Brit Hume of Fox News has been lighting up the Buddhist blogosphere lately, with this criticism of adulterous golfer Tiger Woods:
“The extent to which he can recover, seems to me, depends on his faith. He’s 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. So, my message to Tiger would be, ‘Tiger, turn your faith, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
Shortly afterwards, in an appearance on The O’Reilly Factor, Hume attempted to defend his comments with the claim that his point was about Christianity rather than about Buddhism:
Hume is, of course, wrong about Buddhism. While Buddhists typically don’t speak in terms of forgiveness and redemption, the rest of the claim is a complete non sequitur, as well as being false: Buddhism has helped countless people recover from committing past wrongs and become better. If Hume is anything other than a complete ignoramus, he does nothing to illustrate such a status in the first clip; the second demonstrates little more than an attempt to weasel out of criticism. (Others inform me that this combination of poor argument and non-argument may be typical of TV news in general and Fox News in particular, but I don’t watch TV news enough to know, and don’t care about it enough to find out. I’m interested in the particular case here.)
That said, I disagree with the way several Buddhist bloggers have reacted to Hume’s words. The Bitterroot Badger (a pseudonym, presumably) offers a good and reasoned criticism of Hume in his (her?) blog post itself; the problem comes into play with the letter to Fox News in the post’s second update. If you think sending a letter to correct misinformation on Fox News will have any positive effect, well, I have my doubts, but more power to you. But the Badger goes far further than merely correcting Hume’s poorly informed claim:
But the most troubling point, so beyond the pale, is for a purported journalist to use an American mass-media format to call for the conversion of someone from one religion to another. So, in the interest of fairness and balance, I’m writing to insist on an on-air apology from Mr. Hume to all the Buddhists he so casually disrespected on your program.
In what way, I must ask, are Hume’s words “beyond the pale”? Surely a call for conversion is the least troubling point of his speech, much less so than his ignorance. Televangelists use American mass media to call for conversion all the time. Is it “disrespectful” to Buddhists when Christians criticize Buddhist tradition? Well, most Christians consider it a duty to attempt to convert others, to spread what they take to be the good news of Jesus’s exclusive saving power. No doubt the Badger would criticize this aspect of Christianity – but if criticism equals disrespect, then the Badger is being similarly disrespectful to these Christians.
Perhaps the Badger is objecting merely because of Hume’s status as a “purported journalist,” in that Hume’s action deprives him of journalistic neutrality or objectivity. I don’t know much about Hume, but Wikipedia classifies him as a “commentator” and “political analyst” as well as a journalist; the O’Reilly bio line bills him as a “political analyst” as well. And the commentator’s or analyst’s role is not to be neutral, it’s to take a side.
The Badger’s criticisms are mild compared to those of Kyle at Progressive Buddhism (with whom I have previously sparred). In a post quoted on MSNBC, Kyle urges letters to Fox that “respectfully ask for the on air apology to all Buddhists or Mr.Hume’s dismissal from Fox News all together,” adding “we have come to far in this country and this world to stand idly by while an ignorant political mouthpiece spews hatred and intolerance.”
We have here one man expressing his sincerely held (if ignorant) beliefs that one tradition is more effective and another person should convert to it, without even the merest suggestion of compulsion by the state or an employer. We also have another man requesting that someone else be fired for expressing those very sincerely held beliefs. Which one of these is being intolerant?
