We must have the courage to tell the christians that what is wrong with them is their religion
21 February 2026
You must not only discard the Shastras, you must deny their authority, as did Buddha and Nanak. You must have courage to tell the Hindus that what is wrong with them is their religion—the religion which has produced in them this notion of the sacredness of Caste. Will you show that courage?
The words above are those of Babasaheb B.R. Ambedkar, a founder of the modern state of India, and the principal source of its constitution. Ambedkar converted to Buddhism after studying the major religions which had a foothold in India at the time, including Islam and christianity. Ambedkar chose Buddhism because of its egalitarian rejection of the Hindu caste system and the lack of superstition at the core of its belief system. Unlike Islam and christianity, Buddhism makes no definite statements about what occurs after we die, and any statements that are made – such as those about death and re-birth – are not essential to the Dhamma as taught by Gautama Buddha. Ambedkar’s formulation of Buddhist teachings, contained in the Buddha and his Dhamma, is controversial for its rejection of superstition and folklore, including those of historical Buddhist movements, but he managed to create a following nonetheless, leading mass conversions of Dalits, members of the “untouchable” caste, to Navayana Buddhism. Navayana’s rejection of caste made it a philosophy of liberation for those oppressed by the Hindu caste system.
If it weren’t obvious, we in Louisiana live under a political dictatorship of the ruling class, a ruling class inclusive of christian pastors and their political lackeys. Whether they are lackeys because they are true believers, or because of sheer political opportunism, the christian clergy in this state exercises excessive political influence over the vast majority of our state’s politicians, and this applies to both major parties. It was a church-going Democrat, you might remember, who sponsored Louisiana’s bill which criminalized all cases of abortion, and it was a Democrat governor who signed it into law. Both cited their religion as influences for their sponsorship of the law. It didn’t do them any good electorally, of course. The Louisiana Democrats were made politically irrelevant outside of the major cities in the next election cycle. With Democrats like that, though, who needs Republicans?
The latest example of christian domination of the state’s politics, and of our everyday lives, came with the state passing a bill requiring any school which receives public funding to prominently display a protestant version of the Ten Commandments in each and every classroom. The lawsuit which aimed to nullify that law was victorious in its first go in front of the courts, but that ruling in favor of secular public education was overturned by the Fifth Circuit court. The Fifth Circuit court is known to be run by reactionary whackjobs and wingnuts who would like to fashion the country in their own image. The case will likely go before the Supreme Court, and, haha, ditto. The core of the issue is that the First Amendment of the US Constitution reads as such:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The first part here is the important one: does requiring a specific version of the Ten Commandments amount to “respecting an establishment of religion”? The christian reactionary argument is that this part of the text was intended to prevent the establishment of a state church akin to the Church of England. An even more reactionary argument is that it was intended only to protect the various christian denominations from persecution. In the latter case, it would be helpful to remember that one of the plaintiffs of the lawsuit is a catholic christian who opposed the specific version of the Ten Commandments, arguing that it amounts to an endorsement of protestant christianity. The reactionary interpretation has some historical basis. It’s true, for example, that the christians persecuted American Indians, and that the government until relatively recently was allowed to impose christian beliefs onto American Indian tribes. That this is in contradiction to the second clause of the text, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, was ignored up until the point it was no longer politically viable. The US constitution is worse than a flawed document. The US constitution was written by slavers and genocidaires who wanted a government capable of exterminating Indians and capturing escaped slaves.
Still, the Fifth Circuit’s ruling amounts to an overturning of the last fifty years or so of legal precedent establishing that public schools cannot take actions that amount to an endorsement of any religion. By mandating that each classroom prominently display the Ten Commandments, the state may not be prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or establishing a state religion (any more so than requiring children to recite a pledge of allegiance that includes the words “under god”), but it is endorsing christianity in particular. Ironically, this is against their professed concern for parental authority: what if a Hindu parent doesn’t want their kid to have to be exposed to this christian nonsense? That is precisely what’s at stake here. It shows that the christian reactionaries believe in parental authority only insofar as the parents are conformist christians, conformist, that is, to the denominations predominant in the legislature.
Moving from “what is constitutional” to “what is morally righteous”, it is obvious what the intention here is: to reinforce the cultural dominance of the christian religion (as taught by the reactionary pastors who have friends at the state capitol) amid the decline of church attendance and the decline in influence of the christian clergy by penetrating the fragile eggshell minds of the youth, imposing their particular religious worldview onto students in the state. Is it morally righteous for christians to impose their worldview onto us sinners? Of course it ain’t. The pastors, however, are not concerned about what is morally righteous; they have a more material goal in mind.
The pastors are exclusively concerned with what expands their “flock” (need I remind you that they view you as sheep?), and thus, what brings in more tithes (10% or more of your income, thank you very much!) I’ll never forget a former co-worker who I felt a lot of empathy for, a young man with cerebral palsy who was giving 10% of his meager salary away to his church pastor. I never pushed him on this (I was respectful of his religious convictions), but I did feel bad for him. What do pastors do with this money? They buy expensive cars, expensive clothes, and big houses in the rich part of town, so as to better cavort and hobnob with the capitalist ruling class. And don’t forget about mission trips, where pastors direct the unpaid labor of their flock to give hand-outs to the world’s poorest, not for its own sake, but to proselytize and expand the flock. The effect of these evangelical mission trips to Africa, just for one example, has been a disaster for queer Africans, who are subject to anti-queer laws pushed by political organizations that are influenced by the missionaries, which often enough carry a penalty of death.
I won’t trot out any quotes from the New Testament to shove in anyone’s face. The modern day lawyers of the gospels have plenty of ways to justify why this practice of theirs is not sinful and is not in contradiction to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. It would be hypocritical, anyway, for me to talk about “sin” when I believe in kamma. Instead, let me introduce you to the Law of Kamma:
Kamma means man’s action, and Vipaka is its effect. If the moral order is bad, it is because man does Akusala (Bad) Kamma. If the moral order is good, it is because man does Kusala (Good) Kamma.
The Buddha was not content with merely speaking of Kamma. He spoke of the law of Kamma, which is another name for Kamma Niyam.
By speaking of the law of Kamma, what the Buddha wanted to convey was that the effect of the deed was bound to follow the deed, as surely as night follows day. It was like a Niyam or rule. No one could fail to benefit by the good effects of a Kusala Kamma, and no one could escape the evil effects of Akusala Kamma.
Therefore, the Buddha’s admonition was: do Kusala Kamma so that humanity may benefit by a good moral order which a Kusala Kamma helps to sustain; do not do Akusala Kamma, for humanity will suffer from the bad moral order which an Akusala Kamma will bring about.
The christian reactionaries, who are also in charge of the US federal government at the moment, are doing Akusala Kamma, and will not escape the evil effects of Akusala Kamma. Their efforts to increase their flocks, to increase their tithes, are bound to fail, and they will suffer for them, as sure as gravity brings what we throw into the air back down to the Earth, as sure as we are to suffer, get sick, and pass away.
These christians may or may not be following their holy book. I can’t say. I can say that us sinners are very much in the same relationship toward the reactionary christians as Ambedkar and the Dalits were to the Hindus. The reactionaries are bringing evil into the world, and reactionary christianity is at the forefront of much of what is wrong with this state. If what they do is in line with the teachings of their holy book (and I’ll let the christians debate on that), I can say that what is wrong with the christians is their religion, and as with Ambedkar and the Hindus, we must have the courage to tell the christians that what is wrong with them is their religion. Will we show that courage?