Main Edition
US
FR
There will be no Republican Rishi Sunak (Simon Walker)
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.
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.
SubscribeThis 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.
”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.
‘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.
There are a percentage of Indian christians in the Uk but I wouldn’t take a guess on how many.
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.
Unfortunately, India was not declared as Hindu country, when British partitioned India on the basis of religion.
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.
Yes. I am happy to vote for a Hindu but not a Muslim.
“…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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
…Thomas, I think your comment is one for the author, Peter Beinart, not me ! I’m on your side for sure !!
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.
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?
“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.”
It is Jesus they hate and anyone who follows Him. Could that now be the problem for Britain?
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
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?
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.
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.)
Exactly. But Christ predicted this response to his disciples. And with the possible exception of the era of Christendom, it has ere been so.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Are there really anti-Catholic yard signs in Kentucky? What do they actually say?
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.
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.
This drivel should be on Salon, not on Unherd.
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.
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.
define racist please?
Anyone who disagrees with any policy of the left.
good start!
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.
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.
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.
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!?”
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.
Not quite true I’m afraid. The Spaniards were established in St Augustine, Florida by 1565.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Oh come off it!
She’s or perhaps it’s he, is a classic God botherer!
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.
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’.
And rather in rapid order as history goes we’re pushed out by the British, and then by American colonists….
‘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
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.
Nonsense, you couldn’t have done it without them!
Incidentally wasn’t it actually O’Hara who made the surrender and NOT Cornwallis?
Are you still going? I name your high horse Superiority Complex.
Well you are!
But really we ought be thinking of getting ‘tucked up’ with a warm cup of Ovaltine should we not?
Couldn’t resist, one thing we have in common I suppose. I think your problem is best described – ‘Someone’s been on the Ovaltine!’
If only it were!
Have your Ovaltine and leave that horse in the stable tomorrow.
???
They were only there but their main influence was south America eventually which split into many countires whilst the USA area became one.
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?
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”.
Islamophobia (fear of Islam) was not “stoked by the war on terror”. It was stoked by Islamic terrorism
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.
I agree with this point, and it’s important, and factually correct, not sure why so many down votes?
It’s emotional fragility of people who are not used to critiques and open inquiry.
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.
It’s more than political insight, it’s cultural insight.
Expecting ANY insight from Peter Bonehead is a mug’s game.
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.
Do you think the Republicans would vote in a Hindu as leader?
Getting downvoted for asking a question?
Everyone thinks a question is rhetorical.
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
They’re both shackled by their own dogma.
The Dems are. Not sure about the Republicans.
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
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.
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.
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.
Feigning admiration for a more conservative member of the opposition is completely different to choosing her as your leader
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.
That implies republican voters thought Trump was a Christian, loudly proclaimed. That’s a ridiculous assumption.
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
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…
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.
Spot on.
Peter Beinart is Editor-at-Large at Jewish Currents, author of the Beinart Notebook on Substack, and a stunningly stupid grievance monger.
FIFY!
Yay! Nailed it!
Beautifully put!
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.
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.
Typical Dem. “Sky pixies”? Lacking a rational argument, you resort to mudslinging in its stead.
Which is why Tony Blair did not convert to Catholic until after he left office, politics and religeon do not mix.
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.
Faith is not illogical. The faithless who console themselves with logic know nothing of either.
If that means you think Beinkop relies on rational, evidence based thought, I have this very nice bridge……
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
How well does that prescription apply to Obama, I wonder (non-rhetorically)?
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.
… 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.
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.
Faith is the substance of things not seen and therefore cannot be proved to the unbeliever only to the believer.
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.
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.
Greta Goons.
The benefit of voting for people who believe in God is you know they don’t think they are God!
This is my favorite comment today.
“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.
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.
Quite right; in Britain Prime Ministers are not elected, but America’s Presidents are. (That is, assuming the election was not rigged!)
Was the last one? It certainly looked like that from over here. (UK.)
Still “worse things happen at sea “ as we say.
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
‘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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, wasn’t he third down the line in this mess?
Britain didn’t vote Sunak in. The Tory MP’s did. The members would not have voted him in.
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.
You are correct. Britain has Commonwealth ties with India which goes a long way to explain why there is a Hindi prime minister.
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.
We have to give him the chance that wasn’t given to Truss unfortunately.
One might ask, “Since Clive took India in 1757, what took so long?”
The Indian Mutiny 1857-8, put things back a bit.
Logic and common sense seems to evade this author’s world view.
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”
So Republicans only voted Hindu-raised Bobby Jindal in twice as Louisiana governor (2008-16) because he converted to Catholicism? Really?
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?
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.
But the MP’s did elect a Hindu.
Well.. there is this:
We hold these truths to be self–evident, 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-
Well, In America, your religion surely does.
I thought that Americans believed that ” Injuns” were all sorted at Little Big Horn?
As I recall it was the U.S. 7th Cavalry that was sorted at Little Big Horn.
Annihilated is the word I’d have used. Is “sorted” a British euphemism for it?
Understatement, we use it quite a bit.
I like it. Hyperbole is a curse I wince at often.
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.
define racist please?
You really must know what this word means.
You might as well ask “What is truth?”
(John 18:38.)
Jesus?
Pontius Pilate, Roman Prefect of Judea 26-36 AD.
Americans will now ask whether Pontius was a Pan Am or TWA pilate?
Yes, right answer, Jesus is the truth (and the way and the life).
I get tired of those sort of questions. It’s been overplayed for a long time now.
what do YOU think it means?
