X Close

America’s conservatives would never elect a Hindu Republicans are living decades in the past

There will be no Republican Rishi Sunak (Simon Walker)

There will be no Republican Rishi Sunak (Simon Walker)


October 27, 2022   5 mins

Here in America, the most surprising storyline in the Conservative Party’s latest psychodrama is the fact that Rishi Sunak has emerged from it. It is impossible to imagine someone like him being chosen to lead the Republican Party, America’s closest equivalent to the Tories — impossible because Sunak describes himself as a proud Hindu.

Sunak doesn’t eat beef and has a statue of the Indian god Ganesh sitting on his desk. When he was sworn in as an MP in 2017, he placed his hand on the Bhagavad Gita. Such an openly Hindu candidate would have zero chance of leading today’s GOP. This is not because America is more intolerant than Britain, or even because the Republican Party is more intolerant than the Tory Party. It’s because the GOP is far more intolerant religiously.

If you doubt that an openly Hindu — or, for that matter, an openly Muslim or Buddhist candidate — would have no chance of leading today’s Republican Party, consider this. Although Hindus constitute roughly the same percentage of America’s population as they do Britain’s, there’s not a single Hindu Republican member of Congress. Last year, the Pew Research Center noted that of the 261 Republicans in the House and Senate, 258 are Christian, two are Jewish and one doesn’t list their religious affiliation. (The two Hindus, two Buddhists, and three Muslims who currently serve in Congress are all Democrats.) By contrast, two of the Conservative Party’s most prominent figures — Sunak and former Home Secretary, Priti Patel — have both spoken about their Hindu faith. Patel’s successor, Suella Braverman, is a practising Buddhist.

I have specifically identified Sunak, Patel, and Braverman by their religion, not their ethnicity. I’m not arguing that Republicans don’t elect politicians of South Asian descent. They do. Bobby Jindal served for eight years as governor of Louisiana before seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Nikki Haley, who spent six years as governor of South Carolina, is often touted as a future GOP presidential contender.

But there’s a critical difference between Sunak, Patel, and Braverman on the one hand, and Jindal and Haley on the other: the Americans converted to Christianity. They also both took on Americanised first names. That’s their right, of course. I’m not suggesting that Jindal and Haley’s faith is insincere. But given how central Christianity is to Republican political identity, it’s unlikely either would have enjoyed political success without converting. After all, according to Pew, 53% of conservative Republicans say being Christian is an important part of being truly American.

None of this is to say that the GOP isn’t capable of racial and ethnic inclusion. Jindal and Haley were popular with grassroots Republicans, as were Ben Carson and Marco Rubio. Mayra Flores, a Mexican-American woman elected earlier this year from South Texas, is the congressional GOP’s newest star. But it’s almost always a shared conservative Christianity that allows white Republicans to embrace Black, Hispanic, or Asian candidates. And this means conservative Christianity, which can foster racial and ethnic inclusion, can foster religious exclusion at the same time.

Nor does the GOP’s Christian identity exclude all non-Christians equally. Because many conservative Christians are philo-semitic — as evidenced by their use of the phrase “Judeo-Christian” to describe American civilisation — Jewish politicians can prosper in today’s GOP so long as they express ardent admiration for the Christian Right. Josh Mandel offered a fascinating case study in how that’s done when he sought the Republican nomination for Senate earlier this year in Ohio. In an advertisement this spring, Mandel declared that his grandmother was “saved from the Nazis by a network of courageous Christians. Without their faith, I’m not here today”. His campaign website featured a cross and an American flag.

Mandel declared himself both proudly Jewish — his children attend an orthodox Jewish school — and fervently pro-Christian. And had Trump not endorsed his opponent, J.D. Vance, he would most probably be the Republican nominee for Senate. For Muslim Republican candidates, however, proudly asserting your own faith isn’t an option. While 94% of Republicans would vote for a Jew for president, according to Gallup, only 38% would vote for a Muslim. This means that in the rare cases in which Muslim Republicans run for office, they have to do more than praise Christianity. They have to virtually adopt it themselves.

Take the case of Mehmet Oz, the Republican nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania. In a statement on his religious identity earlier this year, Oz wrote that he “was raised as a secular Muslim”, leaving open the question of whether he remains a Muslim today. He then added that his wife “is a Christian who attended seminary and whose mother is an ordained minister. We raised our four children as Christians and beamed with joy watching them and our four grandchildren become baptised.” In other words: don’t worry, Islam is in my past — my family is Christian now. When Barry Goldwater, who identified as Christian despite having a Jewish father, won the Republican presidential nomination in 1964, a Jewish wag quipped: “I always knew the first Jewish president of the United States would be an Episcopalian.” That’s no longer true for Jews, but in the GOP it remains true for politicians like Oz, Jindal, and Haley. Conservative Christians will overlook your non-Christian background so long as you jettison that faith in favour of theirs.

I’m not claiming there’s no religious bias in the UK. Given the Islamophobia stoked by the “war on terror”, the British scholar H.A Hellyer has suggested, in a now-deleted tweet, that it’s easier to be an openly Hindu Tory politician than an openly Muslim one. That’s an important caveat. But the Tories still aren’t as Islamophobic as the GOP, a party whose voters largely supported Donald Trump’s call to ban all Muslims from entering the country.

In fact, when it comes to religious tolerance, the Tories have more in common with the Democrats. The reason has to do with British society. In recent decades, the British population has become far less hegemonically Christian. A 2018 study found that only 38% of Brits now identify as Christian, while 10% identify with other religions and a remarkable 52% identify with no religion at all. In the US, secularisation has been growing rapidly as well, but with a sharp partisan tilt: according to a 2020 Pew Research Center poll, only 52% of Democrats now identify as Christian, compared to 79% of Republicans.

