View Full Version : Fox News Demands Tiger Woods Convert to Pentecostalism
Well, not quite, but close enough to make this lemur's skin crawl. Here's the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkDMy0wVyBg).
Where to begin? A news agency should not be demanding that people change religions. That's just messed up. How would the public react if Brit Hume demanded that, say, Woody Allen stop being Jewish? But it's okay to lecture a Buddhist about how Christ is the only real salvation? On a "news" channel?
Secondly, what idiot doesn't know about basic Buddhist theology? I just want to slap Hume across his smug little catamite mouth and say: "See, we go through multiple lives, and eventually we reach enlightenment and nirvana. If you'd like to know more, here's Buddhism for Dummies." Where does he get off declaring that there is no "forgiveness and redemption" in any faith but Christianity?
I was already reconciled to Fox News functioning as a 24/7 political creature. But this new thing, this Christianist, in-your-face 700 Club stuff, this seems to be new. Yikes.
-edit-
Doing a little more Googling, I see that Hume defends himself on another Fox Show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeRJ7euUShg), declaring that he's not proselytizing, but "Tiger Woods needs something Christianity—especially—provides and gives and offers." And therefore he needs to ditch his religion and convert. What a maroon.
Scienter
01-05-2010, 15:22
And this is reason #4,791 why I don't watch Faux News unless humorously filtered to me by Jon Stewart.
Good Lord, watch the second clip. It's shocking. More shocking. Than usual. If you know any fundamentalists, you can decode these statements a mile off: "If Tiger Woods were to make a true conversion, we would know it. It would show through in his being."
Sasaki Kojiro
01-05-2010, 15:46
Tiger has been ripped to shreds by the media over the past month or so. This guy sounds like he means well. He doesn't demand the tiger converts, he just says that christianity is bigger on forgiveness than buddhism (which is true) and that he could find comfort in that.
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 to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world"
This guy sounds like he means well.
In much the same sense that every fundamentalist, from Jimmy Swaggart to Mullah Omar means well. I'm sure it a Muslim explained to you how your faith is false, and you need to convert to Islam to avoid hell, you'd take it with equanimity and cheerful ecumenicalism.
He doesn't demand the tiger converts, he just says that christianity is bigger on forgiveness than buddhism (which is true) and that he could find comfort in that.
Buddhism has a different (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/forgiveness.htm) take on forgiveness, sure, but it's straight-up ignorant to declare that it's "bigger" in some quantifiable sense. The fact that you would make such a bald, uninformed declaration without even attempting to back it up is surprising.
What's astonishing to me is how fundie Christians, who are forever playing the victim card about how their faith is persecuted (c.f. "War on Christmas," etc.), will cheerfully engage in exactly the practices they rail against.
And you completely fail to address the appropriateness of a news organization telling a public figure to change his religion. The weirdness and wrongness seems to have whooshed right over your head.
Gregoshi
01-05-2010, 16:15
Christians are immune to adultery - everyone knows that. :laugh4:
In a related note, Brit Hume would look good in a collar and robe. :yes:
Sasaki Kojiro
01-05-2010, 16:22
In much the same sense that every fundamentalist, from Jimmy Swaggart to Mullah Omar means well. I'm sure it a Muslim explained to you how your faith is false, and you need to convert to Islam to avoid hell, you'd take it with equanimity and cheerful ecumenicalism.
Yes. He's earnest and well meaning, his message is one of the nicer sent to tiger recently.
Buddhism has a different (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/forgiveness.htm) take on forgiveness, sure, but it's straight-up ignorant to declare that it's "bigger" in some quantifiable sense. The fact that you would make such a bald, uninformed declaration without even attempting to back it up is surprising.
Are you declaring that buddhism is bigger on forgiveness? Or stating that they are exactly equal?
What's astonishing to me is how fundie Christians, who are forever playing the victim card about how their faith is persecuted (c.f. "War on Christmas," etc.), will cheerfully engage in exactly the practices they rail against.
They aren't engaging in the practices they rail against. They want christianity to be the foremost religion, promoting it over buddhism is just an extension of that.
And you completely fail to address the appropriateness of a news organization telling a public figure to change his religion. The weirdness and wrongness seems to have whooshed right over your head.