It had no meaning: tell me how I am wrong?
What will our election, when it comes, reveal I wonder
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
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.
Well said. The last thing most people want is an echo chamber
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.
we will miss your abominable, illiterate lack of command and ability to use and write of your own language.
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.
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.
We live in dark godless days.
Try to think about what you’re reading. The article is not about Sunak.
Did I say it was?
Try to think about what you are writing
before you reply.
It partly was. About him being elected compared to the Republican party.
ahh.. another follower of the philosopher Testiclese….
Was he mentioned in Monty Python’s
” Philosopher’s Song” ?
WEF, the CCP and the UN are all globalist organisations who seek to dominate the world by hook or by crook. How can we have an enemy in the top job? We must be crazy.
The reason I subscribe to Unherd and read it is precisely because it does not regurgitate the drivel and the propaganda disseminated in the mainstream media. Peter Beinart is a talking head on CNN and has authored columns in stale progressist media such as the NY Times, Times Magazine, the Atlantic, NYRB or the New Republic. Without surprise, this essay is as indigent as something which could have been published by these sanctimonious publications. This comes two days after an equally hyperventilated progressive sermon by Alison Bashford (Overpopulation isn’t a threat). It’s forgivable, but just don’t make a habit of running such horseshit.
Fourteen paragraphs to say “I am a bigot who hates Republicans and Christians.” Wow, I just renewed my subscription for cr*p like this?
Only rational to regard most Republicans as bigots. The article expressed this truth very clearly.
Perhaps thats just your truth.
I just have to look at Biden and Trump to refute that comment. No comparison.
If we’re ever invaded by a hostile enemy, there will be very few willing to defend our country. Many have come to the UK to avoid defending their own countries. Even the patriots will think “why should I put my life on the line just to save this country for the non-patriots who won’t defend our country?” We may as well open our borders now. Oops … already done!
As a Conservative Christian Republican, I find this article to be ridiculous. Republicans do not label people and divide them based on religion, ethnicity, gender, etc. That’s the practice of Democrats and Liberals. I base my vote on who is going to be best for the country. If they are for reducing the power of the federal government, enforcing our border, strong defense, etc. I will support them.
I am unsure exactly what the author considers to be a Republican, a republican, or an American conservative, and one wonders whether he has been to the U.S. or just reads Vox.
The decision to publish anything written by Peter Beinart makes me reconsider by subscription to UnHerd.
Consider this like Cuba. We want to keep it to remind ourselves how horrible communism is. Beinart fills that role.
It’s totally worthwhile. It’s exactly what they should be doing. Check the comments out. The marketplace of ideas is alive and well on here without the usual denigration. Bring more of it. We need more talking not less
Much of the talking has been mindless shouting. The commentariat here has been devolving.
Articles like this drive up clicks that translate into advertising dollars.
Actually tulsi gabbard could be a popular candidate for the republicans. She would be monstered by the media though.
She already is.
Beinart – the loony tune the left love to love
Christian nationalists are the most likely to defend religious freedom in the USA. Voters if they are honest know this. The author attempts to finesse this uncomfortable–for democrats, as well as clickbait scribblers that is–fact by claiming that Republicans “can’t embrace both Christian nationalism and religious diversity” at the same time.
But it is indeed presumptuous if not mendacious to state that the need to “embrace diversity” is shared by all Americans. For many the important thing is to protect God-given American freedoms.
Hindus aren’t running for Republican office as far as I can tell but it is almost certainly only a matter of time. The Hindu Americans I know share conservative values, are patriotic and there is nothing at all about them, nor about the Republican party/its voters, that would disqualify them from seeking and holding office. Or has the author never actually spoken to Hindus or Republicans? Which wouldn’t surprise me.
Remember, media hacks also said that blacks and Latinos wouldn’t vote Republican. Then Trump increased his share in these groups in 2020. NY Times writes about so-called police abuse without ever having a single quote from a beat cop, as if they belong to a caste of “untouchables.” Just two examples off the top of my head.
Meanwhile, a different article might have said, “Democrats will never elect an actual Catholic.” How long before witnessing God’s truth is criminal hate speech in the USA?
Does the author think that India or Pakistan would ever elect a Catholic as President?
Or in India’s case a muslim?
It already did. The third President of India, Zakir Hussain, was Muslim, as also the fifth.
India is majority Hindu, but it is a pluralistic society with religious minorities (Sikhs, Muslims, etc) constituting roughly 20% of the population. India’s Congress Party has a tradition of religious neutrality. Pakistan, in contrast, is an officially Muslim nation where religious minorities and suspected apostates and blasphemers are routinely persecuted. Whatever the alleged excesses of India under Modhi and the BJP, there is no equivalence between the two countries.
Does Sonia Gandhi count (is she Catholic enough for you)? And, in your view, are India and Pakistan the peer, yardstick nations to the US?
So Granville gets nine upticks for making a patently, and revealed as false claim…presumably because it fits the readers’ emotional needs, as well as their ignorance. This is the problem with politics today – enlightenment values have been flushed away in preference to primitive passion and emotional indulgence.
If a Hindu ran against Joe Biden every Republican in America would vote for him/her.
“America is the only nation in history which miraculously has gone directly from barbarism to degeneration without the usual interval of civilisation.”
Georges Clemenceau.(1841-1929).
99 per cent of the hicks and internet zombies in US would not know the difference between a Sikh, Hindu or muslim… The country that thinks there are kangaroos in Austria, and that ‘ Yerp’ is one nation.. Geography is not their strong point, so dont get all complicated on ” Asia’ and religion… or ask Pastor Mason-Dixon of the Saint Lynch Chapel, Tennessee?