And so today, the Democratic Party, like both of Britain’s major parties, is so religiously pluralistic that it’s willing to elect candidates who don’t identify as Christian or even “Judeo-Christian”; its supporters are now half as likely as Republicans to say being Christian is important to being “truly American” . This is because most Democrats have divorced Americanism from Christianity — which explains why many of them voted for a culturally Jewish but essentially secular presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders.

It’s for that same reason that most would vote comfortably for Kamala Harris, who describes her religious identity as syncretic. As Harris explained: “My mother, an immigrant from India, instilled the same idea in me on trips to Hindu temples. And I’ve also seen it reflected in the Jewish traditions and celebrations I now share with my husband, Doug. From all of these traditions and teachings, I’ve learned that faith is not only something we express in church and prayerful reflection, but also in the way we live our lives, do our work and pursue our respective callings.”

That kind of answer — spiritual but not exclusively Christian — is acceptable in today’s Democratic Party. But it’s unlikely to find favour among Republicans, who can’t embrace Christian nationalism and religious diversity at the same time. That is why there will be no Republican Rishi Sunak — and that is why, at least in this respect, Republicans are still living decades in the past.

***

A version of this piece first appeared on Peter’s Substack: The Beinart Notebook.


Peter Beinart is Editor-at-Large at Jewish Currents and author of the Beinart Notebook on Substack.

PeterBeinart

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

349 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Matt Hindman
Matt Hindman
1 year ago

This guy is nuts and if you don’t believe me just head on over to his Substack page and start clicking on random articles. To him, everyone who disagrees with him is some kind of “ist” and he does not have anything nice to say about those who do not fit his worldview.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt Hindman
Aaron James
Aaron James
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

”Although Hindus constitute roughly the same percentage of America’s population as they do Britain’s,”

”As of 2019, about 2.7 million Indian immigrants resided in the United States.” In Uk there are reported 1.5 Million Indian USA has 5 times the population. Thus UK has over 2.5 the number as USA, or 250% More per population.. Then UK has another 1.5 Million from the rest of the ex-colony of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh which also effect London and UK culturally.

Last edited 1 year ago by Aaron James
Kate Heusser
Kate Heusser
1 year ago
Reply to  Aaron James

‘Indian’ and ‘Hindu’ are not synonymous. Counting ‘Indians’ and adding in Pakistan and Bangladesh – both explicitly Muslim from their foundation, doesn’t increase the Hindu population of the UK. Sorry Aaron, but you don’t get it at all.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

There are a percentage of Indian christians in the Uk but I wouldn’t take a guess on how many.

Ed Carden
Ed Carden
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

True but %79.8 (or 4 out of every 5 ) of India’s people are Hindu so they are the vast majority in India so while technically not true it’s not that inaccurate either to say India is a Hindu nation.

Srinivasa Sarma
Srinivasa Sarma
1 year ago
Reply to  Ed Carden

Unfortunately, India was not declared as Hindu country, when British partitioned India on the basis of religion.

Srinivasa Sarma
Srinivasa Sarma
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

India and Hindu are one and the same. In India there are Hindus and there were Hindus. The invasion and conversion have created the so called difference.

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago
Reply to  Kate Heusser

Yes. I am happy to vote for a Hindu but not a Muslim.

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

“…and that is why, at least in this respect, Republicans are still living decades in the past.” What a truly brilliant observation by Mr. Beinart. After decades, people who vote Republican still haven’t become Democrats! Who would have thunk it.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

Your sarcasm seems to be aimed at the writer stating the obvious: that Republicans aren’t Democrats. (Am I right?). But the fact is that by holding onto their religious view of America, and consequently the world, Republican are binding themselves to the past and unable to adjust to modern ideas of life and meaning, which translates into values, which translates into views of others. So their policies become more reflexive, less accomodating. The Democrats feel that they’ve moved on. But the Democrats, while ditching such strict orthodoxy have replaced it with an equally strict and debilitating orthodoxy. Which suggests that they’re moved by the same religious strains as Republicans, which seems to be typically American. In the end they’re all Puritans.

Terry M
Terry M
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

they’re [Dems] moved by the same religious strains as Republicans,
Not at all. Dems have embraced the new religion of global warming, diversity for its own sake, equity (equal outcomes regardless of performance), and inclusion ( all moral codes are equal). Republicans are moved by “do unto others …” and a strong belief in a higher power. A Hindu who embraces those ethics would be very welcome, although a lot of teaching would be needed since our education system and media are so terrible.

Penny Gaffney
Penny Gaffney
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

i will agree that a great many conservatives would prefer that candidates adhere to A religious belief. For an overwhelming number this will be Christian. However I reject the general premise that Republicans still bind themselves to Christianity. We Americans do have a Puritanical streak The contradictions are becoming as apparent to modern Republicans as they did for 18th century Brits.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Exactly. A significant percentage of the Democrats are engaged in a kind of recrudescent religious puritanism whose psychological roots are indistinguisable from that of the original Puritans. The words are irrelevant.

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

Actually Brett, I think Beinart missed the obvious, rather than stating it. That’s because he takes it as read, that the ‘moving on’ inherent in the ‘Democrat’ stance on the cultural/social issues du jour, is a superior adaptation. But, as your comment intimates, the deep human instinct for shared ideals and rituals, has merely morphed into the ersatz, febrile religion of Woke. A church with a solid grip within the virtual world, but with barely a toe in the real one.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago
Reply to  Bernard Hill

As a conservative Republican, I really resent some entitled jerk from NYC telling me who I’ll vote for. Would I vote for a Hindu over a Christian? Sure, if the Hindu was more qualified for the office, not just because he was a Hindu. Get out of your little liberal bubble, bubbeleh, and find out what the people in the big empty space west of the Hudson have to say. You might be — no, you will be surprised.

Bernard Hill
Bernard Hill
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

…Thomas, I think your comment is one for the author, Peter Beinart, not me ! I’m on your side for sure !!

