Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Pat Buchanan has no problem at all with uninformed opinions
Buchanan admits Brit Hume’s idiotic statement about Tiger Woods 'turning to the Christian faith' is uninformed but defends it anyway
by Larry Simons
January 6, 2010
This past Sunday, FOX News’s Brit Hume decided to take it upon himself to become Tiger Woods’ spiritual advisor on FOX News Sunday. This is what Brit Hume said [warning: if you've never heard of Brit Hume or heard him speak, imagine the worst sounding voice possible speaking the quote below]:
“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 with him. I think he’s lost his family. It’s not clear to me whether he will be able to have a relationship with his children….the extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger is, 'Tiger turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.””
I wanted to write something about this dickhead when he first said this, but wanted to wait for the shitstorm that would ensue from the media, and for colossal douchebags like Pat Buchanan to crawl from their primordial slime to defend the FOX News neocon prick. I didn’t have to wait long. On Tuesday, MSNBC’s David Shuster and Tamryn Hall ripped Buchanan a new ass for supporting Hume.
Shuster asked Buchanan, “Is it ever, ever a wise idea for a political analyst to essentially anoint themselves somebody’s spiritual advisor, denigrate that person’s religion and do so on a Sunday political talk show?”
“Well, I consider myself a friend of Brit Hume, and I think he was being candid and honest and I don’t know what the Buddhist religion is, but there’s no doubt that Christianity is a religion of mercy and forgiveness and it’s conditional of course upon people altering their life and being sorry for what they’ve done…..”
Well, first of all Pat, thanks for completely ignoring Shuster’s question. Second, if you don’t know what the Buddhist religion is, then how can you even imply that Christianity is better and support someone who basically said it is? Third, are you saying Buddhism is not a religion of mercy and forgiveness and not conditional upon people altering their life? You just admitted you “don’t know what the Buddhist religion is”, so how can you even imply that a religion you know nothing about does not offer the exact same benefits [or better ones] as the religion you are endorsing?
watch the clip
Buchanan continues, “I’m not bothered by Brit Hume doing that. I think he means well….he was giving some sort of personal, his personal thoughts on it. I don’t really have a problem with Brit doing that, quite frankly.”
Attacking another person’s religion is “meaning well”? I do my share of attacking on this site, but for the most part, I’m attacking the person’s behavior, not the religion itself and I often strongly imply that they should not act that way if they are sincere about their religion. Hume was proselytizing and attacking the religion when he admittedly knows nothing about the religion he is attacking. Big difference.
Tamryn Hall chimes in and makes a great point about all the “christian” politicians that have been involved in their own scandals in the past year alone and says, “Do we need to run down the list..?” Yes, I agree. Do I really need to mention the scores and scores of Christian politicians and leaders who have been involved in some of the most heinous, vile and self-serving behavior in just the past year? Or in the last five years? I could, but I have to maintain some brevity to this story.
Buchanan responds by saying, “I don’t think he [Hume] was saying that all Christians are not flawed and no Christian sins. I think what he was saying was….Christianity is a religion of mercy and forgiveness but…..”, then Shuster interrupts and says, “But Pat, he was denigrating Buddhism in the process.”
Exactly. Hume was denigrating another religion in the process. What imbecile Pat Buchanan fails to comprehend is that while he sat there defending Hume for his “Tiger Woods’ religion is not a real religion” rhetoric, Buchanan was being his usual hypocritical/fraudie self by supporting someone [Hume] who was violating Christianity by judging another person.
At the end of the segment, Tamryn Hall makes the point I would have made [but was much nicer than I would have been].
Hall: In the comments that were made by Mr. Hume, he says, “I don’t think that religion offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption…” “I don’t think”, he couldn’t even say he studied it or knows, and I think that is the lesson here. Before we start putting our faith on someone else, maybe we should learn a little bit about theirs. You yourself Pat have said you don’t know much about the religion of being a Buddhist, so before we start throwing what we think is right in front of someone else’s plight, let’s learn about theirs.”
Buchanan: That’s his opinion! You say it’s an uninformed opinion…OK! It’s an uninformed opinion! Do we have a problem with a guy having an opinion?
Uhhh, yeah, if it's UNINFORMED....ya big penis!
