot with”; we are not France).

Elitism isn’t about money or privilege, it’s about attitude, says Farhi:

It might seem a tad ironic for multimillionaires such as Clinton and Limbaugh to be calling anyone “elitist,” but “elitism” isn’t really about money. Donald Trump has money, but few think “elitist” when thinking of Trump. Elitism is instead an attitude, a demeanor, a vocabulary, a self-possessed air. It suggests condescension and contempt, a lack of empathy, an arrogant aloofness.

It’s worth a read.