John Pade
John Pade
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Even crazies can be right sometimes. I was born, raised, and lived in upstate New York. Until three years ago, when we moved to Kentucky, I too would have thought the author wrong.
Not now. Christianity, particularly the fundamentalist, protestant variety, rules here. The biggest tourist attractions in my area are the Ark Encounter and the Creation Museum. The fundamentalist churches are huge and filled to overflowing on Sundays. They use police for traffic control. Not only are non-Christian religions sparse, even Catholics have to endure lawn signs reminding them of their errors of faith and affiliation. Reglion is not injected into politics because politics are already suffused by it.
There may be religious tolerance but I wouldn’t bet on it when it comes to elections.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  John Pade

Why is it that biblical Christians are the only segment of people on earth that are eschewed for their faith? And what about biblical Christianity is so radical to cause fear in people? Every other faith and lifestyle is upheld, celebrated and paraded with pride, yet Christians are to be silent and ashamed? Most biblical Christians I know, including myself, would give their life to keep our country free. I doubt the same would occur from the atheist left.
And what about loving your neighbor is so horrible?

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.”

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Paul Hendricks

It is Jesus they hate and anyone who follows Him. Could that now be the problem for Britain?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Religion hasn’t played an important role in Britain for a very long time. Even amongst my grandparents (who would be nudging a century if they were still around) none of them or any of their friends ever went to church. It has been a minority pursuit for a century.
Britain has many problems, but religion fading into the background isn’t one of them

Catherine M
Catherine M
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

That’s a good question for your fellow Christians. Why do they hate so many others besides “biblical Christians”? And which bible is that by the way? The original Aramaic? Because that would be the closest to Christ’s words, wouldn’t it?

James Helberg
James Helberg
1 year ago
Reply to  Catherine M

English translations of the Bible are all based on sources written in Greek for the New Testament and Greek and Hebrew for the Old. Although Aramaic was the spoken language at the time and in the place of Jesus’ time on earth, it was not the language of the earliest sources for Bible translation.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

There is an irreconcilable conflict between “go and sin no more” (the credo of Jesus) and “if it feels good, do it” (the credo of the world today.)

James Stangl
James Stangl
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

Exactly. But Christ predicted this response to his disciples. And with the possible exception of the era of Christendom, it has ere been so.

Penny Gaffney
Penny Gaffney
1 year ago
Reply to  John Pade

John, as a life-long Kentuckian I fully understand why a New Yorker would be shocked by the intensity of the Christian presence in the state. It has a long history of being poor, rural and a refuge for religious dissidents. Churches helped with health, education & community support when more secular organizations abandoned them. There is far more religious tolerance than you can see. For most religion is a private matter. BTW, agrarian societies know that corn & horses are raised. Humans are reared.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  John Pade

John, your old New York neighbors were fundamentalist too. Their biggest attractions were opera, indie movies, and art galleries. They all had “Hate isn’t welcome here” signs in their yard. And I’m betting they mostly voted for secular progressives who agreed with them. They would have hesitated greatly to vote for a loud and proud, new evangelism, Catholic even for dogcatcher.
Your new neighbors are also fundamentalist. They go to church, NASCAR and country music concerts. They have crosses in their yards. And they mostly vote for fellow Christians who share their values. They would hesitate to vote for a “loud and proud” atheist.
It isn’t that you’ve moved from the enlightened world to a dark and suspicious one. It’s that you share the basic worldview of your former neighbors, so your new neighbors feel weird and different, which you interpret as backward.
The actual behavior of both groups is the same. You just don’t recognize the first’s fundamentalism because you believe that to be “normal”. When it comes to their deepest convictions about the world, everyone’s a fundamentalist.

James Stangl
James Stangl
1 year ago

Bingo! It never ceases to amaze me that left wing secularists don’t realize that they have faith/religious beliefs just as much as devout Christians, Jews, or whatever. Theirs is in the myth of progress, Gaia, and that whatever they choose to be reality IS reality, at least for today.

Richard 0
Richard 0
1 year ago
Reply to  James Stangl

Read John Gray. In a lot of his work he highlights exactly what you are saying: faith/belief exists everywhere, although so called ‘progressives’ would have you believe otherwise about themselves.

DA Johnson
DA Johnson
1 year ago
Reply to  John Pade

Are there really anti-Catholic yard signs in Kentucky? What do they actually say?

Ken Baker
Ken Baker
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

And in Haley’s case at least she did not “Americanize” her name. ‘Nikki’ is her middle name and it’s a Punjabi word that means ‘little one.’ She says that’s what her parents have always called her.

Ed Carden
Ed Carden
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

His title speaks for its self, deinfately a member of the “isms’ crowd. He is the editor at large at Jewish Currents and my experience with Jews is they either see it as their faith (something they believe in) or their religious zeal and when they tend to push ideas like “Conservatives would never elect a Hindu” it gives leverage more to the later than teh former. Very much like “America would never elect a black man as president” crowd and just like them if Conservatives did elect someone of teh Hindu faith you can bet Peter here would never admit to having been wrong about that.

Fafa Fafa
Fafa Fafa
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

This drivel should be on Salon, not on Unherd.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt Hindman

Peter Beinkop (Bonehead) is an idiot of epic proportions and I’m rather shocked that Unherd would offer him space to spout his nonsense. He clearly sees himself as a great thinker who ought to be listened to but doesn’t have the intelligence or insight to write a column for a high school newsletter. He thinks everyone but he is a failure, is intolerant of other views, and his writings are a caricature of liberalism. A short look at his output confirms that.

Last edited 1 year ago by harry storm
Peter Johnson
Peter Johnson
1 year ago

What a pile of nonsense. This is like how the swing voters who voted in Obama twice were suddenly racists for voting for Donald Trump.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

define racist please?

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago

Anyone who disagrees with any policy of the left.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Warren Trees

good start!

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Peter Johnson

There is a good reason why the obviously biased piece focuses on a) religion and b) in the context of presidency.

