Skip to content
payday

Brit Hume and Tiger Woods

Here’s the video:

Here’s the letter I sent fns@foxnews.com:

Please mention to Brit that his knowledge of Buddhism leaves enough to
be desired that he probably shouldn’t opine thereon.

I’ll grant that Buddhism doesn’t provide a transcendental entity which
can forgive sin, but then Buddhism doesn’t actually provide the
concept of sin either; we replace it with “things which lead to a
peaceful life, causing no avoidable harm to others” and, of course,
the opposite.

High on that list is “avoid sexual misconduct” which can be translated
to “know when to keep your pants zipped.”

Having no concept of transcendent forgiveness, we replace it with the
idea that having harmed someone, you should make amends and reconsider
your behavior in the future.

You tell me which is more productive: being Forgiven of Sin, or making
amends and remedying your faults?

{ 4 } Comments

  1. stevesq | 2010-Jan-06 at 18:39 (@818) | Permalink

    Nonsense!
    I presume Buddhism, at least, proscribes your competition of religious one-upsmanship here, Charles. Its “passivity” in regard to your presumption that it can better handle behavior modification is therefore also ridiculous…
    Isn’t Christianity, at least, exactly about going forward to “sin no more??” …Which modified behavior seems to be at the heart of Christian REDEMPTION for real sins of all sorts, via a cosmic higher redemptive power absent in Buddhism! Your Buddhism’s lack of any concept of true “sin,” except as to avoidance technologies in order to merely achieve the self-”satisfied life” (hey,…therefore, do NO harm to others merely to avoid upsetting that self-absorbed personal satisfaction),…THIS interpretation strikes me as appallingly self-absorbed and uni-directed “moralizing” (& too much like those goggle-eyed, hyper-ventilating New Agey liberalis here)!
    After studying Buddhism (years ago) I certainly NOW prefer a religion with ‘meaty’ concepts of real sin within everyday reality, not just solipsist technologies of how that reality may be operating upon us for our more lip-smacking personal reality satisfactions! Come on man, …give me something more that recognizes the essential, even inescapable sadness of the human condition after “the garden”, where we WAKE UP to the sins we all must commit on a daily basis, merely to survive by rending the flesh of other corporeal beings for our dinner plate (quite literally), that living “flesh” being even plants of yet unknown conciousness too (for you vegans vising this site to think about). Here then is …ORIGINAL SIN, …for GOD sake!
    I’ve read in the ancient Chinese book of divination, the shamanic “I Ching,” how the greatest good is said there to be the avoidance of any personal blame. We all need “forgiveness” by a presumed higher cosmic power, and no doubt routinely, …EXCEPT, I guess, those LIBERALS who may use technologies of consciousness encountered in Buddhism in order to avoid real personal responsibility for their own everyday, very self-absorbed actions within this clever veil of delusion, …those, that is, who believe merely in the goal of living the ‘self-satsified personal life’ described in your comment, Charles…at least until that moment of self-obliterating personal death…all too SADLY pointless & solipsist, man!

  2. Charlie | 2010-Jan-06 at 19:08 (@839) | Permalink

    You don’t happen to be the Steve Squiers from the computer security world do you?

    In any case, I think “presume” and “assume” are important verbs here. You presume Buddhism proscribe “religious one upmanship”. You’re mistaken. You assume a whole bunch of other stuff, including notions of souls, redemption, and so forth, that I don’t share. As a result, we end up with different results.

  3. stevesq | 2010-Jan-06 at 19:29 (@853) | Permalink

    No Charles, am not he of “computer security world”—I spell my surname SQUIRES

    BELIEVE YOU MISREAD ME! I wrote “PROSCRIBES” and not “prescribes,” therefore my comment reads very differently, by meaning that ‘I presume Buddhism …PROHIBITS… your competition of religious one-upsmanship here, Charles…’

    Sorry, but I meant just the opposite of how you took my meaning by your misreading of my correct usage of “PRO-scribes” versus “prescribes”…Buddhism most certainly does NOT ‘prescribe’ one-upping competition between religions, which is nevertheless as you demonstrate it to be within your comment…

  4. Charlie | 2010-Jan-08 at 13:08 (@589) | Permalink

    Steve, that’s fine — you’re right that I misread proscribe for prescribe. You’re still wrong, so the rest of the comment stands. Sorry for the name typo. I’m willing to bet I’m make more typos in the future.

    Much of the rest is basically uninformed and still makes axiomatic assumptions I don’t share.

{ 9 } Trackbacks

  1. [...] . . on his statement about Tiger Woods—which was the theological equivalent, as I saw it, of an audible public fart. In fact, I [...]

  2. 1/4/2010 Update « tiger gone wild | 2010-Jan-03 at 22:41 (@987) | Permalink

    [...] 1/4/2010 Update Brit Hume and Tiger Woods | Explorations [...]

  3. uberVU - social comments | 2010-Jan-03 at 22:58 (@999) | Permalink

    Social comments and analytics for this post…

    This post was mentioned on Twitter by chasrmartin: A Buddhist’s reply to Brit Hume http://bit.ly/8SAn2Q

  4. Tiger Woods » Current News Trends | 2010-Jan-04 at 10:43 (@488) | Permalink

    [...] Brit Hume and Tiger Woods | Explorations [...]

  5. [...] and Buddhist, Charles Martin, sounding slightly defensive writes: I’ll grant that Buddhism doesn’t provide a transcendental entity which can forgive sin, but [...]

  6. [...] Read the rest here: Brit Hume and Tiger Woods | Explorations [...]

  7. [...] launched an inevitable kerfuffle. I wrote Fox News about it, and I’m sure that Brit will get some interesting and amusing hate mail. But Brit [...]

  8. [...] Pajamas Media’s own Charles Martin, who rejected Hume’s remarks on religious grounds. Charlie wrote: Please mention to Brit that his knowledge of Buddhism leaves enough to be desired that he probably [...]

  9. [...] like Pajamas Media’s own Charles Martin, who rejected Hume’s remarks on religious grounds. Charlie wrote: Please mention to Brit that his knowledge of Buddhism leaves enough to be desired that he probably [...]

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.