Scared Faithless

Just as a side note, I found some cool folks on a gamer's forum, criticalfumble.net,  that are discussing this issue, and I think you'd find it interesting to check it out. It does show there is interest in just understanding what Buddhism is really all about.

One interesting thing that has come out of this whole controversy is that this really has exposed a lot of the under the surface latent contempt for other religions, let alone the little knowledge of what Buddhism is all about. With the marked rise of people practicing Buddhism in conjunction with another religion, or even as a side curiosity, its understandable that many of the other religious faithful around the country are so dismissive and demeaning of Buddhism. I feel there is, at least here in the US, a notion that this is a Christian nation, therefore any comments made in defense of the Christian faith, no matter how off color, play by the no harm no foul rule. This is accentuated by the fear mongering on the far right, and played up as patriotic propaganda.

Take the blogger Hogan's comments defending Hume at RedState.com for example:

We in this country have so corrupted the First Amendment to inflate this overblown and misstated notion of “separation of church and state” that we risk instilling in future American generations the idea that God should be separated from the living of our lives.

Fear mongering example number one, and a great one at that. The first amendment says nothing about "separation of church and state", it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But more importantly, look at his buzz words, 'risk','corrupted' and 'overblown.'

Yet, this stands in stark contrast from our nation’s founding – at which time those great patriots purposefully and clearly included God repeatedly in speeches, public statements and in the Declaration of Independence itself.

Now how does one explain how our great patriots, which I agree with that terminology, had the foresight to put in writing, the first amendment no less, stating that religion, any religion will be allowed to be exercised freely and that this government shall make no law prohibiting such exercise, nor establishment of any religion.  Hogan's train of thought stands in stark contrast, by fear mongering about the separation of church and state then placing accolades on the founders for being great supporters of a Christian God. Yet, oddly they put in the first amendment to prevent such religious establishments. Shouldn't your train of thought be angry at them for not establishing a 'Christian Nation?'

“Endowed by our Creator,” “inalienable rights,” and “With a firm reliance on Divine Providence…” These were not passing comments. These were operative phrases in our nation’s most important founding document – in which we set the stage for the freest, greatest, most generous nation the world has ever known.

And how exactly does 'freest, greatest, most generous nation the world has ever known' have anything to do with the religion the founders followed? What in the bloody hell does this statement have to do with Hume expressing Buddhism is a less useful religion than Christianity?

We live for purposes far higher than the success or failure of this nation. But our nation is made that much greater because we do – and Brit Hume should be applauded, not derided, for making such an important statement.

This is were we get the defense of Hume, as a defender of the founders great faith in a Christian God, who should be applauded. But in the very next sentence, Hogan puts in his wonderful qualifier:

I realize that this blog is not a theological one. So the purpose of this post is not to convince anyone of the veracity of that which Mr. Hume propounded.

 So which is it? You defend Hume as a great patriot defending the founding principles of this nation then qualify it by stating "the purpose of this post is not to convince anyone of the veracity of that which Mr. Hume propounded."

Over at a blog called 'Rightnation.us, a person calling himself Mr. Naron describes both his amusement with Buddhists' upset by Hume's remarks and his wayward definition of Buddhism and sin:

Do American Buddhists even consider what Tiger did to be a sin? Do they even have a concept of sin? You see, a person can't be redeemed or forgiven if their belief system doesn't include the concept of sin.  ....of course Hume wouldn't say the same thing about those religions(Judaism and Islam) because they do believe in the concept of sin.

You are right Mr. Naron, we don't believe in the Christian concept of sin. We do however have a very good understanding of sin and how it affects our lives. If you took a moment to understand what Dukkha is, how karma acts in our lives and our wheel of Samsara, perhaps you'd realize the Christian concept of sin is not really different than what Buddhists strive to realize. But of course you wouldn't take the time to ask any Buddhists about that, would you?

When you pick one over the others, no amount of lip service to them makes up for the fact that when you do choose to follow one faith exclusively, you are by definition disparaging the others.

But not everyone has a stage to stand on that speaks to millions of viewers to expound how much better my God is than yours. Earlier in Mr. Naron's piece, he bashes me for using black people as a comparison. When I asked why he dismissed my comparison, the response I got was "Black people don't have a choice when they are born what color they would be." In this line of reasoning, is Mr. Naron saying that Black people, if given the choice at birth would choose to be white rather than black? I'd say that's a pretty racist assumption....(really, Mr. Naron?)

Then of course Mr. Naron ends his piece by disparaging Buddhism more by throwing out a blatantly racist comment:

You'd think as Buddhists they could come up with something a bit more pithy. Something that could be wrapped inside a fortune cookie.

But I'm white Mr. Naron...is your fortune cookie statement supposed to be a knock against Asians? Given your reasoning about black people, I don't its too far off the mark that you feel Asians are something less than you as well.

At the Family Research Council Robert Morrison says about Tom Shales piece in the Washington Post:

If Brit Hume had gone to Thailand and there told a TV audience that Buddhism was inadequate, there might be room for protest. If he had confronted the Dalai Lama and urged him to give it all up, there might be room for Shales’ haughty harrumphs. But Brit was reaching out in a most tender-hearted way to a man whom he admired greatly—whom we all admired greatly. Brit was offering Tiger Woods balm in Gilead.

So Mr Morrison, what you are saying is America is a Christian nation, so it's OK? Peter Sprigg at the same site, in his rather convoluted and insulting post says:

That anyone should be surprised—let alone shocked—when a Christian recommends Christianity is itself perhaps an illustration of the depths to which our society, the media (and perhaps American Christianity) have fallen. But shocked they are.

Of course Mr. Sprigg never mentions that Hume didn't just suggest Christianity to Woods, but also said Buddhism can not offer Woods what he needs, only Christianity can....on live TV.... in front of millions of viewers....and he has the balls, as all the rest of these bloggers stated here,  to say that Christianity is under attack?

Mr. Sprigg's goes on to say:

If Buddhism is true, not only is there no redemption for him in this life, but because of reincarnation, Woods will be paying a price in the next life as well. According to Eerdmanns’ Handbook to the World’s Religions, in Buddhism, “[G]ood works automatically bring about a good rebirth, bad works a bad one.”

Mr. Sprigg used "Eerdmanns’ Handbook to the World’s Religions" to explain Buddhism to everyone? Really Mr. Sprigg? You have to use a pretty flawed, generic book, which doesn't even come close to explaining in detail Buddhist philosophy, to dismiss the criticisms? It's like me looking up open heart surgery on Wikipedia, then trying to talk a surgeon through an operation. That's very lame.

There are a lot of people in the country that are threaten by another faith, and will go to great lengths to dismiss and demean them in order to protect what they feel is threatened. Buddhism is hardly a religion to be threatened by though, as there are tens of thousands of Christians that practice some parts of the Buddhist faith everyday. I realize people fear change, they fear what they don't know and most of all they fear that their beliefs maybe proven wrong, and I understand this. But Christianity is not under attack in this country, at least not by Buddhists.

Last time I looked, it said 'In God we Trust' on all the coins. Last time I looked, it is Jesus' birthday that is a National holiday, not Buddha's or Muhammad's. Last time I looked, it wasn't Buddhists knocking on my door to try and convert me. Last time I looked, there were countless reminders around me everyday that I live in a society dominated by Christians..... and that is perfectly OK with me.  Just don't expect us to stand by, as a tiny minority, and allow arrows of intolerance be thrown at us without us taking a stand. I cannot express how grateful that our founding fathers had the wisdom and the foresight to realize that there will always be people like these buffoons, and that our inalienable rights as individuals to find our own spiritual path needed special protection under the law.