Because, firstly, Democrats are far more racist, openly when it comes to non victim races (they don’t care or do much for victim races as well, but that’s more hidden and guised as “help”).

And secondly, Democrats are also much more bigoted when it comes to Hindu religion. That’s why this author focuses on the presidency – because Christian Republicans might be less open to non Christians in this role, not because they are”evil” but because they see the US as a land guided on Christian principles. Their land, their rules, and they Democrats don’t seem very fussed about far worse that happens to minority religions in practically every Islamic nation.

But – here is the catch – Democrats are not only more racist against Indians, they are also much more bigoted against Hindus. Note the rhetoric against Tulsi, or the foul hatred for Hinduism that emanates from their ranks.

Zak Orn
Zak Orn
1 year ago

The fact that the author is still repeating the outright lie that Trump tried to “ban all Muslims from entering the country” shows he is deranged enough to not take seriously..
“If you doubt that an openly Hindu — or, for that matter, an openly Muslim or Buddhist candidate — would have no chance of leading today’s Republican Party, consider this. Although Hindus constitute roughly the same percentage of America’s population as they do Britain’s, there’s not a single Hindu Republican member of Congress.”
Unless Hindus are running for congress and not being voted in this is completely irrelevant. Are they running? What are the stats for how many Hindus ran but didn’t get picked/voted in?
Since playing by the authors rules, we’re just throwing out wild speculation, I’d say the lack of representation in the GOP is equally likely to be down to the fact that the left has created a very successful campaign of ‘othering’ any minority that doesn’t follow the Democrat line. You’re not a real [insert minority group here] if you don’t vote Democrat.
Labour are desperately trying to import that rhetoric here too, look at how much veiled racism has been thrown at Sunak this week from the self proclaimed “anti-racists”, that would put a lot of people off entering politics.

Samir Iker
Samir Iker
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

Funnily enough, while banning a handful of muslim countries (out of dozens, missing out the largest ones), based on a list of terror stares prepared by Obama is a “muslim ban” ( why weren’t there any non muslim terror states I wonder).

But attempts to reduce tech visas from India – practically the sole Hindu nation in the world – was not a “Hindu ban” as per the Democrats. I am not suggesting that’s the case, of course, as any idiot could tell you both efforts had nothing to do with religion. But tells you a lot who are the real bigots against Hinduism in the US.

James Stangl
James Stangl
1 year ago
Reply to  Zak Orn

And wasn’t it the current POTUS and titular head of the Dems the one who said, “If you’re not voting for me, you’re NOT BLACK!?”

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

The UK compared to the USA in this way is impossible, it is an entirely false equivalence. The USA is less than 250 years old. America in terms of containing any Europeans at all is not even as old as The East India Company (1600).
Britain has been as close to India as it is possible to be for two countries several thousand miles apart (Rishi Sunak’s parents were born in Africa and Tanganyika but are of Punjabi descent).
British and Indians frequently married and there are thousands of Anglo-Indians, nothing to do with Rishi Sunak’s ancestry as far as I know but it illustrates the UK’s close personal ties with India. The Indian Army fought alongside the British in both World Wars from early on.
The USA and the UK are two different countries with two very different histories.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Not quite true I’m afraid. The Spaniards were established in St Augustine, Florida by 1565.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

Fair enough, but I don’t think that interferes too much with the gist of my argument.
(Fancy me forgetting the Spanish, apologies to any out there.)

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

No it doesn’t detract from your argument.
You might have gone further and stated that many of the first English settlers in the 17th century were actually religious loonies who we were well rid off!The so called Pilgrim Fathers for example.

Incidentally it would have been rather odd to say the least if the Indian Army had NOT fought alongside us in both World Wars. It was after all our creation, and we were the ruling power on the sub-continent at that time, as you may recall.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

In response to your first paragraph, I would never say that because it is both rude and incorrect. The settlers may have been hopeful dreamers but they were sincere in their faith, as am I.

Re: your second paragraph, that’s as maybe but it is still courteous to acknowledge the Indian Army’s enthusiastic and valuable contribution.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

The established Church of the time, the Church of England regarded them as such, and I think it is unhelpful to retro-fit your own personal prejudices onto this subject.

In reality although the Indian Army was ‘enthusiastic’ and provided a ‘valuable contribution’ it was notorious for frequently mutinying, but NOT off course as bad as the Royal Indian Navy.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

I will just point out in case anyone should be misled by what you have said, that the Indian Army was a volunteer army, there was no conscription. A number of VCs and GCs were awarded in both wars. 70,000 men were killed in action WWI, 87,000 in WWII, thousands more died in German and Japanese prison camps.

These were brave men.

As for my “personal prejudices”, that’s a bit rich considering the content of your last 2 comments.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Calm down, I did not cast any aspersions on the courage of the Indian Army, nor deny the fact that it was an all volunteer force did I?

I did however state that both they and the Royal Indian Navy had a propensity for mutiny. That is established fact NOT my personal prejudice or do you deny these facts?

My castigation of your personal prejudices was to do with your rather blatant religiosity, with reference to ‘Salem Witch hunters’ and their ilk.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

I’m perfectly calm Charles, I’m enjoying myself, just responding to your comments with some facts rather than opinions.
Here’s another one : the word “loonie” or loony is of fairly recent american origin, the Church of England definitely did not consider the Pilgrim fathers “loonies”.

I do dispute your use of the word “propensity for mutiny” applied to the Indian Army, yes. The only two I know of are the Singapore Mutiny of 1915 – a confused business still argued about by historians today – and The Royal Indian Navy Mutiny of 1946, which was over Indian independence. The British Army mutinied more often that that and they are not “notorious for their propensity to mutiny”.

Last edited 1 year ago by Claire D
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

I’m very glad to hear it!
Stop being so pedantic, as much of this audience is American it is quite acceptable to lapse into their vernacular and as such use the term ‘loonie’.
However to appease you and in the spirit of good will I shall in future refer to them as non-conformists, as the contemporary CoE did.