No, I just don't expect anything different, and in comparison to every news network spending countless hours on tiger's affairs it's chicken feed.
I still think his wife looks gorgeous :sweatdrop:
affairs of a rich and famous man + media = :wall: :laugh4: :shrug:
Secondly, what idiot doesn't know about basic Buddhist theology? I just want to slap Hume across his smug little catamite mouth and say: "See, we go through multiple lives, and eventually we reach enlightenment and nirvana. If you'd like to know more, here's Buddhism for Dummies." Where does he get off declaring that there is no "forgiveness and redemption" in any faith but Christianity?
Now now, Lemur. Maitri for all living reasons.
That's the reason why (we) Buddhists generally don't get outraged over comments like these. We just think: "Ah, he'll just reïncarnate anyway."
Are you declaring that buddhism is bigger on forgiveness? Or stating that they are exactly equal?
Thich Nhat Hanh has discussed this in his "Buddha lives, Christ lives". I think that the Buddhist and Christian ideals of compassion and forgiveness have a lot in common. The only difference I see is that the hell realms are not permanent in Buddhism. Also worth mentioning is the fact that forgiveness in Buddhism comes from the self (in contrast to the ego) rather than from "God".
Are you declaring that buddhism is bigger on forgiveness? Or stating that they are exactly equal?
I'm not sure what part of this was unclear:
Buddhism has a different (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/forgiveness.htm) take on forgiveness, sure, but it's straight-up ignorant to declare that it's "bigger" in some quantifiable sense.
Now now, Lemur. Maitri for all living reasons.
That's the reason why (we) Buddhists generally don't get outraged over comments like these. We just think: "Ah, he'll just reïncarnate anyway."
lool...indeed...
A Fox News guy being reincarnated as a gnat has a certain poetic ring to it... :laugh4:
https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v677/vincent_pt/sinfest_maitri.gif
Now now, Lemur. Maitri for all living reasons.
Were I a Buddhist, I suppose I would feel compelled to embrace compassion for all beings. But I ain't a Buddhist. So I'm at ease calling out Brit Hume for the fundie idiot that he reveals himself to be.
Hume also does not have a competent grasp of the English language (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0110/Hume_stands_by_Christianity_remarks.html):
On Monday night's "Factor," Bill O'Reilly asked Hume a good question: "Was that proselytizing?"
"I don't think so," Hume said, before reiterating his comments from Sunday that Woods should convert to Christianity. [...]
So how does Merriam-Webster define the word? Let's see: "to induce someone to convert to one's faith" or "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause."
I reached out to a Fox spokesperson yesterday regarding Hume's remarks and have not heard back. I will update if the network has any further comment.
UPDATE: MSNBC's David Shuster responded Monday night on Twitter: "Brit Hume on Oreilly tonight left no doubt he intended to proselytize with his comments about Tiger Woods. Truly embarrassing."
The only difference I see is that the hell realms are not permanent in Buddhism.
Actually, many Christians do not believe in Hell. ~;) You gotta be careful, because there are many types of Christians. :P That said, I see your point though. I think if would be a fair statement to say that majority of Christians believe in an eternal hell. ~;)
@Lemur: You seem to be getting pretty bent out of shape over someone giving stupid advice (that would be best laughed off). Several things, first of all, you say that Fox News has taken as an official position that Tiger Woods convert from Christianity. (or at least strongly insinuate it)
Fox News Demands Tiger Woods Convert
Which is not true, it was a piece of advice given by one person on Fox News, and judging by the faces of the other commentators, I would be willing to bet that it is an opinion solely of his.
Second of all, you said (and insinuated) several times that they want to force him to change his religion.
A news agency should not be demanding that people change religions.
This is a flat mistruth. Never did they demand that he should change his religion, nor did they say action should be taken against him for his religion. One person simply gave some well intended and harmless (which is what separates it from your other examples) advice to Tiger after he has been getting nothing but relentless attacks in the media for weeks.
And coincidently, it is the same type of advice that I have gotten from muslim, Catholic, Jewish, and Jehovah's Witness friends and relatives of mine. It is friendly, harmless advice. While I laugh at it inside, I also am thankful that they care enough.
