OPINION: Response-Rebuttal to Diwali Article

The following is an opinion piece that in no way expresses the views of the organization or any board member. As an organization that prioritizes the freedom of speech, we put up this article written by people not associated with our organization who felt inclined to respond to an opinion piece put up on our site.

A member of the UF College Republicans (UFCR) recently posted an opinion piece entitled, The Erosion of America's Christian Roots: Diwali in the White House and the Dilution of our Founding Faith, which embraced disturbing anti-Indian and anti-Hindu rhetoric in an effort to position Hindu traditions as outside the American story. This faceless and nameless bigotry-in-print pushes not just the Republican Party in the wrong direction, but obscures our nation’s exceptional history of religious inclusion. It begs the question: what is the root of this vitriol? 

In recent years, there is a vocal segment which posits that one of the founding tenets of America is that this is a nation for Christians alone. This argument, however, gets both the history and structure of American religious freedom completely wrong. Far from establishing a Christian nation, our founders built legal protections explicitly meant to encompass Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and even nonbelievers. And as millions of students stand for the pledge every morning, we affirm this nation as “under God.” Not under a specific God, but one that is representative of the beliefs of any American that chooses to believe in God. 

From the perspective of the undersigned—a current UF student and a recent alum, both practicing Hindus—we find the kinds of remarks conveyed in the opinion piece to be extremely disturbing on many levels. Growing up as second-generation Indian-Americans, America is not just where we live, it’s all we have ever known. Our grandparents both immigrated here in the early 1960’s. And like most, they sacrificed the togetherness of family, the easy flow of a native language, and all comforts of home for a new beginning: one that offered them and future descendants hope, dignity, achievement, and freedom. In other words, the American dream. This is not a singular experience, but it is still an exceptional one. Immigration is the foundation of this country, and an integral part of the American identity. Every non-Native American in this country is the product of immigration and aspiration. 

As cousins, some of our earliest memories involve spending fall Saturdays in Gainesville with our parents (all UF alumni), cheering on the Gators, and building a level of unparalleled passion. In all ways, our upbringings led us to this shared experience that defines the Gator Nation. Later, attending this university was not just a natural extension of our experiences, but rather the fulfillment of childhood dreams. 

However, growing up in cities like Sarasota and Philadelphia, as there were only small populations of Indian families, we always felt American. It wasn’t until older age that we realized some people would consider us “Indian” or “different” in greater society. We always balanced our identities as Americans, alongside Indian and Hindu heritage. It was not until we came to UF and met others with the same background that we fully embraced cultural identity. We participated in various organizations on campus and through the Indian Students Association, we found a community of close friends. Being Gators and having a diverse experience contributed to personal growth, especially in college, where friends become family. All the Gators we know from years on campus would not embrace the bigoted viewpoints expressed earlier in December. 

The Erosion Op Ed is a direct affront to inclusiveness and respect. The author did not even have the courage to identify themselves publicly. Those who have conviction of thought and are proud of who they are must stand up to this hate. The University of Florida has always embraced diversity of opinion when constructive and thought provoking. However, to proclaim that, “The White House Diwali reflects a larger assault on the Christian foundations laid by the founding fathers.” is not accurate. Anyone can twist history. Describing the White House recognition of Diwali, which is a celebration of light, rebirth, and righteousness, as an “assault” not only shows a profound malice, but it also evinces a lack of understanding of tolerance and pluralism that Hindus embody. Ignorance of history and religion as a means of promoting hatred is not insight -- its vitriol. 

UF is a microcosm of our nation and should be a place where cultures and faiths are considered assets rather than tools that divide. America is an ideal for every individual, no matter what background, to pursue the American dream and make this nation great. The diversity in our country needs to be highlighted rather than diminished, and will only enhance our democracy. Moreover, if the goal of UF College Republicans and by extension the Republican Party is to grow more to win more, many moderate Republicans and Independents, like ourselves, will continue to find it difficult to align themselves with a party if represented by these ignorant, hate-filled views being promoted on official channels, rather than being widely condemned. 

And perhaps most importantly, the history of our nation overwhelmingly supports this vision of inclusivity rather than undermining it. 

