RSS Feed MenuAfter 3 months of silence, the world focused in to watch Tiger Woods give a brief statement. The statement was, in many ways, vintage Tiger, with the golfer pausing from his apology to scold media for invading his family’s private life and explicitly stating that he does not intend to give details about affairs that he considers to be private. However Woods, never one to really talk about his faith or any other aspect of his private life, did include a reference to his Buddhist upbringing. Specifically, he said
I have a lot of work to do, and I intend to dedicate myself to doing it. Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don’t realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously I lost track of what I was taught.
This statement is interesting because he actually digresses to talk about his Buddhist faith and how, specifically, it will play a role in his recovery. In fact, Woods’ one paragraph on the role of Buddhism in his life reads like a point for point rebuke of Fox News’ Brit Hume, who took it upon himself to encourage Woods to convert to Christianity on national television. Specifically, Hume said
Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it’s a tragic situation for him. I think he’s lost his family, it’s not clear to me if he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal — the extent to which he can recover — seems to me to depend on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist; I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’
Tiger appears to have responded today. To sum it up in a word, Tiger said “No.”
anniemargret // Feb 19, 2010 at 7:35 pm
The whiff of Christian triumphalism. As a Christian (Catholic) myself, it is deplorable that a news anchor would deem fit to decide what’s best for another human being on life’s incredibly difficult journey. Christians need to stop getting their noses out of joint every time someone comes along with a different view on the world and our place in it.
Hume probably meant well, but ….tacky, tacky.
sinz54 // Feb 19, 2010 at 7:55 pm
anniemargaret:
Not all believers are Universalists like you.
If you’re a devout Catholic, for example, then Islam is not just a different point of view. It’s a false religion.
mymy // Feb 19, 2010 at 8:05 pm
Brit Hume is not a news anchor.
ltoro1 // Feb 19, 2010 at 8:19 pm
What Hume said was definitely not tacky. He gave his opinion, Tiger and everyone else had to option to take it or leave it.
Carney // Feb 19, 2010 at 8:42 pm
Yeah, let’s all learn self-restraint and ascetic self-denial from a religion whose symbol, scattered in countless statues both building-sized and pocket-sized, is a morbidly obese fat man.
balconesfault // Feb 19, 2010 at 8:46 pm
Yeah, let’s all learn self-restraint and ascetic self-denial from a religion whose symbol, scattered in countless statues both building-sized and pocket-sized, is a morbidly obese fat man.
LOL. Yep – instead people should worship figures which depict a Jesus Christ with blue eyes and very light skin.
For what it’s worth, the fat dude is more fun to look at than the guy being tortured to death.
JJWFromME // Feb 19, 2010 at 9:08 pm
If Hume’s news outlet didn’t spend so much time idolizing Mammon and Caesar, his opinions on Christianity might actually mean something.
Also, Hume’s counsel on getting born again rectifying 12 adulterous affairs sounds like an example of the “cheap grace” Max Blumenthal describes as epidemic in *Republican Gomorrah”:
http://www.republicangomorrah.com/excerpt.php
anniemargret // Feb 19, 2010 at 9:27 pm
sinz: …… yes Catholics, and Christians believe other religions, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc… are ‘false’ religions . No surprise there . Religion is often divisive instead of healing.
I am not ‘devout’ if you mean church-going, dogmatic Catholicism. I rarely go to church, but I have a deep belief in God. I try not to look down my nose at what others believe, or don’t believe. The ‘live and let live’ motto (minus violence of course).
Yes, I think I am more a universalist in that I find people mean well, but it is insulting to infer that someone else’s belief is of lesser import and/or quality.
I think sweeping generalizations, or the some/all fallacy, are inherently dangerous, whether a person condemns all Muslims, all Jews, all Catholics, all ‘liberal trolls’ or all Republicans. ;0)
As Ronald Reagan once said…if there were an attack from an alien species on this planet, we would forget pretty quickly our tribal differences and unite as earthlings. I think he was right.
Sorry if I called Brit Hume a news anchor. Commentator? (don’t watch Fox, sorry).
As I said, it was, indeed tacky, because if we heard Mr. Hume suggest to a Jew what he said to Tiger’s Buddhism, it would the same…tacky.
