With parliamentary elections due next year, Iran's center-left coalition might be the latest victims of the YouTube effect. The would-be reformers are crying foul over the above video, which has been posted on a number of  conservative Web sites and allegedly shows former President Mohammed Khatami shaking hands with a female supporter on a recent trip to Italy.

Khatami says the video is a fake and claims never to have shaken hands with any woman, an act considered taboo by many conservative Muslims. A mid-level cleric, Khatami has formed a coalition with more conservative former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and former parliamentary speaker Mehdi Karrubi to attempt to stem the tide of Iran's rightward drift. Though emboldened by the defeat of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hardliners in last December's local council elections, reformers still worry they could be disqualified by Iran's religious Guardian Council, which vets parliamentary candidates.

To Western eyes, Iran's Handshakegate looks pretty silly—and it gets much sillier (video)—but with some clerics calling for Khatami to be defrocked, Iran's struggling reformers certainly aren't laughing. It doesn't help, apparently, that Ahmadinejad himself is guilty of the horrible crime of touching a woman; this is about gutter politics, not bedrock principle.

DAMIEN MEYER/AFP/Getty Images

The discount airline craze that dominates Europe's airways took a leap of faith on Monday. In hopes of getting more Catholic pilgrims out to religious sites, the Vatican is now providing low-cost charter flights from seven Italian airports to places like the shrine of Fátima in Portugal, Santiago de Compostela in Spain, and the Jasna Gora monastery in Czestochowa, Poland. Signing a five-year agreement with Mistral Air, a parcel transport company founded by Italian movie star Bud Spencer, the airline is hoping to transport 150,000 passengers a year to their divine destinations (and hopefully make a worldly profit in the meantime). 

But not even God's nod of approval can shield you from the cut-throat competition on the runway these days. Here is what Ryanair, another bargain carrier, said of its new rival:

Ryanair already performs miracles that even the Pope's boss can't rival, by delivering pilgrims to Santiago de Compostela for the heavenly price of €10.

But is the Ryanair flight crew "specialized in voyages of a sacred nature"? Didn't think so. Nor do they have "I'm Searching for Your Face, Lord," imprinted on headrest covers throughout the cabin. And for those tired of the same old, mainstream in-flight entertainment, the Vatican's flights will be broadcasting religious videos instead. No word yet on whether Pope Benedict XVI, who usually charters a private plane for his voyages, might be next to you at the check-in.

iStockphoto.com

In the United States, it's legal to burn the country's flag; it's legal to put a Christian cross in a glass of urine and call it art; and it's legal to create a painting of the Virgin Mary that incorporates elephant dung. Despite the fact that many people understandably find these acts to be highly repugnant and offensive, they are protected as free speech.

Last Friday, however, a 23-year-old man was arrested on hate-crime charges after surveillance photos linked him to two incidents of throwing Korans into toilets at Pace University in New York. Granted, the behavior was offensive and inappropriate: It does not elevate the debate about Islam and terrorism.

But in the compelling interest of protecting free speech, this man's alleged Koran flushings should be treated as property crimes, not hate crimes. He appears to have taken the Korans from the university's meditation room. If true, then he should be charged with theft. If the toilets' plumbing was damaged, then he should also be charged with vandalism.

In fact, Pace University initially classified the first book flushing as an act of vandalism, but later referred it to the hate crimes unit of the New York Police Department. If the university wishes to punish such asinine behavior, then as a private university, it has the right to establish a code of conduct that takes disciplinary action against those who create a hostile environment on campus.

Free speech is essential for democracy. It doesn't require us to agree with what everyone says, but it does require us to tolerate—and even defend—the right of others to express themselves in offensive ways.

At 2:01 a.m. on the dot this Saturday, Israeli bookstores are scheduled to participate in the world-wide synchronized release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the highly anticipated final book in J.K. Rowling's seven-part series. But never mind Voldemort. Harry's most unrelenting opponents might be Orthodox Jewish government officials, who are outraged that the release is scheduled on the Sabbath. By law, most businesses in Israel are required to close on this holy day of rest and cannot forces employees to work, which could pose a small problem for book retailers preparing for one of the biggest launches of the year.