Think of this, how much would you have to hate or not care about someone - how much would you have to be lacking in compassion if you thought you had the means to eternal salvation and escape from eternal punishment (whether your religion was islam, Judaism, a form of Christianity, etc) and you just smiled and kept it to yourself, fully believing that your inaction could doom someone's soul? Honestly, I think that if a muslim, Christian, Jew, etc does NOT do his best to give people advice and reach out for them that he is selfish and hates his fellow man (and not a very good practitioner of his religion). Honestly, I would be insulted if my religious friends were NOT concerned with other people's souls. It does not mean that they have to get in people's faces or be obnoxious. But simple advice cannot hurt, but has the potential for loads of good.
EDIT: And myself, I have become increasingly less religious of late, but I understand how it works, and I have great respect for it. I simply do not see why you are getting so bent out of shape when someone gives their opinion on a part of a show meant for...opinion...
And to answer a question you posed earlier, no, I would not be insulted if some suggested that I may find greater forgiveness in another religion. I would in fact be flattered that they cared that much. It has happened before.
Actually, many Christians do not believe in Hell. ~;) You gotta be careful, because there are many types of Christians. :P
Yes, you are absolutely right in this. Now that I come to think of it, I've heard fairly little religious intolerance in the eastern Orthodox Churches (Armenian, Coptic, Greek and Russian).
Yes, you are absolutely right in this. Now that I come to think of it, I've heard fairly little religious intolerance in the eastern Orthodox Churches (Armenian, Coptic, Greek and Russian).
...Serbian?
Sure, Serbia, what have you! I don't mind, I just really like the splendour and beauty of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I totally disagree with their views on life, but man, they know how to stage a :daisy: party!
Myrddraal
01-05-2010, 17:37
Also, I think when Sasaki says that Christianity is "bigger" on forgiveness he means that forgiveness is a more central part of Christianity than Buddhism. That much is true to the best of my knowledge.
@Lemur: You seem to be getting pretty bent out of shape over someone giving stupid advice (that would be best laughed off). Several things, first of all, you say that Fox News has taken as an official position that Tiger Woods convert from Christianity. (or at least strongly insinuate it)
And you seem to be getting bent out of shape of a hyperbolic thread title, which is immediately followed by "Well, not quite, but close enough," as well as links to video, transcripts, and enough information for any thinking being to make up his or her own mind. As 911 would say, please state the nature of your emergency.
When someone is drawing a paycheck from a news agency and makes a straight-up religious statement on said agency, it's a bit thick to declare, "Oh, it's just his opinion, and has no bearing on the news agency." I remember the same sentiments being floated when a Fox News analyst (paid by Fox News, BTW) joked that Obama should be killed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0).
And you seem to be getting bent out of shape of a hyperbolic thread title, which is immediately followed by "Well, not quite, but close enough," as well as links to video, transcripts, and enough information for any thinking being to make up his or her own mind. As 911 would say, please state the nature of your emergency.
When someone is drawing a paycheck from a news agency and makes a straight-up religious statement on said agency, it's a bit thick to declare, "Oh, it's just his opinion, and has no bearing on the news agency." I remember the same sentiments being floated when a Fox News analyst (paid by Fox News, BTW) joked that Obama should be killed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0).
Joking that someone should be killed is not acceptable whether you are a News person or a plumber.
By your logic though Lemur, I could say that Obama speaking sends thrills up the leg of MSNBC and puts them in a rut. It is not their policy, simply the opinion of that moron Chris Matthews. And the big difference here is that that segement of the show (if my understanding is correct) was meant for opinion. Considering that others at Fox News didn't seem to share his opinion, you could just as easily say that Fox News says that Tiger Woods should not convert to Christianity.
Again, I don't see why you are getting up in arms because a 'religious statement' was made. There is no more harm in that then in a non-religious statement (say, that Obama should be killed for instance). You should not judge a statement on whether it is religious or not, but on the harm/good it is calculated to do. In the two cases you brought up, the religious statement is harmless and has possible good effects, and the non-religious statement is hideous and has a great number of possible negative effects.
I ask again, why then does the fact that a religious statement is made upset you? There are tons of anti-Christian statements made in the media (which hey, are religious statements), but when one pro-Christian (albeit slightly retarded) statement is made, you fly off the loose end!
...Serbian?