Tacky!
JJWFromME // Feb 19, 2010 at 9:30 pm
As for the “fat Buddha”, you are confusing statues of Gautama buddha with statues of Budai that you see in Chinese restaurants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budai#Description
Traditional Buddhist statues are well proportioned.
SFTor1 // Feb 19, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Carney, the fat Buddha is a modern symbol of happiness and plenty—kind of the Buddhist answer to a Christian cherub. You could bet your last dollar that Siddartha was a pretty trim guy. Witness other statues of him. He’s not fat, and at least he existed.
News anchors proselytizing on TV—tacky sums it up pretty well. And would you hire Brit Hume as your spiritual counselor? I didn’t think so.
SFTor1 // Feb 19, 2010 at 9:55 pm
Budai. I learned something new.
ratgov // Feb 20, 2010 at 1:33 am
Did he say that on his show, or when being interviewed by someone? Because if he said it on his show I think that carries a lot of weight as the opinion of Fox news to start commenting on peoples religious views. And that’s kind of scary.
Sean Linnane // Feb 20, 2010 at 8:34 am
Although Buddhism is practiced as a religion, it can also be described as a “way of life” – Gautama Siddhartha (the Buddha) himself claimed that he was not a God, therefore it is completely possible to be a Buddhist and a Christian at the same time. Buddhism and Christianity are not exclusive of each other; neither is Judaism and Christianity, if you do it right. Come to think of it, you could include Judaism, Christianity AND Islam all into a single faith (i.e. same God / “People of the Book”) AND be a practicing Buddhist all at the same time!
Think about it; would Jesus dis Buddha?
JonF // Feb 20, 2010 at 10:23 am
I am an Orthodox Christian, and I am not a universalist (though I do believe there may be things of worth in other faiths, even though they fall short). I too find Brit Hume’s behavior utterly inappropriate. Christians are called to repentence, not to wagging their fingers in the faces of others. That was the exact sin of the Pharisees, the pride that comes from pointing our how wicked others are in comprison to one’s own (self) righteousness.
Here is St Ephraim’s prayer, which we say at every service during Lent:
O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despair, lust of power, and idle talk.
But give rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to Thy servant.
Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother, for blessed art Thou, unto ages of ages. Amen.
JJWFromME // Feb 20, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Thomas Aquinas and others on salvation through “implicit” faith and implicit “baptism of desire”:
http://cantuar.blogspot.com/2009/04/implicit-baptism-of-desire-in-thomas.html
kevin47 // Feb 21, 2010 at 1:33 am
” I too find Brit Hume’s behavior utterly inappropriate. Christians are called to repentence, not to wagging their fingers in the faces of others.”
This is a false choice. Christians may comment on the fallen state of man and the necessity of repentance without “finger wagging”.
“That was the exact sin of the Pharisees, the pride that comes from pointing our how wicked others are in comprison to one’s own (self) righteousness.”
No, the exact sin of the pharisees was hypocrisy. They enforced their religious codes on others while rejecting God in their hearts. Perhaps Hume is doing this, but you have no evidence that it is so.
If the Pharisees had been encouraging everyone to repent and follow Jesus, they would have been exalted. Saying someone needs Christ is a statement of fact, not a judgment.
JonF // Feb 21, 2010 at 8:22 am
Kevin,
You are reading a different Gospel– the Gospel of triumphalism, not repentence. Many Christians are tempted by that path, but it too is a snare of the devil. But God has given each of us the command of our own life only, and it is our own sins that should concern us, not the sins of others. Recall that Christ told us to worry about the beam in our own eye, not the speck in another’s.
As for the Pharisees, it wasn’t really hypocrisy (as we use the term) that defined them. Most of them really did try to follow the elaborate laws they had set forth, but they did this so that others would praise them as holy men, not so that they might become holy. And in the end they became worshippers of their own law, not of the living G0d.
kevin47 // Feb 21, 2010 at 3:41 pm
“You are reading a different Gospel– the Gospel of triumphalism, not repentence.”
Triumphalism is an empty pejorative. I believe that one doctrine is superior to others, which is not incompatible with repentance.