Americans do not think think that there are kangaroos in Austria.
There are stupid, ingnorant people everywhere on the the globe.
Most people, wherever they come from, do not think for themselves.
“Most people would rather die than think and most of them do!”
B.R.
Americans traditionally were much kinder and friendly than the British.
I think so.
Really?
Certainly not too Native Americans, you damned near exterminated them, African Americans not much better, and recently in the deplorable ‘Bush’ Iraq War no better.
There are stupid, ingnorant [sic] people everywhere on the the globe
Truer words have never been said, yet something remains unsaid. There are two Americas, one that runs more or less in tandem with other developed nations, and has absorbed and expanded upon the wisdom of the world, and another,an idiocracy reflective of a country in it’s adolescence, that courts stupid – young dumb and full of cum.
You seem to have tremendous guilt built up in your soul. At least the common “hick” or “internet zombie” in the U.S. is free to pursue their version of happiness and always have been. And many of them have uncles, grand fathers and great grandfathers who gave their lives in 2 world wars so that you weren’t forced to speak German or wind up in an ash bin. Go on sneering at them, however, as they will likely be called up to save your as* again someday.
No doubt that Britain would have been toast without America. I am grateful to the Americans who lived around that time. I must confess though that that spirit is missing to a large extent in these days.
We would certainly would have lost the Great War if not for the help of Paul Warburg, JP Morgan and the US Government in 1916/17.
However quite rightly you acted in your own self interest. ‘We’ owed you ‘squillions’ and if we had LOST, Kaiser Bill was NOT going to pay our bill!
” in your own self intestine”, was that a Freudian slip?
No,just poor typing, a skill I have to master, as in my days it was performed (magnificently) by the ‘gals’ in the ‘pool’.
I gather from my g/ children there is some wretched gremlin within an I pad called ‘predicted text’, which I have yet to get to grips with!
.. And then neatly gave most of Europe to Stalin…
My later regimental friends who commanded our battalions in Afghanistan would not be so sure having seen the modern US military in action….
Get real.
The Americans ran the whole show.
Our disgraceful and parsimonious
politicians let our amed forces down.
They were provided with inferior kit.
NO HELICOPTERS and inadequate
land vehicles.
As EX Army you must know that.
The main culprit was Gordan Brown.
That’s bias from a frenchman no doubt. America has done pretty well until Obama and Biden. There was nothing more barbaric than the French revolution. The only civil war that the Americans had was to free black slaves. The Frech have a much more barbaric history than the Americans if you look into it.
Well that little period of 1783 – circa 1900 when you conducted a myriad of genocidal ‘smash & grab’ raids against the indigenous population must count as one of the most appalling atrocities in Modern History. After all you damned near exterminated them did you not?
The French may not be blameless but ‘you’ record particularly recently under the pygmy Bush Jnr in Iraq was also simply deplorable.
More native Americans died from disease and colonial powers before 1776 than after.
Apparently Clemenceau never said this. It first appeared in a snotty article in the Saturday Review of Literature (1 December 1945), although there is a passing reference in Frank Lloyd Wright’s An Autobiography (1943). Of course, in 1943 he still had sixteen years to go, but presumably he felt it necessary to get the autobiography out of the way.
Interesting, perhaps Clemenceau’s other cynical quips gave it some validity?
Consider the source — a jealous Frog.
In fact a very perceptive politician, far ahead of your man Wilson as it so happens.
deleted
“Given the Islamophobia stoked by the “war on terror” “
Not correct. If there is such a thing as islamophobia (whether you define a phobia as an ‘irrational’ fear or as a general dislike) then it is generated and stoked by an understanding of what islam actually professes to be at its core, both as a belief system and a political movement (I try not to condemn until I have done the reading and understand, if I can).
Please note, I said ‘islam’ not ‘muslims’ : this is a very important distinction. I think it is perfectly acceptable to dislike, condemn, and yes, fear, some belief systems – no one seems to claim that fascism is actually a good system, in spite of the trains running on time and the building of autobahns.
Having lived and worked in both the UK and the USA I would describe the USA as demanding/imposing more uniformity of thought and belief on people than the UK. A surprising conclusion but one I believe to be true. At times I’ve considered the USA system of socially enforced conformity to be beneficial and necessary since immigrants, and especially their children, are quickly Americanised. Social fragmentation in the UK could be addressed by a little more flag waving and British history teaching in schools. Americans certainly exhibit a lot more patriotism than Brits.
Yes, these are secrets hiding in plain sight. Another canard is that America does not have classes, class snobbery. For me, also having lived decades on both sides of the Atlantic, the clearest USP of America is the ‘olympian splitting’ – they have the best and the worst, the most religious and irreligious, the most decadent and the most conscientious, the smartest and the dumbest; they are the most polluting and birthed the Green movement. I suppose it’s a natural outcome of a certain kind of freedom?
People in the USA also seem to be vertue signalling more than Brits but that doesn’t mean that people are any more PC or patriotic on either side of the pond. Patriotism is not waving flags – it’s your willingness to stand up and be counted that matters. Come to think of it – waving flags can be considered a form of vertue signalling and for some it probably is.
And aren’t we suffering the consequences?
On the positive side, it is good to see Unherd publish articles that make us think and understand politics different than the average reader of this magazine. This piece shows us how shallow the intellectual grounds of the left are.
On the negative side, Beinart is a hack. He has been carrying water for the Dems for years now, has little original thoughts on politics, and spreads his racist and classist views over any given situation.
