Was Brit Hume right?
Brit Hume’s comments re: Tiger Woods are making the rounds on cable news. Hume noted Tiger Woods’ commitments to Buddhism and suggested that Christianity offers more opportunity for forgiveness and redemption.
The progressive blogs are aflame, with Ezra Klein noting that had Hume recommended a conversion to Islam he would have been fired; Ta-Nehisi Coates calls it “religion as chauvinism.” Both are probably correct.
I have to admit, I think Hume might have blundered onto a real insight. (Here’s my disclaimer: no, I don’t think that actual Brit Hume knows much about Buddhism, and probably not terribly much about Christianity.) But I do think it’s fair to view different religions at being good at different things. It’s clear that unlimited forgiveness and redemption were at the core of Jesus’ message and have been maintained as central components of Christianity. I won’t make a comparative statement to Buddhism, but it very well may be that one religion might offer more comfort for trying life stages than others.
Are Hume’s opponents just attacking the wrongheadedness of providing religious advice to strangers, or do they really believe there aren’t meaningful differences that impact people’s lives?
-John
Related posts:
- Douthat on religious dialogue
- Is social conservatism a new religion?
- The conscience clause and liberty
- Reason and faith in higher education
- Vaclav Havel interview
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