Claire D
Claire D
1 year ago

You do not need to appease me, you are free to hold whatever opinions you like, but I am also free to disagree and put forward an argument.
Good will always from me also.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

“Good will always from me also”.
I give up. What is the MISSING word?

Poor syntax, we’re you State educated by any chance?
If so, my sincere commiserations, and if perchance I am incorrect and you were educated privately you should sue now, whilst you still have the chance.
All the very best.

Last edited 1 year ago by CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Haven’t you forgotten the Great Mutiny 1857-8?

There were others and I shall get back to you in due course.
In the meantime could you enlighten me on the “more” numerous British Army mutinies?

Finally so we agree the Royal Indian Navy did mutiny. Why, is NOT a point of issue here.

James Helberg
James Helberg
1 year ago

I followed this line for awhile, but really couldn’t because Mr. Stanhope kept moving from the original subject. Claire D should just say “gotcha” and move on (unless, of course, she really is finding this entertaining). Neither of them cares, of course, but I will be moving on.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  James Helberg

The original subject was Ms Claire’s somewhat inaccurate description of the colonisation of the US.
We then had a short discussion on the merits or otherwise of the Indian Army, and religious loonies (US ones), so what is there to whinge about? But thank you for your comment.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  James Helberg

Agree Mr Stanhopes interjections are not constructive, I think it is he who is being pedantic, but Claire – fully enjoying you wiping the floor with him, I encourage you to keep going.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Oh come off it!
She’s or perhaps it’s he, is a classic God botherer!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Claire is putting forward an argument without lapsing into a personal attack on your syntax or education though, when you do that, it makes your argument look weak – like you’ve run out of valid argument.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Enquiring about her education and describing her as a God botherer’ (which she candidly admits) is hardly a “personal attack”!

What wrong with you, are you in ‘love’ with her?

Anyway please don’t think me rude, but the Ovaltine beckons and I must finish here. Until tomorrow then and thanks for the ‘sport’.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

And rather in rapid order as history goes we’re pushed out by the British, and then by American colonists….

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

‘We’ didn’t “push” the Spaniards out until 1763, and were then rapidly ejected in our turn in 1783.

I would also argue that we were NOT pushed out by the American colonists (rebels) but by the combined military might of France, Spain and the Netherlands, not to mention the ‘Armed Neutrality of Katherine the Great & Co

James Helberg
James Helberg
1 year ago

We appreciated their help, of course, but it was Americans who really did push you folks out. When General Lincoln took Cornwallis surrender and was asked for his credentials he pointed at the assembled American soldiers and said, “These are my credentials”. Just so.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  James Helberg

Nonsense, you couldn’t have done it without them!
Incidentally wasn’t it actually O’Hara who made the surrender and NOT Cornwallis?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Are you still going? I name your high horse Superiority Complex.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

Well you are!
But really we ought be thinking of getting ‘tucked up’ with a warm cup of Ovaltine should we not?

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Couldn’t resist, one thing we have in common I suppose. I think your problem is best described – ‘Someone’s been on the Ovaltine!’

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

If only it were!

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago

Have your Ovaltine and leave that horse in the stable tomorrow.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

???

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago

They were only there but their main influence was south America eventually which split into many countires whilst the USA area became one.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Presumably by ‘they’ do you mean the Spaniards.
In which case weren’t they also in California,Texas,Arizona, and even Louisiana for a little, we’re they not?
Presumably you also know the Russians were also deep into California at one stage?

Rob J
Rob J
1 year ago
Reply to  Claire D

Thanks for the first sensible reply to this piece — the first that didn’t boil down to “the man said something bad about a group that my enemies dislike and so now I’m furious”.

Michael Askew
Michael Askew
1 year ago

Islamophobia (fear of Islam) was not “stoked by the war on terror”. It was stoked by Islamic terrorism

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Askew

Sure, but it probably also has something to do with the religious, Muslim vs Christian wars over the last millennia – in which both sides demonstrated plenty of savagery, bigotry, particularly, it has to be admitted the European Christians. Early Islamic culture was a bastion of open mindedness, whilst Europe mostly took the form of vicious small-minded fiefdoms/theocracies. For some though, history began on Plymouth Rock in 1620.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

I agree with this point, and it’s important, and factually correct, not sure why so many down votes?

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  B Emery

It’s emotional fragility of people who are not used to critiques and open inquiry.

Derek Smith
Derek Smith
1 year ago

As a non-US citizen, I read this article expecting some interesting political insight, but any insight contained here is smothered with thinly-veiled ethnic grievance.

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

It’s more than political insight, it’s cultural insight.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Derek Smith

Expecting ANY insight from Peter Bonehead is a mug’s game.

N T
N T
1 year ago

I have one word after this drivel: HOGWASH.
If you don’t know what that means, you aren’t an American.
What an ignorant buffoon.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  N T

Do you think the Republicans would vote in a Hindu as leader?

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Getting downvoted for asking a question?

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Everyone thinks a question is rhetorical.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

I’ll answer my own question then. I tend to agree with the author in that I don’t believe the Republican Party would elect anybody who didn’t loudly proclaim to be a Christian. I believe the Democrats would but for the wrong reasons. They’d elect them to show how “progressive” they are rather than on merit

Brett H
Brett H
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

They’re both shackled by their own dogma.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

The Dems are. Not sure about the Republicans.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Brett H

True. Reading comments on here on any subject regarding the States I can see why. The Americans appear to have a much more binary view of the world, especially their politics it seems to be an all or nothing endeavour, good vs evil etc. Whereas the UKs politics is a history of fudges and compromise (the Church of England for example being a kind of amalgamation of the two to try and keep the peace after Bloody Mary), the Americans seem to view that as weakness. Maybe it’s their Puritan past still affecting the attitudes I don’t know

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

In Europe there is more of a culture of not making claims about things that youn don’t understand, not overstepping your expertise, whereas in the States there is a postmodern ‘everyone’s voice is equally valid’. Schools are oriented around building confidence for it’s own sake – minimise criticism and stress, maximise boostering. Result – stupid and ignorant Americans are much more vocal, shameless, in pursuing unthought-through feelies – hence the cults, shootings, narcissism, and many other examples of extreme acting out.