Beinart writes a column which mentions at some length the diffidence some Americans may have toward Muslims — and never mentions 9/11.
The author’s view of the GOP is firmly rooted in the 90s, it seems. Jerry Falwell’s influence is practically gone with anyone under 45. Republicans current biggest priority is to keep the DNC from ripping the country apart at every level, economically, culturally, and even making our defense weaker with a governing style that feels like external sabotage.
I am for all intents and purposes an American evangelical Christian. And I would vote for a conservative atheist over a Liberal Christian any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Because it’s not about their religion, it’s about their values and worldview.
Your post provides a good working example of bigotry.
I don’t think bigotry means what you think it means. Not that I give a rats ass what you people think it means.
“obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.”
Such as ‘Liberal Christians have bad values and worldview’.
“Such as ‘Liberal Christians have bad values and worldview’.”
They do, though I am sure they are lovely people.
“you people”….a beautiful example of Christian tolerance…
Please don’t talk about about tolerance as if anyone owns it anymore. The virtue is lost on both sides. It’s called polarization.
“you people”….a beautiful example of Christian tolerance…“
Says the tolerant liberal who calls conservatives fascist and Nazis.
Well said. Or rather “Ditto”.
I don’t understand the negative comments about this story. The authors is using the appointment of Sunak to focus on a reasonable proposition that America’s Christian heritage is at the core of American values and politics, that it comes before everything, even race. Which is hard to dispute when every politician running for office in the US makes a very clear statement about his belief in God and Christian values. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a candidate who has not made a display of his faith, despite the often revealed corruption behind their hypocrisy. The observations made in this piece help explain a lot about America and how difficult it is to make meaningful change. It’s a very simplistic and childish view of the world which, through their wealth and power, they apply to their relationship with others, and gives them their sense of superiority. As the writer suggests someone like Sunak would never reach this position in America, unless he renounced, through carefully constructed statements, his existing beliefs. Sunak’s appointment says nothing about the UK except the expediency of politics.
Religion is finished for most white British. The only time people go to church are christenings, weddings a funerals. I’d wager that 90% of church goers are also of retired age so the numbers are only going to drop further.
There’s more religion amongst the immigrant communities, be it Christian, Muslim or Hindu, but it doesn’t carry any significance like it seems to in the States
Agreed but it has been on the decline for decades. We do not trust people who put religeon up there at the front, whatever religeon that is because it is not a basis for governing nor should it be.
Religeon is a private matter between you and whoever, it is of no pulblic concern and does not give you a better mandate to govern or any moral high ground.
Religeon in all its guises is responsible for mass slaughter on an epic scale and still is to this day.
Your religeon, whatever it is has no moral high ground what so ever, indeed the revelations of pedophile priests, not only in the catholic church but also beyond and in other religeons has put paid to any idea that they can have any moral authority.
The church of england still likes to poke its nose into politics in the UK and just like the monarchy, it should keep it wiell away and tend to its flock and thats it.
I do not care what your religeon is at all, it does not speak to the content of your character at all and that after all is why i am electing you not because of your religeous beliefs.
I would imagine that many Muslims at the moment in the UK are really smarting at the thought of a PM who is a hindu, as they no doubt want the first non christian PM to be a muslim. But minorities in the UK are more inline and identify more readily with their religeon that the majority in the UK.
Yes, it’s self-evidently true that religion “does not give you a better mandate to govern or any moral high ground” than secularity does. But your larger argument does not hold. On one hand, religion is not primarily about morality (a common assumption of secular people). On the other hand, religion is not “a private matter between you and whoever.” In fact, it’s very much a matter of “public concern.” That’s because religion (unlike philosophy) is by definition a communal way of life, not merely a belief, doctrine or any other idea. This is the historical and cross-cultural evidence that you should acknowledge before making glib comments on a phenomenon that, although it varies greatly in form from one time and place to another, has universal functions. And that applies also to “secular religions” such as political ideologies on both the Left and the Right.
Your recitation of “facts” is as wrong as your spelling of “religeon” and “religeous”.
I find it hard to take seriously an anti-religious rant from someone who can’t spell the thing he’s raging against.
Don’t worry, it will carry huge significance in about 50 – 75 years, about when Britain will become a religious nation, along with France. (Hint, it won’t be Christian)
The black churches are big and strong that is true. There are plenty of young people in the racially mixed churches also with large children and youth works from my estimation. Of course that might be true in the traditional denominations.
Right off the bat the headline is wrong – No one elected Sunak.
The Tory MPs did. The electorate voted in the Tory MPs.
So true..! And rather sliped in, due to the unfortunate times of the party and troubled days in the world, pushed into position by those who consider the people, the low class mob and the many, only as obstacle, or necessary producing human machinery..! So western kind of Hindu of them. I sat this without any offense to Hindus by all means. During my youth in the UK, one of my best friends was an Hindu with a totally English background, for that matter.
Thank you for that breath of sanity. For some reason, many belligerent MAGA Republicans and British ‘swivel-eyed loons’ seem to think that Unherd is a website for them, seemingly unaware that it is a European centre right publication. Any port in a storm I suppose. They flock to the comments section for a cathartic circle jerk whenever something triggers their rage. Mirroring the behaviour of the woke cadres; I am sure they are unaware of that irony.
Its helpful, for when you find yourself sliding a little bit too far to the right, to be reminded about who lives there.
If anyone’s living in the State of Delusion, Dom, you are. Mudslinging ain’t arguin’, but you never seem to have gotten the memo.