The Badger’s post quotes a text that’s dear to my heart, the sixth chapter of Śāntideva’s Bodhicary?vat?ra. But I wish the two Buddhist bloggers had taken to heart the verse of that chapter that deals most directly with issues like this:
“But my anger about the abusing or destruction of images, st?pas or the true dharma is not justified, for the Buddhas are not distressed.” (BCA VI.64)
Thanks for the serious discussion of this (I’m a boar badger, btw, and your readers can ponder deeply whether or not Bitterroot is a pseudonym). As one of my commenters, Leamur, pointed out, the main beef was context. Fox News Sunday is one of the Sunday morning political talk show; since his retirement as an anchor Brit Hume has been retained as a “senior political analyst.” Here he was given a free minute to speak about whatever he liked, and chose to use that time to urge Tiger Woods to embrace Christianity, and in the process disrespect Buddhism through his ignorance. Doesn’t that seem a bit outrageous to you? It would be like if you asked me to be a guest blogger here, and I used the space to promote a network marketing company and ask your readers to sign up. See what I mean? And the uproar throughout the media world shows that others got immediately what was screwy about Hume using that particular platform to promote his faith.
I wasn’t angry when I wrote my letter; if anything the whole affair has left me bemused. But I made it strident to see if I could provoke a response from Fox. *Of course* it was a zillion to one chance Fox would take it seriously. But hey, Kyle who you mentioned was quoted on MSNBC, and in the NY Daily News and Huffington Post, and Ethan Nichtern of One City Blog was just on CNN. So now I really think the fuss was worth it, yes I do.
Don’t get me wrong, I do think it’s worth talking about this and raising some sort of fuss (else why would I have posted on it myself?) I’m glad Kyle’s comment is on MSNBC, and others are weighing in to counter Hume’s ignorance (even Don Imus, oy vey!) What I took issue with in your post was in the letter itself. While the Woods affair might not be “political” strictly speaking, it’s still in the category of “current events,” and I don’t think Hume is far exceeding his job description to do that, and he’s doing nothing comparable to spamming a blog with ads. If he had taken his platform to say “I think Woods seriously needs to seek therapy for the sake of his family,” would that be outrageous? It’s no less off-topic for a political analyst.
Similarly, I don’t think it disrespectful for him to speak as he did. I think It’s well and good for him to try to promote his tradition, though he’s unlikely to win any actual converts with this approach. But I suspect that he’s wound up learning something about Buddhism from this episode, which is exactly what he needed.
Enlightening post, thanks. I like both your final comment and the way you analize the non-sequitur in Hume’s argument. I used to think that philosophy needed to be studied in order to make people aware of such non-arguments dressed as if they were logical ones. Still, this kind of criticism only works if one shares the idea that consistency is a (moral and epistemical) value, which is probably not always the case. Protectionism, for one, often uses non-consistent arguments (it does not claim that “everyone has to buy just one’s own country’s products”, but rather “everyone in US (or in France, or in the EU…) has to be buy just one’s own country’s products while the rest of the world has to buy OUR products”). Is consistency not a basic need for everyone or are ‘lay’ people unaware of (most) inconsistencies?
To follow your tangent here:
There’s nothing inconsistent about protectionism. Rather, remember that every government has a special duty to its own citizens, over and above other people in the world- for example, nobody expects the US government to offer Medicare to people in Spain.
For every nation, the logic of protectionism (even taken to its extreme) is, “everyone should buy our country’s goods.” It’s certainly a selfish argument, quite easy to disagree with but it’s not inconsistent or incoherent. It doesn’t play well with other nations’ protectionism, but again that’s selfishness, not bad logic.
I’d go this tangent a step further and say that protectionism isn’t even necessarily selfish. One might have an ideology saying that localism is a good in itself, that national economies should be self-sufficient and that communities are better off turning within rather than without – not for reasons of economic growth, but for reasons of community and environment. This isn’t a hypothetical position; Front Porch Republic is based on exactly this sort of ideology.
But getting back to Elisa’s post, Kant and Śāntideva would both say that selfishness IS bad logic. For Kant, it’s inconsistent to make an exception of yourself, to act according to principles that aren’t universal – you’re expecting, unfairly, that you be held to a standard you don’t apply to others. I suspect Elisa may be treating inconsistency in a Kantian sense here.
Well said Amod Lele,
I’ve been cringing all week, watching Buddhists declare how offended they are, demanding that someone make a public apology for expressing their persoanl opinions, and writing blogs calling him all kinds of insulting things.