B Emery
B Emery
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

I actually think America has much to answer for, the wmds that didn’t exist, complete debacle in Afghanistan, financial sub prime mortgage crisis 2008 American elites are funding the blm, stop oil protests and extinction rebellion in the uk, we don’t want it! Uk should quit being Americas b***h, it’s finished. If we’re not careful, it’s going to take Europe down with it. We need to resist US decoupling policy with China, it is solely to benefit the US. They are selling LNG to Europe at four times the cost it sells to its own market, hardly friendly co-operation.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

Among Republicans, the most popular Democrat in America today (well, ex-Democrat becuase she just left) is Tulsi Gabbard. There were lots of Republicans who wanted to vote for her in 2000 over Trump. Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu.
So, would Republicans rally to a Hindu? Not only would they, they did.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

Feigning admiration for a more conservative member of the opposition is completely different to choosing her as your leader

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

She wasn’t available as their leader since she was a Democrat at the time. I did hear conservative friends say “Tulsi makes sense, but she’s pro-abortion so I couldn’t vote for her.” But I never heard “…but she’s Hindu and that worries me” or anything even vaguely similar.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

That implies republican voters thought Trump was a Christian, loudly proclaimed. That’s a ridiculous assumption.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

I upvoted to get rid of the down vote, a question is just that. I have been downvoted for asking questions before, apparently some people just don’t like particular questions to be asked

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Billy Bob

far too intelligent, skilled, able… Trump is the living opposite of an Indian Hindu, not that he would even know what one was! As for Sir Niall de Mentia currently in charge, he can’t even pronounce our PM’s name !! well done Jim Boden…

Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  N T

What I miss in all this is that the Church of England seems to have become a social club that is not serious about believing anything in particular, so it’s no wonder it embraces exotic religions; this was most amusingly brought out in the “Yes, Prime Minister” series of the 1980s; see “The Bishop’s Gambit”. America’s equivalent is its Episcopal church, which has degenerated to being just one of the country’s dying, shrinking “mainstream” protestant churches: the Presbyterians, the Methodists, most Lutheran denominations, and of course the Unitarians, all of whom have abandoned the Bible for the latest Woke fads — and are vanishing as a result. In contrast, what is keeping American Christianity strong is its diversity, but not the Democrats’ Diversity, which is only skin deep. Sooo – when you come right down to it, the writer is totally in favor of an unserious Christianity, and is hoping that all of America’s Christians would go that way — sort of like his own Reform Judaism.

James Stangl
James Stangl
1 year ago
Reply to  Wim de Vriend

Spot on.

Buena Vista
Buena Vista
1 year ago

Peter Beinart is Editor-at-Large at Jewish Currents, author of the Beinart Notebook on Substack, and a stunningly stupid grievance monger.
FIFY!

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago
Reply to  Buena Vista

Yay! Nailed it!

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Buena Vista

Beautifully put!

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago

Voting for people based on their self-expressed religious beliefs is entirely appropriate. In theory, religion articulated your deepest convictions about the world, about God, about the nature of man, about man’s duty to his fellow man… in short, about almost everything philosophically important about someone.
If I had to choose between evaluating someone’s policy positions based on their campaign website or evaluating what was regularly taught in their church for the last decade, I know which one I would pick.

I am a Christian (but not a Republican). However, I would almost always vote for a Muslim or a Buddhist or a Hindu over a atheistic, secular humanist. This guy is just projecting. I doubt he even knows any actual Republicans or conservatives.

Mike F
Mike F
1 year ago

I’d never really thought of voting on that basis before. But you’re probably right. I’d place more trust in a person who relied on rational, evidence-based thought than someone who consulted sky pixies or outsourced their convictions to some other illogical, faith-based philosophy.
So I guess our votes will simply cancel each other out at the next election.

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike F

Typical Dem. “Sky pixies”? Lacking a rational argument, you resort to mudslinging in its stead.

John Marchant
John Marchant
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike F

Which is why Tony Blair did not convert to Catholic until after he left office, politics and religeon do not mix.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike F

My point exactly, Mike. People should vote for those who share their values, and evaluating someone’s church and religious commitments is a great way to do that.
You keep voting for secular technocrats and I’ll keep voting for people who love their neighbor as themselves.

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike F

Faith is not illogical. The faithless who console themselves with logic know nothing of either.

harry storm
harry storm
1 year ago
Reply to  Mike F

If that means you think Beinkop relies on rational, evidence based thought, I have this very nice bridge……

Ali W
Ali W
1 year ago

Your opinion is a popular one, or at least was in 2012. A Gallup poll’s results had atheists being the least popular “religious” group when voting for a presidential candidate.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago

How well does that prescription apply to Obama, I wonder (non-rhetorically)?