Thanks for beating me to it. ~;)
Also, I think when Sasaki says that Christianity is "bigger" on forgiveness he means that forgiveness is a more central part of Christianity than Buddhism. That much is true to the best of my knowledge.
Well..yeah, because forgiveness in Christianity is given by an external creature (if I may call "God" a creature). In Buddhism, we'd call it compassion.
Well..yeah, because forgiveness in Christianity is given by an external creature (if I may call "God" a creature). In Buddhism, we'd call it compassion.
I admit a great ignorance concerning Buddhism, but am I not correct that since Christianity has a greater emphasis on punishment, it therefore has to have a greater emphasis on how to avoid that punishment and be redeemed from it? I don't know enough about Buddhism to know if that is true, but it seems to make sense to me.
I ask again, why then does the fact that a religious statement is made upset you? There are tons of anti-Christian statements made in the media (which hey, are religious statements), but when one pro-Christian (albeit slightly retarded) statement is made, you fly off the loose end!
Ah, I think we've already covered tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) elsewhere in depth, so no need to re-demonstrate it for us.
As for why I abhor a paid "news" representative calling for a public figure to change his religion, well, if you don't get it now you never will. As a Christian I find it offensive.
Most of your counter-argument amounts to "he means well, so it's okay." As I said, every fundamentalist means well, including the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Everybody believes that they are pro-good and anti-bad. That's a constant of the human condition. The trick is to mean well and not be a jerk about it. Advocating your religion (or non-religion) on a news channel as a paid news commentator is beyond the pale. Imagine how you would react if, say, Sam Donaldson declared that the road to redemption for the Republicans was to convert to Islam. I think you'd say he was being a clear and present idiot. Which is exactly what I'm saying about Hume, who is not only being a jerk, but pathetically, incorrectly, and cowardly claiming that he wasn't proselytizing, when that was exactly what he was doing.
Major Robert Dump
01-05-2010, 18:45
Maybe he doesn't want forgiveness. Who is Hume to declare what Woods needs?
I think based on the guys past behavior, I know exactly what he needs, and it's not a wife and family unit.
So I plead with Tiger Woods, and say unto him that not Buddhism and not Christianity will help you find the true way. For whilst they will satisfy the puritanical onlookers, it is not in thy nature to do such. For ye must contract with RockStar Games and make a gangsta golf video game, and ye must open up a national chain of gentlemen clubs and ye must become a producer and actor in the world of pornography. Amen.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-05-2010, 18:46
I'm not sure what part of this was unclear:
Those were rhetorical questions. If you say claiming "bigger" is ignorant, you are yourself claiming "not-bigger", yes?
Hume also does not have a competent grasp of the English language (http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0110/Hume_stands_by_Christianity_remarks.html):
There's no evidence of that.
Also, I think when Sasaki says that Christianity is "bigger" on forgiveness he means that forgiveness is a more central part of Christianity than Buddhism. That much is true to the best of my knowledge.
Yes. I'm not up on the details of the religion. But my impression is that in buddhism there is a lengthy and difficult process and it isn't aimed specifically at redemption for sins.
Ah, I think we've already covered tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) elsewhere in depth, so no need to re-demonstrate it for us.
As for why I abhor a paid "news" representative calling for a public figure to change his religion, well, if you don't get it now you never will. As a Christian I find it offensive.
Most of your counter-argument amounts to "he means well, so it's okay." As I said, every fundamentalist means well, including the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Everybody believes that they are pro-good and anti-bad. That's a constant of the human condition. The trick is to mean well and not be a jerk about it. Advocating your religion (or non-religion) on a news channel as a paid news commentator is beyond the pale. Imagine how you would react if, say, Sam Donaldson declared that the road to redemption for the Republicans was to convert to Islam. I think you'd say he was being a clear and present idiot. Which is exactly what I'm saying about Hume, who is not only being a jerk, but pathetically, incorrectly, and cowardly claiming that he wasn't proselytizing, when that was exactly what he was doing.
I disagree. The news is what it is; people will be people. It is bizarre to complain about this and not the hours of coverage on a story which should have 5 minutes of coverage total by your standards and it is bizarre to be outraged by a guy who kind spirited intentions when there has been many more petty and spiteful things said by people who just want to profit off of the story. Your equating the spirit in which hume made his comment to the spirit in which terrorists killed thousands of people is ridiculous.