To begin with, the Founders’ religious-liberty framework was intentionally not exclusively Christian. Of the central pillars of American religious liberty, the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was drafted by Thomas Jefferson and shepherded through the legislature by James Madison. Far from expressing a Christian-nationalist worldview, the statute is one of the clearest repudiations of it. The text assures freedom of conscience not just for Christians, but expressly for “the Jew, the Gentile, the Christian, the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.” This is no stray paragraph—it is the law’s stated purpose. Jefferson was demolishing the Anglican establishment, not putting a new order in its place. The statute explicitly reached out to protect persons of any or no faith, an unmistakable sign of the founders’ commitment to a pluralistic civil order. 

Secondly, the legislative history shows the founders rejected a Christian-only reading. During the legislative debates, an amendment was proposed to specify that the statute derived from Jesus Christ. The General Assembly rejected it. Madison later explained that adopting such language would have improperly restricted liberty “to those professing his [Jesus’s] religion only.” This episode is decisive: the founders had the opportunity to enshrine a Christian identity into the statute, and they consciously refused. They chose universal liberty instead. The Virginia Statute ultimately helped shape, though not dictate, the First Amendment. As the First Congress debated various drafts from “no religion shall be established” to “no laws touching religion,” they arrived at the broader balance of non-establishment and free exercise. This reflected a national commitment to protecting people of all faiths, not privileging one. The resulting constitutional framework rejects state-sponsored religion and guarantees equal religious freedom for all. 

Furthermore, Hindus were explicitly within the founders’ vision of religious freedom. In Jefferson’s own writings and in subsequent Virginia case law, groups like “the Christian and the Mahometan, the Jew and the Gentile, the Epicurean and the Platonist” were cited as equally protected so long as they adhered to civil law. Jefferson’s choice to include “the Hindoo” when describing the statute’s purpose shows that non-Christian, non-biblical traditions were not afterthoughts—they were part of the intended beneficiaries of America’s religious-freedom regime. This reality cuts directly against arguments that Hindu Americans, Hindu holidays, or cultural celebrations are outside the American civic tradition. They are precisely the kind of diversity the founders envisioned the law would protect. 

Lastly, courts have consistently read these protections as broad and inclusive. For over a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has invoked together the Virginia statute and the First Amendment to affirm that religious freedom is owned by all persons alike. In Reynolds, Everson, and later cases, the Court insisted that the First Amendment “[c]reates no official relation between man and religion” and creates a “wall” preventing government “entanglement with religious establishment.” 

Under this longstanding interpretation, the presence of Hindu symbols in public life—whether Diwali celebrations, Hindu military chaplains, temples, cultural associations, or student groups—is not a break from our constitutional tradition. It is its fulfillment. Critiquing foreign governments is fair political debate. But extending that critique into sweeping claims about Hinduism or about the place of Indian-origin or Hindu Americans in public life crosses into rhetoric that is both historically inaccurate and civically corrosive. The United States was not founded as a Christian nation. It was founded as a nation where religious liberty is universal, not inherited, and where “the Jew, the Mahometan, the Hindoo, the Christian, and the infidel of every denomination” stand equal before the law. 

Recognizing Hindu traditions in American public life—including celebrating Diwali at the White House—does not erode the founders’ settlement. It exemplifies it. And in the comfort of faceless internet profiles, White Nationalists can boldly claim otherwise: that life as an American is dependent upon one’s ethnicity. 

This could not be further from the truth. 

Being American is to live with passion, embrace community, and find beauty in lived experiences, both good and bad. It is the excitement of blasting fireworks on the Fourth of July, tossing the football around the yard, and the sweeping pride you feel when the National Anthem rings out in The Swamp. Being American is standing wholeheartedly by your convictions rather than resorting to anonymity. The author of the aforementioned Op-Ed, and those who hold similar opinions, were not demonstrating the values of Americans. Instead, they demonstrate an aversion to competition, innovation, and ambition: the crux of American greatness. 

So, to the author of the Op-Ed and others who hold similar beliefs, we challenge you to reassess your understanding of what America truly is. We understand her, respect her, love her, and we are never leaving her. 

Signed, 

Parth Shukla (UF MBA Candidate Class of 2027) 

Arjun Joshi (UF Class of 2024)