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeff Cunningham
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

As long as we’re on the subject of religion, what is the objective rationale for implying that Britain is somehow superior to the US because it will elect a religious minority to high office? How does one prove this claim objectively? Of course that’s not how this exercise works. The author is treating diversity and religious tolerance as a priori good without proof and we’re supposed to nod along and perhaps shout “Amen” at opportune moments. Trading religious values for trendy new ideas like ‘diversity’ doesn’t make one less religious, it just replaces one religion with another, one with even flimsier justifications. I don’t know and can’t prove whether God exists. Such things are questions of personal faith. I do know and can prove that all the modern values that the secularists have attempted to promulgate are demonstrably manufactured ideas, created by men for the presumable purpose of manipulating behavior on a large scale to suit the interests of a ruling class (in this case neoliberal globalists), which is exactly what so many accuse religion of being. The truly areligious and amoral position would be that only the results matter, and if a country with a highly religious bent only elects people of a particular faith and is materially more successful, then that country must have the superior approach. Almost nobody, including myself, would really want to follow that rabbit hole all the way to its logical endpoint, so we’re probably better off arguing unprovable faith assumptions until the end of time, whether or not we have the courage and awareness to name them so. Such is the limited nature of mankind.

michael stanwick
michael stanwick
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

… what is the objective rationale for implying that Britain is somehow superior to the US because it will elect a religious minority to high office? […] The author is treating diversity and religious tolerance as a priori good without proof and we’re supposed to nod along and perhaps shout “Amen” at opportune moments.
Yes, I noticed this a priori assumption as well. A sort of default, unexamined, moral righteousness that bathes thinking and pronouncements.
I don’t know and can’t prove whether God exists.
Well, quite. One cannot prove something does not exist (except logically) but in actuality, the truth of something existing is established by the amount of evidence in its favour. One can make a statement that there is no compelling reason for thinking something does exist.

Last edited 1 year ago by michael stanwick
Steve Jolly
Steve Jolly
1 year ago

What counts as “evidence”, and who decides? Some would say the Bible and the existence of several million believers constitute evidence. Our modern thinking tends to dismiss these things as irrelevant because it conflicts with basic assumptions about what is ‘real’ and what is ‘unreal’ and where our knowledge comes from, but those assumptions too are a product of the time and history when and where they first took hold as much as any religion is. The entire idea of the progressive nature of human knowledge is itself unprovable. We cannot now, and never will, escape uncertainty about things like God, truth, etc. Human hubris and fear assure, however, that we’ll certainly keep trying. So, if you were honest, you could amend your statement to say “I see no compelling reason for thinking God exists.” That’s the most you can say without projecting your own assumptions.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago

Faith is the substance of things not seen and therefore cannot be proved to the unbeliever only to the believer.

Ali W
Ali W
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I’m secular, but the Covid hysterics completely changed my view on the importance of religion in society.

The most devout followers of the new hygiene based religion were just filling their faith void, the same with all the militant woke.

I have a new respect for religion, and I think we need it in society to tether people to some sort of consistent worldview, if only to hamper political opportunists convincing them 2+2=5.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago
Reply to  Ali W

Those that believe in the Green agenda have no knowledge or regard for science. They have been sucked into a cult whether they like that or not.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Greta Goons.

Mark Roberts
Mark Roberts
1 year ago
Reply to  Ali W

The benefit of voting for people who believe in God is you know they don’t think they are God!

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

This is my favorite comment today.

Brian Villanueva
Brian Villanueva
1 year ago
Reply to  Steve Jolly

I do know and can prove that all the modern values that the secularists have attempted to promulgate are demonstrably manufactured ideas, created by men for the presumable purpose of manipulating behavior on a large scale to suit the interests of a ruling class “
Great point. One your realize the new “culture war” is just the old “class war” wearing a new coat, things make a lot more sense.

Bob Ewald
Bob Ewald
1 year ago

A comment was made that Republicans bind themselves to the past. Democrats are untethered from the past, i.e. the Constitution, and look where that has placed us today.

Josh Woods
Josh Woods
1 year ago
  1. Tulsi Gabbard may not be a full conservative, but many American conservatives like or at least respect her. She has been a Hindu for quite some time, though not too sure if she still currently is.
  2. The author hyper-focuses on identity politics and conveniently yet entirely misses the most concerning things about Sunak: Sunak is well within the elite clique of the WEF and an adherent to the Great Reset agenda, adding to his father-in-law’s questionable tech business in India. And of course Sunak previously as chancellor screwed over Britain badly, and many business were closed as a result. Furthermore, he wasn’t elected by a single person even remotely in touch with the plebs’ lives. All of this is very different from an actual populist(left or right) who happens to be a Hindu-practising ethnic Indian who was elected fair and square by everyday people whom he had done lots of good for. In other words, this article is mostly hot air about a near-non-issue, even though I respect the author’s right to free expression on this platform.
Last edited 1 year ago by Josh Woods
Wim de Vriend
Wim de Vriend
1 year ago
Reply to  Josh Woods

Quite right; in Britain Prime Ministers are not elected, but America’s Presidents are. (That is, assuming the election was not rigged!)

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Wim de Vriend

Was the last one? It certainly looked like that from over here. (UK.)
Still “worse things happen at sea “ as we say.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago

Hasn’t the losing side in the States claimed just about every election was fraudulent in some way?
Trump spouted his nonsense with the last one, Clinton blamed the Russians before that. Obama had accusations that he wasn’t really American and so was ineligible to stand, Bush had to go through the courts to get his certified etc

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

‘America’s conservatives would never elect a Hindu’
Well, I’m not sure that British conservatives could be said to have elected one either. The party membership chose Truss a couple of months back, in what seems like a different age.

John Marchant
John Marchant
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

And if Boris had not pulled out at the last minute Sunak would not be the PM but Boris, of course how long that would have lasted is anyones guess.
Yet again he put party before country sadly, but not surprising.
Anyway they have done for themselves, many members have resigned, i would have if i had not already, i certianly will not vote Conservative with this globalists, WEF shill running it.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  John Marchant

If the tories keep on associating themselves with WEF and globalism they are finished. Do they actually agree with “You will own nothing and be happy”. If they are naive enough to believe that they are not fit to rule.

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  John Marchant

And if Boris had not pulled out at the last minute Sunak would not be the PM

Delusional – he pulled out because he could not muster the votes. BJ has many strengths, but his great weakness is that he is a narcissist – he puts no-one and nothing ahead of himself, not country, not party, not family.

Ali W
Ali W
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Yes, wasn’t he third down the line in this mess?

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Britain didn’t vote Sunak in. The Tory MP’s did. The members would not have voted him in.