“But God has given each of us the command of our own life only, and it is our own sins that should concern us, not the sins of others.”
Nonsense. Throughout the new testament, Christ and the apostles are responsible for rebuke and conversion. Christ instructs Peter to his feed his sheep. Do you take that to mean that Peter was literally to feed sheep? Paul, in turn, rebuked Peter for compromising with the Judaizers.
“Recall that Christ told us to worry about the beam in our own eye, not the speck in another’s.”
That’s not what he said. The use of the words “beam” and “speck” is significant. One is large, while one is small. Jesus tells us not to concern ourselves with a speck in another’s eye when we have a beam in our own. He instructs us to remove the beam first. Now, if Brit Hume is running around sleeping with women, then he is certainly in no place to call Tiger Woods to repentance, but unless you have any indication that this is so, you are in no position to, um, point out the speck in Brit Hume’s eye.
“As for the Pharisees, it wasn’t really hypocrisy (as we use the term) that defined them.”
It certainly was. Jesus calls them hypocrites. The whole beam/speck illustration is about hypocrisy, not minding your own business. In Matthew 15, he accuses the Pharisees of nullifying God in the name of their own tradition. Their hearts were far from him, though he honored him with their lips. That is hypocrisy, as we use the term.
“Most of them really did try to follow the elaborate laws they had set forth,”
The key word here is “they”. The Pharisees were using their own man-made tradition, lording it over the people to elevate their own status. Do you really think Jesus would call a group of people vipers simply for holding to the OT law? What else were they supposed to do other than that which they were commanded.
“but they did this so that others would praise them as holy men, not so that they might become holy. And in the end they became worshippers of their own law, not of the living G0d.”
Precisely. They were only hypocritical insofar as they did not mean what they said. Had they been preaching the truth in love, Jesus never would have told them to be quiet. Find me one biblical example of someone being rebuked for sharing about the saving power of Christ. Just one.
ktward // Feb 21, 2010 at 5:05 pm
Having been raised in a non-denominational Christian Fundamentalist home (‘Born Again’) and educated K-7 at a Southern Baptist private school (I’ve memorized more KJ scripture than most can likely scrounge to make a point), I was not in the least surprised by Mr. Hume’s ultimately controversial comments regarding Woods’ sticky situation.
For Born-Again Christians, there is no such thing as objectivity: every choice, every decision, every perspective and every opinion is filtered through the prism of their deeply seated dogma and absolute belief in their particular interpretation of Biblical history and, especially disturbing given present-day geo-political challenges, prophecy. (You’ll notice, perhaps, that I did not include ‘every action’. Enough said there.)
It was for this single reason that GWB scared the heck out of me.
For various reasons, even practicing denominational Christians likely have only a remote sense of this overarching, compelling BAC dynamic. In context of present discussion, for many years the Republican Party machine underestimated–even dangerously dismissed–the determination of BAC Fundamentalists to reshape the Party in their dogmatic image. What a mess this has made for the Republican Party in a country founded on the principle of separation of Church and State.
There is no doubt in my mind that Hume was sincere and well-intended in his appeal to Tiger’s path of ‘redemption’. (Define that however you like.) Hume’s completely entitled to his opinion, colored however by his own personal glasses.
But that’s not the point.
The point is that Hume’s vocation is not ministry. It’s journalism. That said, if you believe for a second you will ever get strictly objective journo perspective from him on any level, in any venue, then I have a lovely bridge for sale that I’d like to show you.
While I’ve zero opinion to offer on Tiger’s annoyingly over-publicized predicament–I make it a point not to point uninvolved fingers, and I’ve no interest in golf–I am particularly appreciative of the reality check Tiger clearly proffered in direct response to Hume’s comments.
kevin47 // Feb 21, 2010 at 8:14 pm
“Having been raised in a non-denominational Christian Fundamentalist home (‘Born Again’)”
Being raised in a non-denominational Christian Fundamentalist home does not make you born again, so your appeal to authority is especially unpersuasive.
“For Born-Again Christians, there is no such thing as objectivity:”
Setting aside the fact that this is nonsense, beginning your diatribe with a personal anecdote hardly establishes you as an arbiter of objectivity.
