"Buddhists seek to overcome suffering, while Christians seek to overcome sin."
"[Buddha] realized that no amount of money or power or sex could bring him true happiness."
"suffering is rooted in a combination of ego and ignorance, and [Buddha] learned how to uproot both through meditation."
Here is the article.
USA TODAY, 2010-01-11
In the ensuing kerfuffle, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann lamented the encroachment of religion into American public life, and Comedy Central's Jon Stewart convened an expert panel to determine which religion was really best for Tiger. (Judaism, perhaps?) Meanwhile, social conservatives gave Hume's remarks a big thumbs up (or, in the case of MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, a lusty "Amen" followed by a rendition of Amazing Grace).
In an alternative universe, the network that bills itself as "fair and balanced" might have demanded that Hume apologize to the world's 445 million Buddhists. Instead it arranged for an encore on The O'Reilly Factor, where Hume, far from folding, doubled down and urged Tiger once again to "make a true conversion." Today, anyone who doubts where Fox stands on the God question just isn't paying attention. If you want to hear Christian news, tune in to Fox. If you are a Buddhist, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, or non-believer, you will want to tune in elsewhere.
Yearning for informed journalism
I am one of those old fogies who wish that journalists would stick to journalism, so the next time the Right Rev. Hume is tempted to turn a Sunday morning talk show into The 700 Club, I wish he would ask, "What would Walter Cronkite do?" But it must be admitted that truly fair and truly balanced journalism has already gone the way of the Fairness Doctrine, which from 1949 until its repeal under President Reagan in 1987 had ensured that broadcast licenses serve the public good. Today, those licenses serve only to line the pockets and reinforce the prejudices of those who hold them. So objective journalism is a lost cause. But what about informed journalism? Is that too much to hope for?
My complaint about Hume is not that he is plumping for born-again Christianity. I have no problem with proselytizing, and watching a news anchor morph into a televangelist isn't really all that different from watching a news anchor morph into an ideologue -- something we've been witnessing for years. My complaint instead is that Hume is trashing a religion -- "the Buddhism," as he awkwardly calls it -- about which he knows next to nothing.
Hume is doubtless speaking out of personal experience -- the end of his first marriage, the suicide of his son -- and you can tell by his voice that he comes not to bury Woods but to resurrect him. Nonetheless, news organizations do not tolerate financial reporters who don't know the difference between a stock and a bond, or movie critics who have never heard of Steven Spielberg. Why should they tolerate a journalist mouthing off about a religion about which he knows next to nothing? Why should we? Religion is a prime mover in our world, and we need more discussion of it on television, not less. But unless that discussion is informed, it is, as the Bible says, "vanity of vanities."
Buddhism and Christianity are doubtless very different religions. Buddhists seek to overcome suffering, while Christians seek to overcome sin. Forgiveness of sin is more of a Christian emphasis than a Buddhist one. Still, which of these two traditions offers more resources for adulterers on the mend is to me an open question. So is the question of which is better at keeping spouses on the straight and narrow.
Like Christianity, Buddhism prohibits adultery and other forms of sexual impropriety. Buddhist monks have traditionally taken vows of celibacy, and by most accounts they have proved adept at keeping their vows. Buddhist laypeople also vow not to engage in sexual misconduct. Those who break this vow are not given the free pass of atonement for sins that some versions of Christianity offer. In keeping with the law of karma, Buddhists believe that evil actions must be punished. Some Buddhists insist that any punishment must be borne by the evildoer, but many Buddhists take solace in what they call transfer of merit, which means that there are god-like beings who, if we turn to them in devotion, will use their vast storehouses of good karma to wipe our slates clean.
Buddha's own path
As I have followed this battle of Brit vs. the Buddha, I have found myself returning to the story of the Buddha himself, who in his youth led an existence eerily reminiscent of the life of Tiger Woods. He was rich and powerful and lived a private life in a grand palace with a beautiful wife and a beloved son. And for a time, he thought he was happy. But after a while, he realized that no amount of money or power or sex could bring him true happiness. So he left his wife and his child and his palace to seek the source of human suffering. This might seem selfish, but his goal was to find a path that could alleviate the suffering of all of humanity. And one day, according to Buddhists, he did just that. While sitting under a Bodhi tree, he saw that suffering is rooted in a combination of ego and ignorance, and he learned how to uproot both through meditation.
Tiger Woods might well have something to learn from Christianity, and soon enough we might well see him engage in what historian Susan Wise Bauer has called "the art of the public grovel," complete with Jimmy Swaggart's tears, Bill Clinton's confession and Ted Haggard's repentance. But Brit Hume clearly has something to learn from Buddhism, too, not least that there is more than one way to make yourself new.
Stephen Prothero is the author of the forthcoming book God is Not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Run the World -- and Why Their Differences Matter. (c) Copyright 2010 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.