Crazed Rabbit
01-05-2010, 19:14
I was already reconciled to Fox News functioning as a 24/7 political creature. But this new thing, this Christianist, in-your-face 700 Club stuff, this seems to be new. Yikes.
A bit hyperbolic, isn't that? Even in the first clip you linked, the next person to talk awkwardly gets backs to real sports predictions. If it was the 700 club or even close, you'd have at least one of the other speakers agree with Hume or talk up Christianity.
So I'm not convinced this is a big deal. It's an announcer offering his personal opinion during a segment where they ask his personal opinion. Heck, all sorts of on air pundits do that all the time - except they don't usually mention religion. What's so different about religion compared to all the other sorts of personal issues they talk about? They can push all sorts of personal political issues but not suggest religion?
And I heavily doubt MSNBC would be complaining if Hume spoke up any religion besides Christianity.
CR
I admit a great ignorance concerning Buddhism, but am I not correct that since Christianity has a greater emphasis on punishment, it therefore has to have a greater emphasis on how to avoid that punishment and be redeemed from it? I don't know enough about Buddhism to know if that is true, but it seems to make sense to me.
Yes, I think that Christianity's emphasism on punishment and redemption stems from the fact that they (most Christians) think that you only get one shot of life! At the end of these brief seventy years you are tried and, cast into Hell or brought up to Heaven.
I think that Buddhist philosophy is somewhat more..laid back(?) in this, because of the theory of reïncarnation. There are such things as heaven and hell in Buddhism (there are actually six realms, those of the deva's (gods), humans, animals, plants, hungry ghosts and the hell realms) but all of them are impermanent and trapped in the endless cycle of samsara (birth and rebirth).
A good example of redemption and forgiveness in Buddhism is the story of Angulimala (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angulimala), who killed 999 people, and afterwards became a monk under the Buddha and subsequently became an arahant (a worthy being/one who has reached enlightenment).
But I think that Christianity's (over)emphasation of redemption is due to the fact that we have to deal with everything now/within +-70 years.
Ironside
01-05-2010, 19:46
I disagree. The news is what it is; people will be people. It is bizarre to complain about this and not the hours of coverage on a story which should have 5 minutes of coverage total by your standards and it is bizarre to be outraged by a guy who kind spirited intentions when there has been many more petty and spiteful things said by people who just want to profit off of the story. Your equating the spirit in which hume made his comment to the spirit in which terrorists killed thousands of people is ridiculous.
I really recommend the second clip. True, they're not petty and spiteful, but it shows an odd and somewhat ignorant view of the world. I mean:
"Look how those non-believers react when I say that someone should convert to Christianity to find redemption on national tv. I didn't even mention Jesus!" "Oh, but that was a true conversion, we could see that."
Ah, I think we've already covered tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) elsewhere in depth, so no need to re-demonstrate it for us.
As for why I abhor a paid "news" representative calling for a public figure to change his religion, well, if you don't get it now you never will. As a Christian I find it offensive.
Most of your counter-argument amounts to "he means well, so it's okay." As I said, every fundamentalist means well, including the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Everybody believes that they are pro-good and anti-bad. That's a constant of the human condition. The trick is to mean well and not be a jerk about it. Advocating your religion (or non-religion) on a news channel as a paid news commentator is beyond the pale. Imagine how you would react if, say, Sam Donaldson declared that the road to redemption for the Republicans was to convert to Islam. I think you'd say he was being a clear and present idiot. Which is exactly what I'm saying about Hume, who is not only being a jerk, but pathetically, incorrectly, and cowardly claiming that he wasn't proselytizing, when that was exactly what he was doing.
You are wrong. My entire point was that you are over-reacting. The details of this case are only evidence of it.
As I said, you cannot judge a statement as 'good' or 'bad' as you like to do based on the statement being religious or not. You have to judge a statement based on the intent of the speaker, and the possible consequences it will have. The intent of Al Qaeda and the Taliban is murder and terror. If they consider that legitimate means to an end and think that they are doing good in the long run, then yes, as a Christian American I disagree with them and think them and their comments vile and harmful. That said, I would not be offended at all if Chris Matthews, nvm that, anything he says would offend me :P. Let me change that to any other MS NBC 'News' person when asked for their opinion said the exact same thing that this Hume guys said, only replaced Christianity with islam. Sure, I would not agree, but I would not think it inappropriate or get offended. If someone is asked for their opinion, and they give it with a good heart, and it is an innocent statement, then what reason is there to be offended?