Well, when you put it like that, with ad hominems and displays of mind-reading, how can one not be persuaded?
Not nice is it? But if that’s what you read over and over, then you can either just ignore it – a lame thing to do on a comments site – or call it out.
Such an openly Hindu candidate would have zero chance of leading today’s GOP… It’s because the GOP is far more intolerant religiously.
Mr. Beinart’s cocksure pronunciamento is one of the most hilarious statements seen this election season. He doesn’t – and the Republican party surely doesn’t – have any sort of reliable gage of what the party would or would not do. For God’s sake, they’ve already nominated and elected Donald Trump! The guy who waded into a 20-contestant primary election and made such fools of the opposition by the mere use of candid statements and opinions, as opposed to all their poll-tested circumlocutions. I hope Mr. Beinart didn’t get a big check as a reward for this bit of misinformation.
I’m leaving my home country because of its various problems, why won’t you let me lead your country so I can recreate those social norms here?
This criticism is pretty rich given that 1) Sunak was not elected, and 2) it’s still illegal for a Catholic to be King or Queen of the UK.
Just look at the IT and social media industry and the Jewish and Indian Hindu power in it, by virtue of skill, talent, vision, entrepreneurial skill, determination and intellect… Why just for the sake of woke mention muslims in the article? Why patronisingly and insultingly try and imply that all the ” Asians” ( such a cretinous and wilfully dishonest term) sit under the same PC banner?
It is high time the media started telling the truth?!
… and whilst on the subject, what doan urban New Yorker, South Carolina NASCAR fan, Californian woke and Texan cowboy have that remotely links them? absolutely nothing.
Indian Uber Alles?
They have been lying for over a decade but even more in the last three years. A corrupt media damages the country.
If he had been elected by the general public I would see it as a moment of excitement but 178 people (MPs) out of 48million working age voters is hardly a cause for praise.
I’m proud he has been elected as leader of the Conservatives but with the current social trends it’s the only thing the party had left In their armoury to save them. The UK is a wonderfully diverse country but I doubt he would be elected Prime Minister by the everyday voter irrelevant of his heritage.
Despite some heavy criticism of this piece I believe it makes good points. Muslims would certainly, before now, not have any traction in the GOP. However, as seen in suburban Detroit and elsewhere, conservative Muslims could well be ready to follow conservative blacks and Mexicans into the party. Cultural realignments are still in progress.
Peter Beinart?
Oh, right. That Peter Beinart, Democratic Party propagandist.
I agree, Peter. The Democratic Party is “religiously pluralistic” so long as one prostrates oneself at the altar of all its own religious dogmas
Nuff said.
I’m both a Democrat and a Hindu who grew up in India, and I must point out that both Nikki and Bobby are very common nicknames among Punjabis, especially Sikhs, in India. I can recall at least three Bobbys and (I think) two Nikkis from grade school years there.
“Nikki” means little one, and it was a nickname for Nikki Nimrata Haley in her observant Sikh family as she grew up.
Bobby Jindal (also a Punjabi/Sikh last name) has a curious story about his nickname, which sounds quite contrived to my ears, about his identifying with a character in a very white, all-American TV show, “The Brady Bunch” as a kid, and begging his parents to be called that. I’ll bet anything he was called Bobby by the Jindals regardless of his TV watching habits, and it all had to do with his Indian background.
Just putting that out there…
Well…speaking for myself, even though she is pro-choice on abortion Tulsi Gabbard, a practicing Hindu, would work for me.
There is nothing to feel ashamed of being “Hindu Religious” and brand Rishi as Religious. In fact by being Hindu, one hesitates not to go church or mosque or any other place of worship. The Sanata Dharma, now being called as Hinduism, believes strongly in “Only God”. It does not say there is “One God”. This value system is very important. On the other hand as pointed out in the article, even though America or Britain look upon themselves as democratic and free country, in fact, it is more religious. On the other hand, being Hindu, I can worship all under the sky and Hinduism is a way of life and it is a living dharma, which means that which stands for ever.
The Islamic invasion and Christian missionaries’ conversion are all due to facts that they insist on their God as the Only God and all others are Satan. This is the main difference between Hinduism and other religions.
Right. Now do Nikki Haley.
I’m a Republican: Tulsi Gabbard 2024!
To be clear – we the electorate have not elected him to that role.
Such is the perversity of our so called ‘democracy’ that one person can be chosen by their peers to wield presidential powers inconceivable in the EU or the US and they don’t have to consult their cabinet or very often even Parliament.
They have to have the backing of a majority of MPs in parliament though, who are directly elected. If they can’t command a majority in the Commons they’re gone
Anybody know what ‘caste’ Sunak’ is?
Is he for an example an ‘untouchable’? If so his achievement is all the more remarkable.
It is always of paramount importance when dealing with someone from sub-continent to know what caste they are.
(ICS Handbook, circa 1904.)
Well, with the caution that it is 2022 and not 1904, Rishi Sunak’s forebears are Punjabi Khatris, a landowning farmer caste, somewhere in the upper middle of the pecking order of castes. But Punjabis are nowhere near as hidebound in their caste structures as many other regions in the sub-continent, so it wouldn’t have been a factor in the life outside the home, even a century ago. Caste matters a lot in marriage and social relations, in India, but in the urban world of work, business and education it matters a lot less. Note that India’s Constitution was drafted by an ‘Untouchable’, more than 72 years ago.
Many thanks for that erudite reply.