Like the old saying goes, “you are entitled to your own opinions, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.”
Here are the facts about forgiveness and mercy in the Buddhist religion:
“The topic of forgiveness may seem at first sight remote from the concerns of Buddhism. Buddhism does not conceive of ultimate truth in the guise of a personal God. Its concepts of error and defilement do not readily translate into the Biblical notions of sin and guilt. The Buddhist solution to unwholesome dispositions is to overcome them by following the path that leads to release; acts of pardon and grace have little to do with it. In some early Buddhist texts, the emphasis falls not on forgiving, but on the foolishness of taking offense in the first place:
“He abused me, he struck me, he overcame me, he robbed me”—in those who harbor such thoughts hatred will never cease.
“He abused me, he struck me, he overcame me, he robbed me”—in those who do not harbor such thoughts hatred will cease.
(Dhammapada 1.3–4; trans. Radhakrishnan)
In contrast, biblical rhetoric is full of references to enemies, slanderers, persecutors. Buddhism might unmask a delusion here, rather than go on to talk of forgiving one’s enemies and blessing one’s persecutors. Biblical salvation is atonement for evils that have already occurred; but Buddhist salvation is more an effort to prevent the evils from arising in the first place.
When they have already arisen, it calmly proceeds to dismantle them by going back to their roots. One universal process of karmic causality presides over all evils and the cure for them. Even the ultimate goal of undoing the chains of karma and entering the freedom of nirvana is attained through following this analytical procedure. There is no supernatural dissolution of bondage to evil by an act of grace (at least in early Buddhism). Thus, when we seek resources in Buddhism for a clarification and underpinning of the Biblical ideas of sin, forgiveness, grace, reconciliation, and atonement, we face the risk that these notions themselves will disappear in light of Buddhism’s higher wisdom."
This is just my interpretation, but from the above portion from this website, it appears as if this writer is saying that forgiveness in Buddhism goes much deeper than that of Christianity. In Buddhism, there’s no act of forgiving per se, because in order for there to be an act of forgiving, there has to be a negative and resentful state of mind toward a person in order for there to be something to forgive. It appears this author is saying that Buddhists are in a perpetual state of “forgiving” and self-awareness and do not even allow the unwholesome thought toward the individual to enter their mind.
The writer also says this about September 11:
“The terrorist incident of September 11, 2001, did not elicit many memorable responses from religious thinkers. Buddhists floated some tentative ideas on the Internet about “the causes and conditions giving rise to suffering” (Gene Reeves) and the need “to see our own karmic responsibility for the terrible acts that have befallen us” (David R. Loy). The Christian rhetoric of forgiveness and reconciliation was scarcely heard at all.”
Pretty profound stuff there…wow. How true that is. After 9/11 happened, how many “christian” leaders/politicians/pundits wanted every Muslim to die [and still do]? How many of them wanted war [and still do]? How many of them wanted torture of detainees [and still do------in fact, Pat Buchanan supports torture! Where's HIS forgiveness?]? From Ann Coulter to James Dobson to Pat Roberston, every single “so-called” christian wants Muslims [and really everyone who is not Christian] to be wiped off the face of the Earth.
In my experiences, Christians are the most vindictive, destructive, vengeful, intolerant harborers of hate I have ever seen, and these examples from Hume and Buchanan are just another chapter in the Christian lunacy handbook.
Here are clips showcasing the blatant hypocrisy of those who call themselves “Christian”
Hume talking about enemies being “defeated”---where’s his forgiveness??
Pat Buchanan supporting torturing enemies----where’s his forgiveness??
Moron Pat Robertson saying Hume’s comment was “right on”
As I read more about the Buddhist faith and re-read the excerpts above about Buddhism forgiveness, it’s actually quite beautiful when you think about it. Would I be able to do that? Hell no. I have too much anger in my heart toward assholes like Brit Hume and Pat Buchanan that I would never be worthy enough to be even a weak Buddhist.
But, I assure you that if Brit Hume and Pat Buchanan learned that Buddhists did not forgive them for what they said about their religion, they would be filled with glee. On the contrary Hume and Buchanan, they have nothing to forgive. They never harbored any hatred or resentment toward you in the first place.
Keith Olbermann rips Hume a new one here