That is why I think you are over-reacting. I mean for goodness sakes, the guys wasn't preaching when he should have been presenting news, he was asked for his opinion and gave it!
I agree with you that it was a stupid statement, but certainly not 'bad' or improper. Thus why be offended? If it is just because it was stupid, then your head must blow off every time the news is on, because 99% of the opinion TV personalities give is brain dead!
Gregoshi
01-05-2010, 20:13
And to think that by December 31 I was kinda missing the Backroom. Silly me. :laugh4:
And to think that by December 31 I was kinda missing the Backroom. Silly me. :laugh4:
:P, I know how you feel. ~;) I waste more time here than with anything else I use my computer for. :P
Major Robert Dump
01-05-2010, 20:15
I think he should take some dirt and leaves and rub them on his face and say he converted to Wiccan.
HoreTore
01-05-2010, 20:55
Yes, you are absolutely right in this. Now that I come to think of it, I've heard fairly little religious intolerance in the eastern Orthodox Churches (Armenian, Coptic, Greek and Russian).
As the Russian orthodox church is located in Russia, it's unfortunately just as screwed up as the rest of the country is.
So I don't really think there are many things the Russian church is tolerant towards....
Bah, at least I don't hear that much from them.
Louis VI the Fat
01-05-2010, 23:33
Well, not quite, but close enough to make this lemur's skin crawl. Here's the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkDMy0wVyBg).
Doing a little more Googling, I see that Hume defends himself on another Fox Show (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeRJ7euUShg), declaring that he's not proselytizing, but "Tiger Woods needs something Christianity—especially—provides and gives and offers." And therefore he needs to ditch his religion and convert. What a maroon.You know, I'm quite ready to get all worked up about it. But I just can't. I don't feel the outrage welling up form deep inside.
Is he proselytising? Yes, but...so what? Brit Hume is a Christian, so he obviously thinks Christianity would help Tiger Woods. He would think that, wouldn't he?
Me, I think it is about time the Jews started eating pork already and stopped chopping up their little boys. I merely refrain from saying so because it would get a bit tiresome if everytime I encountered somebody of a different persuasion the first five minutes of conversation would be devoted to a mutual exchange of why the other is blisteringly wrong. But that's more a practical than a moral qualm.
Those were rhetorical questions. If you say claiming "bigger" is ignorant, you are yourself claiming "not-bigger", yes?
As I said, to claim that any religion has a quantifiably "bigger" claim to, say, forgiveness, is a strange and misguided statement. So no, darling, I was not slapping my meat on the table and saying "Who's bigger?" I was saying that making claims of "bigger" or "smaller" are, by their very nature, strange.
There's no evidence of that.
The man claims he was not "proselytizing," when that was exactly what he was doing. Either he is unclear on the meaning of a fairly straightforward word or he's lying. Take your pick.
Since you seem to believe that asserting something makes it so, let's try for an analogy. Let's say I'm drinking a beer. Am I drinking alcohol? No, I say, I'm just having a beer. That's not consuming alcohol; that's beer-drinking. See the difference?
Either I don't know what the word "alcohol" means, or I'm in massive, idiotic denial. Your choice.
The man claims he was not "proselytizing," when that was exactly what he was doing. Either he is unclear on the meaning of a fairly straightforward word or he's lying. Take your pick.
Since you seem to believe that asserting something makes it so, let's try for an analogy. Let's say I'm drinking a beer. Am I drinking alcohol? No, I say, I'm just having a beer. That's not consuming alcohol; that's beer-drinking. See the difference?
Either I don't know what the word "alcohol" means, or I'm in massive, idiotic denial. Your choice.
:inquisitive:
Coming from the guy who several times in this thread said stuff that was straight out not true in his moments of rage.
Today, the connotations of proselytizing are often negative and the word is commonly used to describe attempts to force people to convert. - Almighty Wiki
Perhaps he mistakenly believed that this was the way the word was being used. Have you considered that?