Paige M
Paige M
1 year ago

Could it not be that Hindus are much more integrated into the social fabric of Britain and have a longer and deeper history as well as strong business connections? As a proportion of the population, they are a far bigger chunk of the pie than in the US. I think it’s about a lot more than religion here. The author hasn’t drilled down enough to give an insightful analysis of why this couldn’t happen in the USA……it’s not just religion.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

You are correct. Britain has Commonwealth ties with India which goes a long way to explain why there is a Hindi prime minister.

John Marchant
John Marchant
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

It has a hindu Prime Minister because he avioded going to the membership, where he know he would lose. Hell Sunak lost to Truss of all people, he had no chance against Boris.
He will have his Gordon Brown moment in 2024 or before.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  John Marchant

We have to give him the chance that wasn’t given to Truss unfortunately.

Thomas Wagner
Thomas Wagner
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

One might ask, “Since Clive took India in 1757, what took so long?”

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Thomas Wagner

The Indian Mutiny 1857-8, put things back a bit.

Warren Trees
Warren Trees
1 year ago
Reply to  Paige M

Logic and common sense seems to evade this author’s world view.

chris Barton
chris Barton
1 year ago

Republicans are definitely different from our Tories – they have some actual conservatives with a spine in the party and dare i say it “Right wingers” Could just rename this article “Republicans are racist because I said so”

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago

So Republicans only voted Hindu-raised Bobby Jindal in twice as Louisiana governor (2008-16) because he converted to Catholicism? Really?

Brendan O'Leary
Brendan O'Leary
1 year ago

And then the second Indian-origin governor, also a republican – Nikki Haley.
I guess she doesn’t count in the author’s narrow frame of reference, being a Sikh?

Samuel Ross
Samuel Ross
1 year ago

This guy is weird and arrogant. Does he profess to be a prophet? “Conservatives would NEVER elect a Hindu”, followed by dozens of strawmen ‘arguments’. I feel dumber having read this article.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Samuel Ross

But the MP’s did elect a Hindu.

David Sharples
David Sharples
1 year ago

Well.. there is this:
We hold these truths to be selfevident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable…
If you believe It, you’re in. It doesn’t matter what color you are or where you came from-

Last edited 1 year ago by David Sharples
sam s
sam s
1 year ago
Reply to  David Sharples

Well, In America, your religion surely does.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  sam s

I thought that Americans believed that ” Injuns” were all sorted at Little Big Horn?

James V
James V
1 year ago

As I recall it was the U.S. 7th Cavalry that was sorted at Little Big Horn.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago
Reply to  James V

Annihilated is the word I’d have used. Is “sorted” a British euphemism for it?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Understatement, we use it quite a bit.

Jeff Cunningham
Jeff Cunningham
1 year ago

I like it. Hyperbole is a curse I wince at often.

Cathy Carron
Cathy Carron
1 year ago

This is the most bigoted article I have read in recent years. It reflects the Democrat Party’s policy of slicing and dicing the electorate and then pandering to the ‘slices’. The Democrat panic over some of their ‘slices’ beginning to migrate over to The Republican Party because of their untenable ideas – defund the police, high crime levels, excessive spending, inflation, etc – is palpable. The upcoming elections will be revealing to say the least.

Last edited 1 year ago by Cathy Carron
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

define racist please?

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

You really must know what this word means.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

You might as well ask “What is truth?”
(John 18:38.)

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago

Jesus?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Pontius Pilate, Roman Prefect of Judea 26-36 AD.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Americans will now ask whether Pontius was a Pan Am or TWA pilate?

Paul Hendricks
Paul Hendricks
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Conrad

Yes, right answer, Jesus is the truth (and the way and the life).

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

I get tired of those sort of questions. It’s been overplayed for a long time now.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

what do YOU think it means?

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

It had no meaning: tell me how I am wrong?

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Cathy Carron

What will our election, when it comes, reveal I wonder

Bash M
Bash M
1 year ago

You know, I have stuck with Unherd now despite the growing avalanche of garbage – such as this article – being written, mostly because of Freddie Sayers frankly and the groundbreaking work he did during the dark days of the pandemic
But this is enough, not paying money to get sent this crap anymore. Unsubscribed, see ya later

Dominic A
Dominic A
1 year ago
Reply to  Bash M

I think there are a few of you who are discovering Unherd is not for you, and never was. It’s like Bill Maher – centrist willing to entertain different views, and to call out the excesses of both left and right, but essentially centrist. Breitbart and Fox are safer bets for you I think. Less triggering.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Dominic A

Well said. The last thing most people want is an echo chamber

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago
Reply to  Bash M

Yeah I feel it has gone downhill from what it was. Is it helping Britain now? I’m not sure. It seems to want to shock these days for some reason.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Bash M

we will miss your abominable, illiterate lack of command and ability to use and write of your own language.

Stoater D
Stoater D
1 year ago

Who exactly did “elect” Sunak ?
It wasn’t the the Conservative Party membership.
Sunak’s loyalty is not towards Britain or the British people but to Globalist forces such as the
WEF, the CCP and the UN.
None of that has anything to do with religion.

John Marchant
John Marchant
1 year ago
Reply to  Stoater D

Exactly, he was elected by a few leftie liberal MP’s. Sunak even lost the last time against Truss of all people. He knew he had to avoid the memebrship at all costs because if it went to the memebrship they would vote for Larry the Downing Street Cat before electing Sunak.
Now this is also Boris’s fault for stepping aside, he knew he had the numbers to win as confirmed to the 1922 commitee, but for some reason he pulled out, because like the rest of them he is more interested in party than serving the people.
He is a globalist useful idiot, he is interested in making money, his family owns infosys, look it up and also look up digital currencies, which he is heavily promoting.
Whatever he does to unite the party will not matter because in 24 months or less, he and they will be gone, very few in the party want him and indeed many members have resigned from the party in the last few days.
He will be having his Gordon Brown moment in the next 24 months thats for sure.

Tony Conrad
Tony Conrad
1 year ago