Brit Hume, Buddhism, Christianity and Tiger Woods.

James: Imagine if he was speaking about Christianity instead of Buddhism??? There would be marches in the streets and rallies denouncing Hume and FOX News for not firing him. I'm not saying that such angry demonstrations should take place by Buddhists in response to these ludicrous statements. Quite the contrary. I think the ironic and appropriate thing to do in response is to forgive yet educate him and America as to what Buddhism is about because it is clear that Brit Hume knew nothing of the religion he denounced. And my guess is that the majority of the audience of FOX News doesn't either.

That said, is it anyone's business but Tiger's wife as to whether he is forgiven or not? Just because Tiger was unable to stay faithful to his wife doesn't mean Buddhism is incapable of helping him deal with such suffering. Besides, Christians haven't exactly had the best track record in keeping celebrities and politicians on the "straight and narrow" path. Hume also made the insinuation that you can't make a recovery in life via Buddhism, which is patently absurd. Try telling that to all the recovering alcoholics and drug addicts who have found new life in Buddhism. Try telling that to those who were able to pick up the shards of a broken life via the Dharma. I feel less anger toward Hume than compassion for the suffering he must be under in feeling like he has to personally "save" and convert everyone to Christianity must be exhausting. For more detail on the "nuts and bolts" of forgiveness in Buddhism -- Click here.

As for redemption, as a Buddhist, I believe redemption is gained through your actions more than saying certain words to ask forgiveness from a deity. It is showing that you have changed by behaving in a different way. There is no magic formula or incantations that need to be said in Buddhism -- just behave differently!! Perhaps the reason why Buddhism can't fit neatly into the Christian paradigm for Brit is that it doesn't believe in "sin" to be forgiven or redeemed from. True, there are guidelines on what will cause you less suffering but there isn't anyone to answer to except ourselves as via karma. We are our own savior and judge. Depending on our karma, the next birth will be one that will give us chances to make up for the suffering we have caused and to build upon the good we have sown. Sounds redeeming to me. In Christianity, however, you only have one shot -- this life to "get it right." Perhaps Hume needs to examine his own religion first before condemning another.

In Buddhism there's no big showdown and no guilt sundae topped with another helping of guilt. In Buddhism, guilt is seen as counterproductive because if you've changed for the better then guilt isn't helping you but holding you back. Guilt is about feeling you're a bad person but Buddhism doesn't want you to feel you're a bad person. You might have made some bad decisions but you're not a bad person. Forgiveness also means forgiving yourself for being human. If you feel guilty even after being granted forgiveness by someone then you're only making your suffering worse -- not better. And you haven't fully forgiven yourself. If you're no longer the same person as in the past then what is there to feel guilty over?

~Peace to all beings (even Brit Hume)~

Born Again Buddhists.

Heard this joke today,

"What did the Buddhist say to the Born-Again Christian missionary?"

"No Thanks. I've been born again many times!!"

O.k. so that's a bad joke but at least I got you to stop thinking about your worries for a moment.

Moving on, I was reading that FOX News here in America (known for its conservative, Christian slant) will be interviewing the Dalai Lama. The news channel is asking their viewers to come up with some of the questions to be asked of the Buddhist monk. So I was scanning some of the questions posted on their website--some are serious, some ridiculous like, "Who will win the American League baseball championship?" I think that person thinks the Dalai Lama is some kind of fortune teller.

Then there was this one, "Can I share with you the Gospel of Jesus Christ?" As if the Dalai Lama hasn't heard it before. I am convinced that this well-read, well-traveled, highly intelligent, Dalai Lama who has been apart of countless inter-faith forums knows well the Gospel of Jesus Christ. And I am sure that he finds much good in it and finds a lot of agreement in the teachings of Jesus. And he would probably listen to someone explain it to him again with a smile and a nod or two. He is very polite and understanding of people much more so than most of us including myself.

That said, I have found that many (not all) Christians think that the only reason that people aren't Christian is because they haven't heard "the gospel." These Christians (not all by any means) can't imagine that a person can have a happy, spiritually fulfilling life without the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Surely once they hear "the gospel" (these Christians think) they will drop Buddhism and become Christian and those who don't are dismissed as "not truly understanding" the gospel of Jesus. That or they say that we "know it to be true" but we reject it to try and thwart the plan of "God."

They can't fathom someone understanding "the gospel" and then saying, "No, I think I'll stick with Buddhism." To them it's like someone being handed a diamond and saying, "No thanks." The problem is that they are blinded by duality and can't see that Buddhism has its own diamond to cherish. They don't realize that for us, Christianity is but one diamond in a fisherman's net (Indra's net) of diamonds sown in at each knot in the net. All the diamonds are beautiful and just because the diamond you know is gorgeous doesn't mean that the diamond I know isn't.

Can't we just enjoy the diamonds instead of arguing over whose diamond is brighter? I'm not saying that all religions are the same but they all (or most at least) have the same roots in believing that we are apart of something bigger than ourselves. I can be rejoice for the peace and joy that Christians find in their religion without out it taking anything away from my own branch in the one path of suchness. May all awake from the great slumber.

Joseph Campbell said, "All religions are true. You just have to understand what they are true of."

~Peace to all beings~

FOX Host Carlson Afraid that Christianity is In Mortal Danger.

So an Atheist sign in the state capital of Illinois was stolen and now the Atheist group behind the sign wants to replace it with a new one saying, "Thou Shalt Not Steal." Yet Gretchen Carlson apparently doesn't get the point of the replacement sign.

It seems apparent to me that those who would be the most upset by the sign would be rabid Christians. Therefore reminding them that they [most likely Christian] broke a commandment of the very religion they are claiming to defend by stealing that sign is on point and brilliant. It's called using your critics words and beliefs against them. It's a great debate tactic and Carlson's only comeback to it is to claim that Atheists have no right to use the ten commandments because Atheists don't believe in them? That's a nice dodge from the point of Christians stealing despite being commanded NOT too.

So in other words Christians can break the commandments when dealing with Atheists because Atheists shouldn't have the same rights to freedom of expression as Christians enjoy. In part too because Atheists are seen by extreme Christians as evil to be defeated by any means necessary and therefore (to these type of Christians) the end justifies the means (i.e. stealing). It's not too unlike radical Muslims who think "God" will bless them in heaven for killing the nonbeliever because belief in "God" is more important than free will and the commandment against killing. Thus we see that many radical Christians don't actually believe following every commandment by the letter as they often say they do.

Michelle Maulkin actually takes the high road for once in basically saying "Just ignore them." But Carlson is completely freaked out to the point of saying that if they treat them as equals then Christianity might disappear??? Come on. Honestly. It might disappear from the public square (as it should according to the Constitution) but Christianity is not going to disappear from a country [America] that is beyond any measure predominately Christian. Besides, where is their faith that "God" won't let Christianity die out in America?

And should it be about control? Shouldn't your belief in Christianity be personal? Isn't it more about your own salvation than about being the dominate belief system to maintain your feeling of superiority as being "number 1?" I'm a Buddhist and we are no where near the dominate religion in America and I don't care. I don't practice Buddhism so that maybe one day Buddhism can dominate America. I practice it because I find meditation to be helpful in my daily, personal life.

I am a weak Atheist/strong Agnostic, I know many other Atheists and for most it's not about abolishing Christianity but rather about equal representation in the public square. Either everyone gets to have a display or no one should as the public square belongs to everyone and public/government buildings/locations are paid for by everyone--not just Christians. It seems really simple and basic to me.

~Peace to all beings~