Archive for the ‘Multiculturalism’ Category

Ecumenism: Open to Everything … Except Truth

Monday, January 11th, 2010

Arahats StatuesThe debate between Buddhists and Christians is revealing an even broader fissure over what it means to engage in ecumenism, or, interfaith dialogue. Everyone wants to have dialogue—as long as truth claims are excluded. Here is what the Buddhist blogger over at about.com had to say about the issue:

So to say that Christianity is superior to Buddhism because it offers redemption is a bit like saying birds are superior to horses because they have feathers. It’s nonsensical.

I say with all kindness to Christians that you don’t help yourselves by claiming an exclusive right to promote your religion over others. In my experience, such proselytizing alienates at least as many people as it persuades. This is especially true if you have to tell lies about other religions to prove that yours is superior.

Wait a second. Whoever said that Christians have an exclusive right to promote their religion—over others? Not Brit Hume. Nor the Family Research Council in their missive on the issue. While some conservative Christians may go so far as to explicitly argue that this a Christian nation—no one is saying that Buddhists don’t have the freedom to promote their views and win converts. However, it seems that the blogger, Barbara O’Brien, doesn’t even accept the idea of evangelicalism—or as she calls it, proselytizing. And what is this talk of superiority? What O’Brien refers to as ‘superiority’ is really a claim to possess the truth. And the problem with that is….?

This whole superiority theme is picked up by another religious blogger over at USA Today, who says that the debate really is nothing more a playground fight who has the ‘bigger, badder god.’ Here is what the author envisions as acceptable interfaith dialogue:

It’s one thing, however to testify to the peace, wisdom, joy and comfort your particular faith has given you. It’s another to trash talk others’ path to spiritual truth and a life of goodness beyond the so-called good life.

So we can compare notes on peace, wisdom, joy, and comfort. But to get into the truth about who God is or how He saves us, that’s trash-talking! Of course, neither Hume nor the Family Research Council were speaking derogatively about Buddhism. All they did is made value judgments about which offered true redemption—and that, if nothing else is, most certainly a mortal sin in the eyes of our multicultural elites.

Posted in Buddhism, Christianity, Ecumenism, Multiculturalism, Postmodernism | No Comments »

Hume Was Right on Buddhism

Sunday, January 10th, 2010

Buddha on a HillThe mainstream media and Buddhist bloggers were aghast at Fox commentator Brit Hume’s suggestion that Tiger Woods convert to Christianity from Buddhism. One blogger declared that Hume himself needed to be forgiven for making such a remark and, sensing her own rising anger, quickly quoted a Buddhist proverb on peace. Another blogger called Hume a disgrace and urged him to resign. So what was it that Hume said was so awful? That Buddhists are going to hell? That their religion excuses sexual sinners? Here it is:

He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’

It’s really a fair theological point. All Hume is doing is making a claim that the Christian concept of redemption is unique. Is he really so wrong? Check out this Wikipedia overview of Buddhism. See anything about redemption in there?

But in their initial posts neither Buddhist blogger one defends the faith, instead their first instinct was to be offended. So what’s so bad about saying your religion is different than others? Aren’t we all supposed to celebrate our differences? Well, apparently not when those differences count for something.

Eventually these two bloggers couldn’t avoid engaging in some theological dialogue. And guess what? Turns out Hume was right! One of the above bloggers writes that Buddhism does have “this kind of forgiveness and redemption” but it “just manifests itself in a completely different way.” If it manifests itself in a completely different way is it still the same kind? Well the second blogger doesn’t seem to think so, admitting that: “Buddhism has no concept of sin; therefore, redemption and forgiveness in the Christian sense are meaningless in Buddhism.” So Hume was right, but he was still wrong to say so. There’s the logic of multiculturalism for you.

Posted in Ecumenism, Multiculturalism, Postmodernism | No Comments »

Why Tiger Woods Is Important

Friday, January 8th, 2010

Tiger Woods 1Before Barack Obama there was Tiger Woods. His father has compared him to Gandhi, the Buddha, and Nelson Mandela. His mother calls him the Chosen One. A fellow golfer says he’s supernatural. And now, he has suffered the greatest and fastest fall of grace ever experienced by a non-politician, from 87 percent to 33 percent, according to Vanity Fair.

So why does everyone care so much about Tiger Woods? It’s not his distinction of being the first athlete to hold all four major golf championship titles. Or that he is the only billionaire athlete in the world. Or his laser-beam-like focus on golf, absence of unscripted emotion, and airbrushed public image as a devoted family man—he was, as one writer puts it, the bionic man.

All those things count for something, but ultimately it was his race that made him so iconic. Woods remains the only black player in the PGA, according to this Web site. But it turns out that Woods is not black, or even half-black and half-Asian. In fact, Woods is part Chinese, Thai, African, Native American, and Dutch and calls himself Cablinasian—an amalgamation of Caucasian, Black, Indian, and Asian. One Slate.com writer gushes that “Woods’ rejection of orthodox racial classifications points the way to a future where race will no longer define us.” Yet another Slate.com writer foresees him as a figure of “potentially political, even spiritual, significance.”

This sort of cult-like adoration has spilled out into the mainstream—check out this Nike ad in which children of all colors flash across the screen stating “I am Tiger Woods.” The video ends with Woods swinging into the mists as some sort of Celtic chant plays in the background.

Wood’s credentials as the ultimate multicultural hero are further confirmed by his Buddhist roots. Of course, like a good postmodernism, Woods is a cafeteria Buddhist, according to this Slate quotation:

“I believe in Buddhism,” Woods has said. “Not every aspect, but most of it. So I take bits and pieces. I don’t believe that human beings can achieve ultimate enlightenment, because humans have flaws.”

Of course being unfaithful or addicted to having affairs alone are not vices in the postmodern code of ethics. Rather, it’s the simple fact that his once spotless image has now been tarnished. As far as seeking forgiveness and absolution, Woods is certainly off to a promising start with a penitential pilgrimage to Africa.

Posted in Liberalism, Multiculturalism, Postmodernism, Race, Tiger Woods | No Comments »