“every choice, every decision, every perspective and every opinion is filtered through the prism of their deeply seated dogma and absolute belief in their particular interpretation of Biblical history and, especially disturbing given present-day geo-political challenges, prophecy.”
Filtering something through a particular interpretation of history does not preclude objectivity. Else, really, there is no such thing as objectivity. Not sure what you are talking about, re: prophecy.
“(You’ll notice, perhaps, that I did not include ‘every action’. Enough said there.)”
Really, an assertion couched in parentheses is enough? Enough to what? To which actions are you referring?
“It was for this single reason that GWB scared the heck out of me.”
Which single reason? You have thus far cited historical biblical interpretation and prophecy, as well as the deep seated dogma arrived at thereby.
“For various reasons, even practicing denominational Christians likely have only a remote sense of this overarching, compelling BAC dynamic.”
But only one of those various reasons scare you, w/r/t Bush?
“In context of present discussion, for many years the Republican Party machine underestimated–even dangerously dismissed–the determination of BAC Fundamentalists to reshape the Party in their dogmatic image.”
So you are a Democrat and reject conservative theology. I mean, that’s your problem, isn’t it? People are advancing causes with which you disagree, based (at least in part) on a theological paradigm you find problematic? Instead of getting in a huff, and offering an acronym-laced tirade, you might consider demonstrating why this is problematic, and what it really has to do with Brit Hume.
“What a mess this has made for the Republican Party in a country founded on the principle of separation of Church and State.”
Huh? The separation of church and state was never intended, by any of our founders (nor interpreted by anyone since) to inhibit the influence of religious values on political beliefs. It can be persuasively argued that America’s founding was not so Christian as modern evangelicals would have you believe, but religion certain impacted our country’s formation. To argue otherwise is absurd.
“There is no doubt in my mind”
How dogmatic of you.
“that Hume was sincere and well-intended in his appeal to Tiger’s path of ‘redemption’. (Define that however you like.) Hume’s completely entitled to his opinion, colored however by his own personal glasses.”
So what is your problem, and what does it have to do with George W. Bush?
“The point is that Hume’s vocation is not ministry. It’s journalism.”
So, if he were to comment on Tiger’s golf game, you would be equally upset. His background is journalism, after all, and not sports analysis. Right?
“That said, if you believe for a second you will ever get strictly objective journo perspective from him on any level, in any venue, then I have a lovely bridge for sale that I’d like to show you.”
So your problem is that he is not objective? Isn’t that true of any number of anchors? Do you think Katie Couric is objective? She isn’t, I assure you.
He was on a Sunday panel show. I fail to see why he shouldn’t offer his opinion. You just don’t agree with his opinion, which is your right, but hardly constitutes an objective analysis.
ktward // Feb 21, 2010 at 11:50 pm
kevin47:
Well. Your bellicose comments lack the kind of cohesive posture I’d typically expect for productive discourse, but I’ll give it my best shot.
I mention my relevant upbringing as a born-again (this church, btw: http://chog.org/Home/tabid/2237/Default.aspx) so that, contextually, readers understand that I have first-hand experience with this particular sect of Christianity. I’ve an idea why you are immediately and so transparently defensive, but whatever.
On second thought, I think I’ll leave it alone. I clearly struck a nerve, and since nothing productive could come from a back & forth, I’ll pass.
Peace.
kevin47 // Feb 22, 2010 at 1:05 pm
“Your bellicose comments lack the kind of cohesive posture I’d typically expect for productive discourse, but I’ll give it my best shot.”
How is declaring all adherents of a religion to lack objectivity any less bellicose than what I wrote? What kind of “cohesive” posture are you looking for in response to a rant that covers everything from the role of a journalist to George W. Bush?
“I mention my relevant upbringing as a born-again (this church, btw: http://chog.org/Home/tabid/2237/Default.aspx) so that, contextually, readers understand that I have first-hand experience with this particular sect of Christianity”
From which you made an assessment of the entire religion. That is what an appeal to authority is.
“I’ve an idea why you are immediately and so transparently defensive, but whatever.”
This is one of my pet peeves. Someone introduces a sweeping criticism, and then declares anyone who takes issue with that criticism to be defensive. I respond to all manner of comments here, not just yours. That’s what discussions is, sweetheart. Declaring it to be defensive is simply poisoning the well.
