Jeffery D. LongProfessor of Religion and Asian StudiesElizabethtown College
Feb. 1, 2019
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Clik here to view.
Sadly, but unsurprisingly, the candidacy of Tulsi Gabbard, the first Hindu American to run forPresident, has evoked a strong and rapid backlash of media attacks.
Of course, any person whoruns for public office should, quite rightly, expect to be on the receiving end of extensive scrutiny.This is how we select our leaders in a democracy, at least ideally. It involves an extensive criticalexamination of the views and character of each candidate. In the end, hopefully, the public will become educated about the stances and qualities of the candidates and make an informed choice.Recent attacks on Tulsi Gabbard, however, have strayed into the territory of interrogating herreligious beliefs in ways that are both offensive and misinformed. The US Constitution clearlystates that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trustunder the United States.” The religious views of a candidate for public office can certainly affectthat candidate’s views on a variety of issues. But it is the views of the candidate on those issues,not the religious affiliation on which those views may or may not be based, that is relevant to thecandidate’s suitability for office.We, as Americans, have been through this before: when Alfred Smith, a Roman Catholic, ran forPresident in 1928, when John F. Kennedy, also a Roman Catholic, ran for President in 1960, andwhen Mitt Romney, a Mormon, ran for President in 2012. We have also been treated to thespectacle of a gossip campaign claiming that Barack Obama, a Protestant, was a Muslim, as though being Muslim could disqualify one for political office in America. Each time a candidate with areligious affiliation perceived to fall outside the American mainstream runs for office (or, in thecase of Obama, who is even alleged to hold such an affiliation), questions about the effect of thataffiliation on the candidate’s fitness for office are raised. Such questions are wholly inappropriateand are based on ignorance of constitutional principles.One recent allegation, more often raised as an insinuation, against Tulsi Gabbard is that her self-identification as Hindu is somehow false or inauthentic: that she is a ‘fake Hindu’ because she isnot of Indian descent. The assumption is that all Hindus are Indian: that one must be Indian, or ofIndian descent, in order to be Hindu.This is not, however, the case. Factually speaking, there are many self-identified Hindus fromaround the world who are not Indian or of Indian descent. And this is not merely a matter of self-identification. There are non-Indian Hindus who are accepted warmly, not only as Hindus, but asleaders and authoritative teachers of Hinduism, by the Hindu community at large. Many of themonks who publish the quarterly
Hinduism Today, a journal widely read by Hindus globally andseen as a reliable and solid source of information about the tradition, are not of Indian descent.This includes the founder of the journal, the late Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, who was born Robert Hansen. Interestingly, these monks are based on the island of Kauai, in Hawaii, TulsiGabbard’s home state, though they represent a Hindu tradition distinct from the one to which TulsiGabbard is affiliated. (Hindu denominations are known as sampradayas.)The Hindu denomination to which Tulsi Gabbard is affiliated is a branch of the ancient GaudiyaVaishnava tradition of Hinduism, known in the western world as the Hare Krishna movement. Toconvince readers that Tulsi Gabbard is not a real Hindu, some have suggested that Hare Krishnasare not accepted by Hindus of Indian descent. This could not be further from the truth. A visit toany one of the dozens of Hare Krishna temples across the US where the teachings and tradition ofGaudiya Vaishnava Hinduism are practiced, provides an opportunity to see Hindus of all shades– Hindus of both Indian and non-Indian descent–worshiping and celebrating together as a singleunited community of devotees. Hare Krishna temples in India offer the same.According to a 2015 Pew survey of ethnic diversity in American religious communities, 91 percentof Hindu Americans are of Asian descent (these being primarily South Asian, and these, in turn, being primarily Indian). Two percent are of ‘mixed’ ethnicity. This would include Tulsi Gabbard,who has an Irish American parent and a Samoan American parent. Four percent are white, two percent are African American, and one percent are Hispanic.
2
With roughly 3 million Hindus inthe US, this means there are roughly 60,000 Hindu Americans of mixed ethnicity, 120,000 HinduAmericans who are white, 60,000 Hindu Americans who are African American, and 30,000 HinduAmericans who are Hispanic.Calling Tulsi Gabbard a ‘fake Hindu,’ or even insinuating that her religious commitment andidentity are in some way inauthentic, is therefore a slap in the face of over a quarter of a millionHindu Americans who are not of Indian descent. And even to think that her religious identitydisqualifies her from being President of the United States is unconstitutional and un-American.
1
https://mauiindependent.org/the-ramped-up-smear-campaign-against-hawaiis-congresswoman-tulsi-gabbard/?fbclid=IwAR1MaUVo4svODPA1kIzHZ2NAxj5_oU6Y_qvkWmxOd7fgFX5gpJPCauPNDe8
2
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and-least-racially-diverse-u-s-religious-groups/ft_15-07-23_religiondiversityindex-1/
https://www.academia.edu/38271143/No_Not_All_Hindus_Are_Indian_Calling_Tulsi_Gabbard_a_Fake_Hindu_Is_Offensive_and_Misinformed_Medium.com_February_1st_2019_?email_work_card=view-paper