Coming from the guy who several times in this thread said stuff that was straight out not true in his moments of rage.
Who's raging? Please, feel free to address what I'm saying, but spare me your (mistaken) attempt to decode my personal state of mind. I'm having a fantastic day, getting good news right and left, for reasons that shall remain unstated on this board, since they have everything to do with Real Life and nothing to do with the internet tubes. Frankly, I'm full of happiness right now.
You seem to believe that some sort of equation between Chris Matthews excuses anything that goes down on Fox News in a distinctly tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) sort of way. In other words, other media figures have said idiotic things on-air, so all idiotic things on-air are equivalent and excused. Consider this sort of factual and moral relativism closely before pelting down that path, please.
Who's raging? Please, feel free to address what I'm saying, but spare me your (mistaken) attempt to decode my personal state of mind. I'm having a fantastic day, getting good news right and left, for reasons that shall remain unstated on this board, since they have everything to do with Real Life and nothing to do with the internet tubes. Frankly, I'm full of happiness right now.
You seem to believe that some sort of equation between Chris Matthews excuses anything that goes down on Fox News in a distinctly tu quoque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque) sort of way. In other words, other media figures have said idiotic things on-air, so all idiotic things on-air are equivalent and excused. Consider this sort of factual and moral relativism closely before pelting down that path, please.
Well I am sorry if I misjudged you, but your posts seemed pretty hot.
I think you missed my entire point. My point had nothing to do with Chris Matthews does bad stuff so Fox can too. May I suggest you reread my posts. I made several, distinct arguments that tied into a greater one.
I am glad that you are enjoying your day, may the good news continue. :yes:
Meh. It's Fox News[sic], I'm not really sure how anyone can be surprised or outraged. The only way to watch Fox News[sic] is in HD, with the sound off and babes on.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-06-2010, 00:08
As I said, to claim that any religion has a quantifiably "bigger" claim to, say, forgiveness, is a strange and misguided statement. So no, darling, I was not slapping my meat on the table and saying "Who's bigger?" I was saying that making claims of "bigger" or "smaller" are, by their very nature, strange.
No they aren't, don't you think we can compare religions? I think your claim that we can't compare redemption in Christianity and Buddhism to be strange, we have done so in this thread as a matter of fact.
Personally I think Buddhism is one of the more philosophically sound religions (though it has its flaws). I don't agree with Britt (weird to call him Hume) that Tiger would do well to convert to Christianity to find redemption and forgiveness. Although I don't really have advice for tiger, except to say don't get married for dumb reasons.
The man claims he was not "proselytizing," when that was exactly what he was doing. Either he is unclear on the meaning of a fairly straightforward word or he's lying. Take your pick.
Since you seem to believe that asserting something makes it so, let's try for an analogy. Let's say I'm drinking a beer. Am I drinking alcohol? No, I say, I'm just having a beer. That's not consuming alcohol; that's beer-drinking. See the difference?
Either I don't know what the word "alcohol" means, or I'm in massive, idiotic denial. Your choice.
You said he doesn't have a competent grasp of the English language. Shall I assume you don't know what "competent" means, or should I assume you do and said that because you don't like him? The latter.
As vuk pointed out, since proselytize has a negative connotation, people will claim to have not been doing it if they know what it means.
I thought maybe we could argue about what standards the news companies should be held to, but you didn't reply to that part :shame:
Kadagar_AV
01-06-2010, 00:35
I have been thinking long and hard about this one. I might have to break it down...
A) Cheating on your wife is ALWAYS wrong... Do not get maried unless you intend to keep it, and if you can't, then break up the marriage.
B) He is rich and famous, of course he has every ability in the world to make love around.
C) There is absolutely NO chance in hell that his wife didn't know about it unless their marriage was like a vacuum...
*don't you mods love when I self-cencor myself?*
So my bottom line is, either he lived in a loveless marriage with an informal understanding of his side affairs, or he lived in a really really bad marriage, and then one should pity him and have some understanding.
ON TOPIC about Fox though...
C'mon, it is fox news we talk about, anyone actually take it seriosly??
No they aren't, don't you think we can compare religions? I think your claim that we can't compare redemption in Christianity and Buddhism to be strange, we have done so in this thread as a matter of fact.
