ABRAHAM LINCOLN - BETTER THAN SRI RAMA

Lincoln is not new to the Americans or to the populace of the world. Hence no repetition of what he did to the US. A little comparison is being attempted.

What is common between Lincoln and Sri Rama?

Lincoln, peculiarly had very long limbs and abnormally shaped chest. It is believed that he suffered from Marphan Syndrome, a syndrome which Charles Degaulle (Former French President) also suffered. Details are available at Wikipedia.org.

Sri Rama was the hero of the Indian epic Ramayana. Rama is worshipped as God in India. The narrators of Ramayana call him "aajaanu baahu" (possessing hands extending upto knees - very long hands) and "visaala vaksha" (broad chested). These two are signs of beauty as per the epic.

How do Lincoln compare with Rama, in his deeds?

Had Lincoln not emanicipated the blacks in the 1860s, they would have probably continued in the hell of serfdom at least for another century. Lincoln knew that his life was peril. Yet, he took up the task despite the threat of the Civil war and truncation of the country. Not only the blacks, the sufferers from colonialism throughout the world had at one time or other derived inspiration from the Lincoln's munificence.

Rama along with his brother and wife went to forest, as per the order of his father, for a stay of 14 years. In the first year itself, he promised the Aryan sages in the forests to protect them by killing the demons. (Apparently tribals. This analogy is like White settlers in US of 18th Century vs. the Native Indians of Indiana who were resisting the settlers on their westward journey).
He killed thousands of demons, and ultimately Ravana the king of demons in a fierce war. The impetus for the battle was: the demon king stole Rama's wife.

All these acts of Rama pale in significance when compared to what the Lincoln (and Grant and his associates) did for the blacks. In fact, Lincoln's efforts and sacrifice should rank higher than the sacrifice of Jesus. While there is Ramayana for Rama and Bible for Jesus, Lincoln though regarded highly by those who study history does not enjoy the same global image and spread as Jesus and Rama. Because: there is no religious hierarchy and propaganda apparatus to glorify him.

Does not Republican Party have a stake in glorifying Lincoln, for deriving political mileage?

The putting forward of great leader's images and sacrifices for political purposes works only for a limited period and not for centuries.

Why should we compare Lincoln at all with Rama?

History shows that Lincoln freed millions from an unimaginably sickening bondage. Rama has an image of an emanicipator. He has been elevated to the status of a God.

When a Pope dies, the Bishops and Cardinals search for miracles and build them to start beatification and canonization. For a martyr, even this one miracle requirement is waived. Lincoln is a martyr. In fact he performed a miracle by his supreme effort in abolishing slavery facing testing circumstances of threat of partition of the country. This no Pope or Saint could do. The Vatican does not recognise that non-Catholics or non-Christians could also be beatified canonized by it.

Should Lincoln be canonized, deified and worshipped?

No. Hero worship is not a solution. The idea is to compare and show how religion runs away with all ceremonial show as there will be no real achievements to show-case.