5 Responses to The Daily Show Mocks Brit Hume for His Religious Bigotry

1. fflambeau January 6th, 2010 at 5:47 am «

   I understand and agree, Twolf1, that Brit Hume is a pompus, conservative ass. However, there are some mistakes on this issue ON BOTH SIDES and it is more complex than it seems:

   1) strictly speaking, Buddhism is NOT a religion. The Buddha was not and is not conceived of as a deity by his followers (myself being one). It would be more correct to call it a belief system. It is, by the way, more than five-and-one-half centuries older than Christianity.

   2) under most Christian religions, and especially under the tenets of the Catholic church, it is possible to confess one’s sins and in the next instant, be freed of them (and still commit more of them). Not so with Buddhism which stresses overall changes in one’s live on the path toward Englightenment.

   3) this is NOT the case with Buddhism because under its tenets one is striving for the state of Nirvana which requires one to renounce worldly thoughts and ambitions. There is no hell in Buddhism. One “suffers” by not reaching nirvana, by being unhappy in life, and by reincarnated in a lower form.

   There is an excellent short description of Buddhism called, “The Buddha’s Path” by Nina van Gorkom (see http://www.dhammahome.com).

   She writes:

   “The Buddha was not a God, not a saviour, who wanted people to follow him without questioning the truth of his teaching. He showed the Path to the understanding of the truth, but people had to investigate and develop the Path themselves.

   …The Buddha, at his enlightenment, understood that the cause of suffering is craving. The Buddha taught the way to the eradication of all defilements. Defilements are not eradicated by rituals or by sacraments [note by me: as they are in the Catholic church or most Christian religions]. The way to eradicate them is an inner way. …Defilements are…not the same as what is generally meant by “sin”.

   …The Buddha, when he was sitting under the Bodhi-tree, realized the 4 noble Truths: the Truth of suffering, the Truth of the origin of suffering, the Truth of the ceasing of suffering, and the Truth of the Path leading to the ceasing of suffering. …The Truth of the origin of suffering is craving. Craving in this sense is not only strong attrachment or greed, it includes many shades and degreees of attachment. There is craving for pleasant colors, sounds, flavors and tangible objects, for all that can be experienced through the senses.

   The third noble Truth, the cessation of suffering is nibbana [better known in the Sanskrit form of nirvana]. Nibbana is not a place such as heaven or paradise where one enjoys eternal bliss. Nibbana is only an object of speculation so long as it has not been realized…it is the end of suffering. Nibbana is freedom from all defilements and since defilements are the cuse of all unhappiness nibbana should be called the highest goal.

   The fourth noble Truth, the way leading to the ceasing of suffering, is the development of the eightfold Path as taught by the Buddha. The development of the Buddha’s Path is very gradual, it is a difficult and long way. IT MAY TAKE MANY LIVES before there can be the attainment of enlightenment.”

   (emphasis added)

   Of course, there are different sects of Buddhism and some of these have different beliefs. But generally, the relevant part of the eightfold Path to this sitution probably deals with “right action” or “right conduct”.

   And what is ‘right action’? Generally, it means abstaining from taking life (of any life form); from stealing; from illicit sex (sometimes defined as sexual misconduct or unchastity).

   This situation, for the lay follower, is elaborated in the the Cunda Kammaraputta Sutta:

   And how is one made pure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from the taking of life. He dwells with his…knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Abandoning the taking of what is not given, he abstains from taking what is not given. He does not take, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. Abandoning sensual misconduct, he abstains from sensual misconduct. He does not get sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made pure in three ways by bodily action.

   So, in sum, Buddhism is not a religion; rather, it is a belief system. In my opinion, it is much more complicated than Christianity and much more difficult to achieve its highest goal: nirvana.
2. fflambeau January 6th, 2010 at 6:41 am «

   Some other thoughts:

   1) Brit Hume is wrong to equate Buddhism with a “faith” which usually refers to a religion. As mentioned above, it is a belief system.

   2) Hume’s arrogance in assuming the superiority of Christianity to other religions/belief systems is astounding. This shows how expansionist the Christian mindset often is (as is Islam, perhaps being one of the reasons the two have been in conflict for centuries). By contrast, since Buddhism is person-centered and not a religion, it is NOT aggressive.

   3) Hume raises the point of redemption but strictly speaking this has little or no meaning in Buddhism. It is Christo-centric (along with some religions similar to Christianity). Rather than a single act bringing about change (“soul tidying” as humorously suggested by one of the panel) Buddhism emphasizes long-term conduct and change to reach enlightenment. So Hume is really comparing apples with oranges, so to speak and he obviously has no grasp of world religions. It’s another case of a talking head pretending to be an expert on something he doesn’t understand in the least.

   Some funny stuff by Stewart’s panel, especially the lady. I liked her line that Catholicism “has a tidy clean up system for the soul what with its confessionals” or words to that effect. The first panelist was rather lame as was the “Muslim”, in my opinion. The overall effect–shopping for religions to meet one’s lifestyle–was hilarious.
3. Elliott January 6th, 2010 at 7:51 am «

   “So when does Brit Hume advise Charles Krauthammer that if he accepts Jesus as his personal Saviour he will walk again? – Roger Ailes
4. fflambeau January 6th, 2010 at 5:52 pm «

   HEAL! HEAL! HEEL!
5. iremember54 January 6th, 2010 at 8:05 pm «

   Brit Hume has spent to much time with Charles kruthiemer, Bill Crytal, and the rest of those guys. He Now thinks He knows it all, and isn’t like lipstick on a pig, but a pig in a suit.