“On second thought, I think I’ll leave it alone.”
But you didn’t leave it alone. You stopped at the point of delivering some empty insults, employing a dismissive tone. Anyone could do this.
Me: I’ve visited Boston, and I watched the news while I was there, so I know all about the Northeast. Everyone in Massachusetts is a murderer.
Sinz54: That’s a ludicrous assertion.
Me: I can see by your tone that your defensive. Typical of a Massachusetts citizen. I was going to respond, but I can’t be bothered to waste my time on you.
“I clearly struck a nerve,”
You have now, but only by employing just about every personal pet peeve of mine w/r/t online discussion. You are correct, though. Nothing productive could come from a back & forth, and that has nothing to do with my bellicosity, my nerves, or my faith. A back and forth would challenge your assertions, which you consider unassailable, so what’s the point?
ktward // Feb 22, 2010 at 5:25 pm
kevin47:
Sigh. One might reasonably argue that I’m a glutton for punishment, but some things just need to be said.
From which you made an assessment of the entire religion.
I made no sweeping assessment of any entire Religion, in this case Christianity. I offered my own first-hand, experiential POV (and relevant concerns) of a particular Christian sect, relative to the thread topic. In point of fact, there are numerous Christian sects that vehemently express various levels of scriptural/ideological contention with other Christian sects. Get a grip already.
As an exercise in edification, perhaps you’ll offer your take on the following Christian endeavors:
http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/default.asp
http://www.sojo.net/
In the end, I’ve zero idea why you’ve inexplicably deduced that I reside in Boston, much less that all MA residents are ‘murderers’. For the record, I’ve never lived on the East Coast. Though I’ve traveled a majority of US states (MA isn’t, sad but true, among them), I’ve lived the last 35 of my 48 years in the Midwest. However, your ’sweeping’ pejorative characterization of MA residents is a ‘tell’ most FF bloggers won’t miss. That said, your opportunity to be taken seriously, here, has been spent.
I, for one, have little patience for the likes of your myopic, self-righteous kind, particularly with regards to politics and public policy. Your …perspectives .. are better suited to Townhall-type blogs. Best of luck and all that.
kevin47 // Feb 22, 2010 at 7:10 pm
“I made no sweeping assessment of any entire Religion, in this case Christianity. ”
Fair enough. Particular “sect” of Christianity. Your assessment was sweeping, and represents an appeal to authority. Your sweeping assessment does not gel with my personal experience, nor does it gel with the available writings of authors representing this particular “sect” of Christianity.
“http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/conscience/default.asp”
I am pro-life, so I obviously disagree with these particular Catholics on this issue. I am certainly aware of their existence.
“http://www.sojo.net/”
Bleck. If you are going to be a left-wing group, own up to it. There was an exchange between Reason magazine and Mother Jones in which both sides concluded that Wallis is disingenuous in his manner of argumentation. I agree. Also, for someone who rails on the rich so frequently, Jim Wallis sure makes a lot of money doing what he does.
That said, if you aren’t already, you should read Brian McLaren. He’s in your wheelhouse, ideologically, theologically and stylistically.
“In the end, I’ve zero idea why you’ve inexplicably deduced that I reside in Boston, much less that all MA residents are ‘murderers’.”
They are all Harvard gays who live to murder babies. They want to take away our guns so they can murder Christians, too.
“For the record, I’ve never lived on the East Coast.”
You must be from California, then. Let me guess, Berkeley grad? The veganism has gone straight to your brain.
“Though I’ve traveled a majority of US states (MA isn’t, sad but true, among them), I’ve lived the last 35 of my 48 years in the Midwest.”
Sorry, you went to Antioch with all the other liberal uni-bombers.
“However, your ’sweeping’ pejorative characterization of MA residents is a ‘tell’ most FF bloggers won’t miss.”
We agree, I think, in a sense, and so do they, I hope.
“That said, your opportunity to be taken seriously, here, has been spent.”
Maybe by now. Go back to your friends and tell them about the conservative idiot who reinforced your worldview. We all think the same. USA! USA! USA!