The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi

While we're on the subject of political assassinations let's compare the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin with the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi and the formation of a state religion. Then let's take a look at how that fits in with something Charlie Kirk once said and talk about the freedom of religion. 

Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a right wing extremist within his own community. The same with Mahatma Gandhi. Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu extremist who felt Gandhi was giving too many concessions to the Muslims and Sikhs. 

In reality, Gandhi promoted nonviolence and simply wanted different religions to live in peace. The right wing extremist that murdered him did not. He wanted to adopt a state religion and persecute anyone who did not belong to that state religion. 

The same with the person who murdered Yitzhak Rabin. That assassin did not want to share the land with the Palestinians and did not support the Palestinian's religious freedom. 

All religion shares a common thread. They all believe in the golden rule. Treat others the way you want to be treated. They all teach people to be good and do good. There's nothing wrong with that. The problem arises with sectarianism.

As soon as we strive to persecute other religions we lose the original intent of religion. It violates the golden rule. If you want religious freedom for yourself, don't take it away from anyone else. There's no such thing as a holy war. Fighting for religious freedom is acceptable. Fighting a war to promote your religion and take away the religious freedom of others is not. 

The adoption of a State religion violates the founding premise of religion. It's also the stepping stone to abolishing religion all together. First you abolish all religions but one, then you abolish that one final religion and there you have it. You're left with a Marxist Leninist Atheist state. 

Dan Dicks put out a video discussing the probabilities of the motive behind the Charlie Kirk assassination. Was it Mossad or was it a crazy left wing kook. His first impress was it could have been either. He quoted a relevant scripture from the Bible then shared a video of Charlie Kirk which he claims explains who did it. Personally I don't think the clip he chose revealed anything. Charlie Kirk's statements about Netanyahu and the ethnic cleansing in Gaza are far more revealing. 

However, I do want to address the statement Charlie Kirk made that Dan Dicks quoted because it is relevant to this discussion. The video clip starts at 17:32 in Dan's synopsis.  

Charlie Kirk is on a panel and asked a question about whether or not America was founded on Christian principles. I agree with Charlie in that it clearly was. However, I believe that the freedom of religion means the freedom of religion. It doesn't mean the freedom of one religion and the persecution of all other religions. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times but never mentions Jesus once. 

The quote on the back of the dollar bill which is found on the United Stats Seal states in God we trust. That can resonate with Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus. It can resonate with and include every religion not just one. 

The idea that we have to go back to our Christian roots could in some ways alienate everyone who isn't Christian. To claim that America is only meant for Christians is false and a very dangerous road. Instead of leading to religious freedom it leads to religious persecution. 

After the Protestant Reformation we saw Christianity splinter into many different brands that all fought with and contradicted each other. If you are a Protest, would you support adopting Catholicism as the State religion? I think not. 

If you are a Catholic would you support adopting the Protestant faith as a state religion? Which one because they all fight with and contradict each other. The freedom of religion means the freedom of religion. Departing from that pledge would violate the Constitution and the intent of the Founding Fathers. 

Thomas Paine was a Deist, believing in God and natural law but rejecting organized religion. Are we going to ban Thomas Paine from Citizenship? That would violate the Constitution. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." You can't ban Muslims, Sikhs or Hindus from citizenship. You have to learn how to coexist with them. That is the purpose of religion. To teach us how to live together.