As the homeland threat from Islamist terrorism fades, Peter Beinart is going to be awfully surprised to see conservative Christians ally with conservative Muslims to defeat his secular Woke Democrats, as is happening in the Muslim stronghold of Dearborn, MI over liberal school board policies.
Two, three, many Dearborns!
Non-sense. We’d elect this corrupt establishment hack of a Hindu background just as we would one of a non-Hindu background.
https://centerforsecuritypolicy.org/nationwide-poll-of-us-muslims-shows-thousands-support-shariah-jihad/
According to the just-released survey of Muslims, a majority (51%) agreed that “Muslims in America should have the choice of being governed according to shariah.”
Even more troubling, is the fact that nearly a quarter of the Muslims polled believed that, “It is legitimate to use violence to punish those who give offense to Islam by, for example, portraying the prophet Mohammed.”
I am a conservative (southern) American, and I’d be hesitant to vote for a Muslim. Islamaphobic? If you say so. Personally I thought Bobby Jindal was a great governor, and would have gladly voted for him for president – but until I read this article, I had no idea if he was Hindu or not.
Hindus are not anti Christian in the way Muslims are.
Does the name Bobby Jindal from Louisiana mean nothing, even if this child of immigrants is not Hindu? If I recall, this former Republican governor and brief presidential candidate is of Indian descent, as is another former sothern Republican governor, Nikki Haley. Does Mr. Beinart think their religion would be an issue for conservatives? Or does the 1/2Indian ethnicity of a secular Democrat VPs only count?
So, did you read the article? Because he covers that.
A big fat “so what?” The US is a pretty religious country, whereas the UK is more secular. Doesn’t mean the US is “behind” the UK.
It always has been….since Day1.
lol…stop yourself.
All I’ve got to say about this article is SO WHAT?
I am a long-time conservative Republican – my first presidential vote was for Goldwater. I do not know if I would vote for a Hindu mainly because I have never had that as an option. However, I would vote for the candidate with whom I mostly agreed with ideologically (that may or may not have a religious cant). That would tend to exclude those who are not able and willing to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” or those who I suspect are saying they would as an exercise in virtue signaling (mendacity). There could be a religious component to that, but I am not aware of anything in Hinduism (truthfully, I am not aware of much about Hinduism) that would exclude a Hindu from getting my vote.
All else being equal, if it came to that, the Hindu would get the nod over the candidate who believed in nothing but the myriad set of false modern gods – me, I, climate change, atheism, and so on. Martin Luther said: “Let the Turk believe and live as he will, just as one lets the papacy and other false Christians live. . . . Christians have been stirred up to take the sword and fight the Turk, when they ought to have been fighting the devil and unbelief with the Word and with prayer.”
Or, if you prefer, from Thomas Paine: “But where say some is the King of America? I’ll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind. . . . Let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be place thereon, by which the world may know . . . that in America, THE LAW IS KING.”
I don’t have it in for Muslims because of our “war on terror,” but I do worry about the Islam-inspired “war of terror” that a minority wage against us and their fellow Muslims.
It is interesting that the author neglects Trump. Christian in name only – would the author argue that is all that matters? I think Trump proves times have changed. Evangelicals ignored his infidelities and pxxxy-grabbing because he could deliver conservative justices to SCOTUS and promote conservative legislation and executive policies. Republicans would still embrace DeSantis as a Jew or Hindu. Muslim would still be picking at a scar not heeled yet.
What a silly premise…and the Chinese probably wouldn’t elect a Catholic…and there a good chance many countries would elect Jews….geesh…what insanity is this?
What a silly premise…and the Chinese probably wouldn’t elect a Catholic…and there a good chance many countries would elect Jews….geesh…what insanity is this?
Great. So it is not enough to wallow in the usual DIE (yeah, not DEI) and wokester divisions, Americans are now supposed to obsess that no Hindu is being elected President. Some people love to project their misery.
Great. So it is not enough to wallow in the usual DIE (yeah, not DEI) and wokester divisions, Americans are now supposed to obsess that no Hindu is being elected President. Some people love to project their misery.
The only interesting thing from this article is the brief allusion in the section on U.S Christians’ worship of Judaism to the effectiveness of pro-Israel lobbyist groups in the U.S, which John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt famously wrote about.
In relatively recent time John Kennedy had to have a bible on his desk when doing a TV speech. He was signifying as a Catholic that he was no danger to Christian beliefs. Chachachacha…Changes
Author seems to suffer from ambivalent thinking process. All over the map and constantly editing his previous phrase via “ this is not to say that”. Stop writing.
“Christian nationalism”? Last I checked the King was still head of the C of E and the United States never had any Indian colonial holdings. But I suppose my own understanding of the influence of the past is as nothing compared to Mr Beinart’s knowledge of the imperatives of the future
If you want absolutely no chance at ever becoming President, Senator or whatever–and most probably also PM in the UK, either Tory or Labour, go and declare yourself a proud atheist!
This is mostly baloney. “Tolerance” as demanded by contemporary activist groups, is not the highest social or political virtue, as it seems to be for this author. Some of us – regardless of our political leanings – happen to believe that all religions are not created equal, and that a candidate’s professed faith is, at least in part, an important symbolic reference to his/her worldview. That worldview influences the candidate’s political agenda. How is that not a relevant factor in deciding who to vote for? This author fall into the progressive trap of thinking that a candidate’s religion should be a non-factor… and it should, as far as opportunity is concerned.
I suspect that professed belief, if it is merely a personal ornament, is not objectionable on the face of if. But genuine, life-altering belief makes important distinctions. Those should be made in love, but they are not illegitimate. From reading this post, I gather that the author has a shallow grasp of both Christianity and Hinduism, not to mention the difference between religion and faith.