But for many, Harry Potter trumps the law. Steimatzky, Israel's biggest bookstore chain, is holding a gala event in Tel Aviv beginning Friday night to celebrate the launch. Spokeswoman Alona Zamir said:

We will hold the launch as planned because we are contractually bound to do so. The book will go on sale here at the same time as in other places around the world.

Trade and Industry Minister Eli Yishai has made it known that he isn't taking the rebellion lightly. He plans to dispatch inspectors to report on stores that take part in the book launch.

For ardent fans of magic and wizardry, it is going to take more than a little controversy to dampen their excitement. Steimatzky has already received tens of thousands of advance orders for Deathly Hallows in English. With all the speculation flying around about Harry's possible demise, Israeli fans may have to start looking for a secluded hiding spot for Saturday to make sure nobody ruins the ending before they can actually get their hands on a copy.

In the past week, both the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have featured vastly different takes on the caste system in India.

The Washington Post's headline:

A 'Broken People' in Booming India

Low-Caste Dalits Still Face Prejudice, Grinding Poverty

The Wall Street Journal's headline:

Caste Away

India's high-tech revolution helps 'Untouchables' rise …

The Post is more pessimistic, saying "India may be booming, but not for those who occupy the lowest rung of society here." It mentions the case of a Dalit woman (a member of the lowest caste, the "untouchables") whose two children died after a health center refused to help them.

RAVEENDRAN/AFP/Getty Images

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal takes an optimistic tone, saying "… India's rapid economic expansion—and its booming high-tech sector—are beginning to chip away at the historical system that reserved well-paying jobs for upper castes and menial jobs for Dalits." It profiles the story of a Dalit man who is now a software developer and earns more in one month than his father did in a year.

So who's right? It's probably too early to tell, but one factor is sure to make a difference in the outcome: access to education. Many Dalits don't get a decent chance at a quality education. Affirmative action plans, which have been in place for nearly 60 years, can help them get into universities, but if they aren't academically prepared in the first place and have weak English skills, then it's hard to compete.

Probably the biggest challenge, though, is lack of leadership. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has called the caste system "a blot on humanity." But, unfortunately, the rest of the country's elite doesn't seem to have made egalitarianism a priority. As one publisher of books on caste says, "There's not even the pretension to fight caste. It's not trendy or a Bollywood star's cause célèbre to say you care about the working-man untouchable."

Calling on all Catholics to send their donations elsewhere, the Vatican lambasted Amnesty International Wednesday for the human rights organization's stance on abortion.

The Vatican's beef is that in April, Amnesty shifted its official position from a neutral stance to one of urging governments to ensure access to abortion services in the case of rape, incest, or when pregnancy represents a risk to the mother's life. But Cardinal Renato Martino's accusation that Amnesty is "promoting abortion" is a misrepresentation, the human rights organization says:

Amnesty International's actual policy, however, standing alongside its long-standing opposition to forced abortion, is to support the decriminalisation of abortion, to ensure women have access to health care when complications arise from abortion and to defend women's access to abortion, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger.

While Amnesty doesn't take a dime from the Vatican itself, provoking the Holy See's condemnation will certainly hurt the organization with devout Catholics.

The Roman Catholic Church and Amnesty International have historically found a great deal of common ground. Both believe their mission is to protect victims of persecution, particularly when it comes to armed conflict, the death penalty, and world poverty. It would be a shame if abortion caused the Church to lose sight of these shared goals.

AFP

Outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair has made clear that promoting dialogue between religious faiths will be a centerpiece of his retirement. He's kicking things off this week with an international conference hosted by Cambridge University entitled, "Islam and Muslims in the World Today."

Blair said today that the conference is an opportunity "to hear Islam's true voice." Among the participants (pdf) who apparently represent this voice is Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the grand mufti of Egypt who is said to be on the liberal end of the Sheikh spectrum. Yet among Gomaa's more famous beliefs is a fatwa that condemned artists and banned the displaying of statues in people's private homes, a statement supporting the terrorist group Hezbollah during last summer's war with Israel, and this bizarre comment justifying the beating of women in some instances:

Women in some cultures are not averse to beatings. They consider it as an expression of masculinity, and as a kind of control, which she herself desires. In other societies, it is the exact opposite. [...]