In the meantime, while everyone’s been getting worked up about Brit Hume’s personal opinions on Tiger Woods, the Chinese have sentenced Phurbu Tsering Rinpoche to eight and a half years in prison on what, in my opnion and that of most of the rest of the world, those who are bothered to look, are trumped up charges in an unfair trial.
http://savetibet.org/media-center/ict-news-reports/influential-tibetan-lama-sentenced-eight-and-half-years-prison
And yet, while Buddhists and Buddhist monks are being tortured and sent to prison on a daily basis, the western Buddhist blogoshere don’t even notice, they are too busy writing letters to Fox news demanding that someone apologise for giving their opinion.
Marcus
Thanks, Marcus. I noticed your replies on Bitterroot’s blog, and thought that again you’re on the right side of controversies in the Buddhlogosphere.
On the other hand… While I do agree that the Chinese issue is a more serious concern, it’s also one that Western bloggers are unlikely to have an effect on. And while getting Fox News to censor Hume or demand an apology is entirely unlikely (and undesirable, I think), responding to Hume probably did do a little bit to help public perceptions of Buddhism in the US.
WHOA! LOL Hume denigrates Buddhism on national TV with millions of viewers and I am the intolerant one? Dude, I think you are either jealous of me or still angry over our little spat.
You didn’t even mention how our uproar brought Buddhism, even if only for a few days to the public’s attention. I even made a post on it.
http://www.thereformedbuddhist.com/2010/01/is-outspoken-buddhist-oxymoron.html
Do they teach you guys at Harvard to stifle your right to speak up, take a stand and make your view known?
Bitter apples Doc, bitter apples.
Actually, I did mention how you brought Buddhism to the public’s attention, in my response to Bitterroot above. I think that’s a good thing – congratulations on it. On the other hand, it wouldn’t have happened without Hume stating his opinion in the first place.
As I said to Bitterroot, I think it’s a good thing that you two criticized Hume – and of course I criticized him myself in the post. But to say that someone should be fired for expressing his sincerely held opinion: that is intolerance. That is refusing to allow the existence, in a major public forum, of views you disagree with. Hume didn’t do that. You did. If you think that your actions were tolerant or that his weren’t, what definition of “tolerance” are you using exactly?
I’m looking forward to your Saturday post. Question though: what happened to your previous rebuttal posts on your site (“I am a peanut butter sandwich” and “PhD Zombie Land”)? I thought there was some really good discussion on those pages, but they don’t seem to be there anymore.
Oh, ps, I hope you’ll enjoy my rebutal post I make on Saturday. :-)
Amod, Ben,
yes, I do think that protectionism is morally inconsistent. It is also, usually, logically inconsistent. In fact, upholders of protectionism do not usually say that “Everyone has to buy OUR country’s products”, but rather “Everyone has to buy its own country’s products” and then add several appealing grounds (pollution, local farmers…). Short thereafter, they (usually, again) add that, e.g., Italian restaurants in the US should import Italian olive oil, tomatoes and so on if they want to say they are doing a “pizza”. I understand both sides of the coin, but still believe that they cannot be held at the same time and by the same person. If WE have to buy local, then we cannot insist that the rest of the world buys our products. Better: we can insist, but we will loose any logical consistency.
Elisa – that’s true and a good point, and I’m generally no fan of the Slow Food movement and related celebrations of the hyper-local. (There’s a series of posts on Slow Food and Michael Pollan that I have half-written and have been meaning to put up at some point.)
My point, and I think Ben’s, had to do more with protectionism as an idea rather than with the people who typically happen to hold it – if one endorses the view that people should buy local products, one certainly doesn’t have to then add that “real” champagne can only come from the Champagne region (etc.) A consistent protectionist position is possible, and reasonable, to hold – but you’re surely right that relatively few actually do so.