Peter Beinart is an idiot. Nothing new here. He discounts every non-WASP appointment under one excuse or another, from Colin Powell, Condie Rice, Bobbie Jindal, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott , Elaine Chao and many other less prominent ones, to be left with a “practicing Hindu” as the one category which “Republican would never elect.” So how about Democrats never electing a “practicing Rastafarian”? Or how about Democratic party refusing to appoint a “practicing Jew” like Joe Liberman to run as their candidate in Connecticut for the US Senate, forcing him to run (and win) as an independent?
Such idiotic dissections are … idiotic, made by idiots.
Peter Bienhart would make an excellent Nazi propagandist. He attacks anyone deemed a “Conservative” with disgusting accusations which he himself embodies. Bienhart is a pathetic Identity Marxist spewing sophomoric spittal when ever he “publishes”. Bienhart is nothing more than a propagandist for the Far Left.
Nikki Haley – Ambassador to the United Nations appointed by Pres Trump, past 2 term Gov of South Carolina. Staunch Conservative attacked by Leftist media (just like Bienhart) for “changing her name to hide her heritage”. Haley is beloved by the majority of Conservatives.
Ajit Pai – FCC Commissioner and Hindu-American. President Trump maintained his appointment.
Tulsi Gabbard – Viable Hindu-American Vice Presidential candidate that was systematically destroyed by the DNC elite for not being Left enough. Now actively working with “America’s Conservatives”.
Well the headline “conservatives would never elect a Hindu” (in the USA) implies that the UK did – no he’s not been elected, he’s replaced another unelected leader who lasted 45 days (less than a head of cabbage), the previous elected leader was BJ – Sunak is the fifth consecutive PM from an Oxford University…
I can believe an intelligent person like Sunak could believe in the religions that reference real historical events alongside their books, but not Hinduism. It just takes magical thinking to ridiculous extremes.
Uh, Pretty much every religion is full of BS. Every single one of them is a fantasy cult replete with fairytales
“Pretty much every religion is full of BS.”
Which ones aren’t, then?
Each religion seems to have a speciality, serving specific real-world human needs. Christianity – charity, compassion; Judaism – family & group network; Islam – surety of strict observance; Buddhism – psychology maturity; Hinduism – full technicolor mythology. All of them cover social control, death anxiety, identity. The Gods are a projection of human childhood experience – the feared wise father who must be obeyed; the all loving mother who will make everything ok. .
Old Two-Seed-in-the-Spirit Predestinarianism.
Actually, I have no idea what they believe. I just saw the name somewhere and it stuck in my mind.
I often hear this descriptor of religion from people who have never fully explored what religion really is about and why it was and still is necessary for human cultural evolution. Even if what you say is the exact truth, is modern-day secularism much better with its climate millennialism, gendered souls, white original sin, and conspiracies of patriarchy?
I tend to think that early religion was largely a system of control, an attempt to keep uneducated masses in some sort of order by enforcing rules as morals derived from a higher power. It was also a handy way of explaining the world before science came into being.
I’ve got nothing against religion, and I can appreciate the good that it has done in historically shaping society, I just tend to think it’s all a load of nonsense and I can’t trick myself into believing
What scientific theory has been proven to explain the world then?
Numerous scientific theories have been proven to explain the world around us. Just because we don’t yet have the answer to every question doesn’t mean I instead should have blind faith in a collection of old stories
Certainly not evolution. That is a fairytale of wishful thinking to be sure.
Whereas creationism as a theory has lots of proof to back it up doesn’t it? Oh no that’s right, it’s reliant on blind faith
I wonder, is it science that has “tricked” you into believing that human nature is something other than it is? The evidence is that science will never “solve” the problem of sin.
What is sin? It’s a relatively recent concept in terms of humanity, and to me it’s just a set of arbitrary rules to follow to allow society to function. It’s entirely man made
The evidence is that science will never “solve” the problem of sin
It already has – viz: sin is a primitive cultural construct made in an attempt to try & understand people do bad things. It has been replaced by more numerous, complex descriptions of processes such as – psychological maladaptation, cognitive and cultural bias, negative feedback loops, trauma, insufficient self control, lack of awareness etc.
yes, professor…
including atheism?
Religion can be the enemy of God. Much like the Pharisees in Jesus’ time.
“I can believe … “
Funny thing about beliefs, they’re personal.
Funny thing about beliefs, they’re personal
Not when you impose them on others, which religions are wont to do. Moreover – you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to you own your facts.
Why is Hinduism any more nonsense than believing a man fed 5000 people with a few loaves and fish or rose from the dead?
or elected Trump and biden?
You’ll probably find out some day. I wish you well as you had better be right.
It might be too late then.
The Gospels are a matter of historical record. But even if they weren’t, is doubt preferable to faith? I’ll leave you to evaluate the implications of that choice.
“Which is harder, to be born or to rise again? That what has never been should be, or that what has been should be again? Is it harder to come into existence or to come back? -Pascal
They are not historical record, they’re a collection of fables with good morals written into them to be used as a direction on how to live your life
I believe that say what you will. As someone said belief is personal.
If you want magical thinking, I have a couple of book recommendations for you. Start with the Old Testament, then try the sequel.
“It just takes magical thinking to ridiculous extremes.”
Doesn’t seem to have adversely affected his perception of money and the material world.
There’s nothing in the Hindu belief system about the meek inheriting the Earth. Plus, remember that our present state on this earth is the result of the Karma built up in our previous incarnations, perhaps Mr Sunak led exemplary past lives – although what being a rich Tory PM will do to his present Karma should be interesting.