I got a question from Canada. The man said: "Here, it is a crime to beat a wife, even with a toothbrush. Is this prohibition acceptable in Islam?" Yes. Islam accepts that the beating of Canadian wives, in this culture and ambience [...] From childhood they are taught that beating women is a type of barbarism, savagery, and so on. There is nothing wrong with taking this into consideration, and adapting to society, because Islam did not command us to be aggressive towards women.

If in their culture, this constitutes aggression towards women, then we are forbidden to be aggressive towards women. [...] But when Allah permitted wife-beating, He permitted it to the other side of culture, which considers it as one of the means to preserve the family, and as one of the means to preserve stability.

Interfaith dialogue is an admirable goal. We need more of it and, particularly, those of us in the West could use more exposure to the "true" voices of Islam. But it's sad when these efforts amount to little more than pathetic displays of cultural relativism.

(Hat tip: Damian Thompson)

The Pew Research Center just released the results of the first, nationwide random-sample survey of Muslim Americans (pdf) and has found them to be largely assimilated. But some findings are nonetheless troubling.

The good news: The survey found that the U.S. Muslims surveyed were middle class and mostly mainstream. A strong 71 percent believe you can get ahead in the United States by working hard. They also reject extremist Islam by larger margins than their counterparts in European countries.  

But when asked the question, "Can suicide bombings of civilian targets to defend Islam be justified?", 13 percent of those ages 18-29 said "sometimes," 11 percent said "rarely," and 2 percent said "often." In all, one in four young U.S. Muslims surveyed agreed that suicide bombing of civilians was at times acceptable. (In contrast, among Muslims 30 and older, 6 percent said "sometimes" or "often," and 3 percent said "rarely.")

The survey report doesn't suggest reasons why there is a gap between younger and older Muslims' attitudes about suicide bombing, but it does say that similar gaps have been found among Muslims in European countries. The president of the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy, a U.S. organization that advocates the compatibility of Islam and democracy, suggests that the Internet and television may be exposing impressionable young people to extreme ideologies. Or perhaps it's a function of age: Young people, and young men in particular, tend to have more violent attitudes.

Whatever the reason, it's just plain unsettling.

When she was 14 years old, Irshad Manji, a Canadian Muslim, asked her madrasa teacher, "Where is the evidence of the 'Jewish conspiracy' against Islam?"

Her teacher responded by kicking her out of the madrasa.

Since then, Manji has been using her own brain to study Islam and launch a campaign to reform her religion. Manji, who moved to Canada as a child when Idi Amin expelled the East Indian community from Uganda, has written the book The Trouble With Islam Today: A Muslim's Call for Reform in Her Faith. Her latest endeavor is the documentary Faith Without Fear, which debuts tonight in the United States on PBS as part of the channel's series America at a Crossroads.

In 2003, the New York Times described Manji as Osama bin Laden's worst nightmare. She reads the Koran and abstains from pork and alcohol. She's also a lesbian feminist who admires Israel and supports the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

I'm intrigued by Manji's current Project Ijtihad (pronounced "ij-tee-had"). On her website, Manji says that ijtihad is Islam's long-lost tradition of independent thinking that was stomped out at the end of the 11th century. Manji wants to create a network of reform-minded Muslims who engage in critical thinking and bring about a reformation of Islam that updates it for the 21st century. If Christianity could have its Protestant Reformation, it seems possible for Islam to have one too.

Manji has her critics on both the left and the right. She also has supporters ranging from Arianna Huffington to Glenn Beck. I plan to make my own assessment tonight when I watch Faith Without Fear. I encourage you to watch the documentary too.

ANTONIO SCORZA/AFP/Getty Images

Rio de Janeiro, BRAZIL: "Unidos da Tijuca" samba school performs at the Sambadrome, during the second night of carnival celebrations in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 19 February 2007.

Here's a Friday afternoon prediction: The fact that Mitt Romney is a Mormon will be the reason he is not elected to the White House—and everyone will pretend it isn't.

