The 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.