So we are just going to gloss over Trump’s tweet about Jews or Kanye’s? There is a metric ton of mental gymnastics performed here to say Republicans are not at all intolerant when the data sources cited within the article fly in the face of that claim.
Kanye is a loon, and Trump’s tweet was not “antisemitic” as you morons claim. Try again. Trump’s family is Jewish.
Trump’s family went to Marble Collegiate, affiliated with Norman Vincent Peale. They are most definitely not Jewish with the exception of his daughter who married a Jew and converted and her children are being raised in that faith.
German origin surely?
I prefer my politicians secular not fantasists who lack the courage to reject superstitious mumbo jumbo. Ganesha is a patron of bankers.
As a British man who grew up largely in America I find it touching how riled everyone is obviously made by this article. The Brits, touchingly, don’t believe a word of it. Just like they don’t believe Trump was really stoking anti-Muslim sentiment with his Muslim country travel ban (he definitely was). The Americans, typically, can’t see it in themselves. There is a weird prism in American politics these days. And just as American Democrats see a fascist behind every bush, somehow American Republicans see themselves in a sort of funhouse mirror, looking utterly different to themselves than they look to anyone else on the planet looking at them. Britain, for all its faults, has a youngish truly cosmopolitan population of Conservative MPs. America, for all it strengths, has an overwhelmingly male, white, Christian, elderly population of Republican Congressmen. And there are fundamentals underlying those two population differences amongst the representatives. What those fundamentals are, many articles could be written about. This is one, and I don’t think it’s that far off the mark. It doesn’t mean that Americans are religiously intolerant, which is where I think a lot of the offence comes from, it just means that they have certain unexamined strong ideas about what an acceptable leader looks like.
The Muslim country travel ban under Trump
was the same Muslim country travel ban
that existed under Obama.
You should also note that that not all Muslim countries WERE banned.
Get your facts right before you comment.
“America, for all it strengths, has an overwhelmingly male, white, Christian, elderly population of Republican Congressmen.” Interesting observation, but have you ever heard of Nancy Pelosi or Dianne Feinstein? They qualify as “overwhelmingly” female and elderly, one being 82 and the other 89; and it shows.
I am American. The author of this article 100% correct in his conclusions. But I will go even further.
It has become so much worse in terms of their ridiculous righteousness. Of course the majority of them would never vote for a Hindu or Muslim. The American Christians in this country (that’s how they like to refer to themselves, as if no other Christianity has ever mattered or is “real”) are mostly a cult. They use their religion to vindicate their distrust and fear. Neither are they, contrary to popular belief, necessarily uneducated. They count doctors and other professionals among their number, but overall they vote with their faith.
I also believe it’s a fad and that the author is correct regarding its eventual demise. Most Americans just don’t have the attention span. I also believe those that really believe in Christ’s teaching will start to wake up and realized they being led astray by some very self-serving individuals at the front of their churches. Give it ten years and they will no longer be clutching their bibles (never their rosaries…different cult). The American Christian majority has been shrinking for years now. And they will no longer, thankfully, be more than half the country in a few years.
Here we have a perfect example of secular progressive (aka “liberal”) bigotry. There is nothing liberal or tolerant about these people.
Silly. I am a Republican. I was a Reagan girl from way back. No use for you best friends of Jesus types though. And here, ladies and gents, with David’s comment….we have a perfect example of American Christians. Immediately presume they are liberals if they don’t agree with you. Forget the conservative agenda. Forget things like economic moderation and stability. To them it is not as important as being in with their fellow bible cronies.
If progressives keep up their losing game, this dynamic will shift rapidly. When religion dies, what fills the void is a toxic wasteland of narcissistic misfits. People are waking up to this rapidly. What I fear is the backlash that is coming for the utterly abhorrent deep Left rhetoric. I have no desire to turn the clock back on, for instance, reproductive rights but if the Left’s only position is complete autonomy and freedom up to the moment of birth, they’ve lost most people. They can’t argue a coherent position anymore. They’ve lost the middle and the fringes are taking up more oxygen daily on both sides. I wouldn’t bet the farm on religion losing ground in the USA especially when you have situations like Muslims and Christian’s forming alliances over taking gender ideology out of schools. Traditional religion will win in the long run over the extreme Liberal experiment.
Well, people often conflate the American conservative party with the Tory party but they couldn’t be further from the truth. The Tories at a broad level support NHS and universal healthcare, support gay marriage, support abortion access for women, etc. Heck, Boris would most likely fall squarely into the Democrat party’s progressive caucus along with AOC, Omar, and Talib.
The GOP is more of a far-right ultra-conservative Christian theocratic entity. There are no parallels anywhere else in the developed world. Even Orban seems tame by comparison.
Amazing that you get downvoted for pointing out the obvious. Some people are either in deep denial, or unable to square the cognitive dissonance, all they can muster is a spasm of disapproval.
I remember an American friend once telling me about how the three main British political parties are viewed by his friends in the USA (at least the few who even think about them):
The Labour Party i.e. Socialist
The Liberal Party i.e. Socialist
The Conservative Party i.e. Socialist
“Never was a truer word spoken in jest”.
“at least the few who even think about them”
Well, yeah, there is the U.S., all those other places, and Russia.
We need another party then. I think it is hightime but have people the guts to try a more honourable party.
You forgot about their support for transgender in our schools and their glossing over 7 years of rape of our girls by a particular race in lots of our bigger towns.