Behind the scenes, ABC's The Note tells us, the opinion of the "Gang of 500" media elites is that he's doomed:

Mitt Romney — Flip-flopping (Mormon); ruthless (Mormon); opportunistic (Mormon); slick (Mormon); a Mormon can't get elected (not ANY Mormon).

But in public view, the denial has already started. Don't believe it? Just pick up this morning's Washington Post, where the editors make a delusional attempt to take the high road by declaring, "Mr. Romney should be judged on a basis other than his faith." So, instead of slamming his religion, the Post criticizes Romney's flip-flopping on issues such as abortion, discrimination against homosexuals, stem cell research, and other issues. But don't be fooled. The Post's editors say that Romney's faith is "one topic that shouldn't matter," yet in the last six weeks or so alone, the Post has run no fewer than five articles that touched on that very subject.

The reason every article on Romney has to mention Mormonism is simple. At dinner parties and fund-raisers, even the Republican chattering classes may like to pretend that Romney will be judged at face value. But he won't. Romney will judged, ultimately, on his faith. Call it a form of soft bigotry if you like. It is. It's also a political reality.

This reality will first play itself out in the primaries, where evangelical Christians make up at least 30 percent of the Republican voting base. The debates will politely side step the issue. Oh, there might be an attack ad or two that alludes to it secondhand. For the most part, Romney's competitors will tread lightly in public. But behind closed doors, the dirt will by flying fast. As The Washington Monthly's Amy Sullivan presciently pointed out way back in 2005, the push polls coming out of McCain's shop practically write themselves:

Would you be more or less likely to vote for Mitt Romney if you knew he was a Mormon, and that Mormons believe in polygamy?"

Which brings us to the second act in this play. Let's say Romney makes it through the primaries. The general election could be even more vicious, especially if Romney is running against Hillary. For those who haven't been paying attention, Romney's great-grandfather was a polygamsit who had five wives. Talk about push polls for female voters writing themselves. Combine that with the fact that Romney is probably the only candidate who could get Southern evangelical preachers to sign up for Team Clinton and, well, you get the picture.

STRDEL/AFP/Getty Images

Thousands of Hindu holy men are threatening to boycott the Hindu festival of Purna Kumbh Mela on the grounds that the Ganges, India's holiest river, is too polluted to wash away the sins of the millions of pilgrims who visit during the celebration. The seven-week festival is expected to draw 70 million people to the banks of the Ganges. Indian government officials, under pressure from the holy men, are offering to pump in fresh water.

About a month ago, I wrote about how CNN can't decide whether Rep.-Elect Keith Ellison is an icon or an enemy. Turns out, some of his colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives can't decide either.

In case you've missed the news, Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, also happens to be a Muslim. But it seems that people are having a hard time figuring out that one can be Muslim and American at the same time. Ellison, for example, was born in Detroit, one of the most American cities I know.

But in a letter being mailed out to constituents, U.S. Rep. Virgil Goode, a Republican from Virginia, is taking exception with Ellison's decision to have one hand on the Koran as he swears in his oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. In his letter, he says he can "not subscribe to using the Koran in any way." Then he goes on:

The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by voters of that district and if American citizens don't wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration, there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran."

Grasp the irony? Ellison will be taking an oath to defend the Constitution, the very document that guarantees his freedom to practice any religion he chooses, or none at all. The really sad irony here is that Virgil Goode represents a state that helped enshrine religious freedom into our national fabric. Here's another Virginian, Thomas Jefferson, writing in reference to the creation of the Virginia Act of Religious Freedom:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting 'Jesus Christ,' so that it would read 'A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;' the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

My how times have changed.

Muslim residents of Katy, Texas are planning on building a mosque in the Houston suburb so they have a place to worship. The neighbors are not happy:

"[O]ne resident has set up an anti-Islamic Web site with an odometer-like counter that keeps track of terrorist attacks since Sept. 11. A committee has formed to buy another property and offer to trade it for the Muslims' land. And next-door neighbor Craig Baker has threatened to race pigs on the edge of the property on the Muslim holy day."

Nice guy, that Craig Baker. Actually, there's no rule explicitly forbidding the racing of pigs in Islam, but it's still gratuitously offensive.