SK, to call something "bigger" or "smaller," you're assuming that there is some quantifiable property. In other words, "Christianity has 20 redemptions, whereas Buddhism has only 10. Therefore, Christianity has more redemptions." You keep glossing over the quantification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification) part of your own argument.
I never said that we "can't compare" anything; we have to compare in ways that make sense. To flatly assert that Christianity has "more" redemption than another religion is a meaningless statement. You have persisted in asserting that it's true ... because you assert that it's true. You haven't bothered to back it up in any way whatsoever.
Certainly we can contrast and compare religions and faiths -- why not? But if we're going to make quantitative assertions of X has more Y than Z, we might want to back it up. Somehow.
As vuk pointed out, since proselytize has a negative connotation, people will claim to have not been doing it if they know what it means.
Go tell your local Baptist Church that proselytize has a negative connotation. They'll be dumbfounded. The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism) has some good bits, but the flat assertion that "the word is commonly used to describe attempts to force people to convert" is a little weird.
I'll roll with Mirriam-Webster, thanks very much:
Main Entry: pros·e·ly·tize
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-s(ə-)lə-ˌtīz\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pros·e·ly·tized; pros·e·ly·tiz·ing
Date: 1679
intransitive verb 1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
But would it make you more comfortable to call Hume's actions "evangelizing"? Same meaning, after all.
I thought maybe we could argue about what standards the news companies should be held to, but you didn't reply to that part :shame:
What, the half-sentence where you went on about the coverage of Tiger? The bit that was buried in repetitive uses of the word "bizarre"? The only point you were making in that little riff was how "bizarre" it was for me to react to Brit Hume's evangelizing. If you have broader points about "what standards the news companies should be held to," feel free to make them. All ears.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-06-2010, 01:38
SK, to call something "bigger" or "smaller," you're assuming that there is some quantifiable property. In other words, "Christianity has 20 redemptions, whereas Buddhism has only 10. Therefore, Christianity has more redemptions." You keep glossing over the quantification (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantification) part of your own assumption.
I never said that we "can't compare" anything; we have to compare in ways that make sense. To flatly assert that Christianity has "more" redemption than another religion is a meaningless statement. You have persisted in asserting that it's true ... because you assert that it's true. You haven't bothered to back it up in any way whatsoever.
Certainly we can contrast and compare religions and faiths -- why not? But if we're going to make quantitative assertions of X has more Y than Z, we might want to back it up. Somehow.
When garth brooks says "I'm not big on social graces" what does he mean?
Go tell your local Baptist Church that proselytize has a negative connotation. They'll be dumbfounded. The wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytism) has some good bits, but the flat assertion that "the word is commonly used to describe attempts to force people to convert" is a little weird.
I'll roll with Mirriam-Webster, thanks very much:
Main Entry: pros·e·ly·tize
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-s(ə-)lə-ˌtīz\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pros·e·ly·tized; pros·e·ly·tiz·ing
Date: 1679
intransitive verb 1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
But would it make you more comfortable to call Hume's actions "evangelizing"? Same meaning, after all.
Brit knows perfectly well that proselytizing on air is looked down upon, so his denial has more to do with that than with "not having a competent grasp of the English language".
What, the half-sentence where you went on about the coverage of Tiger? The bit that was buried in repetitive uses of the word "bizarre"? The only point you were making in that little riff was how "bizarre" it was for me to react to Brit Hume's evangelizing. If you have broader points about "what standards the news companies should be held to," feel free to make them. All ears.
The news exists to provide fodder for real debate and shine a light on the government. The more entertaining it is, the more people watch it. The more people watch it, the better it carries out its two main functions.
Therefore opinion from commentators is generally a good thing, and Brit's comments do not warrant the hyperbole.
Myrddraal
01-06-2010, 02:00
When garth brooks says "I'm not big on social graces" what does he mean?He obviously means that on most days he averages around 5.0% less "Thank you"s and 6.2% "Please"'s than the national average. :clown:
This is a bit petty (Yes yes, I know I don't visit the backroom enough). The first clarification of what you meant by 'bigger' should have been enough. Now you're just arguing about whether that was the right word to use. Semantics.
Sasaki Kojiro
01-06-2010, 02:26
He obviously means that on most days he averages around 5.0% less "Thank you"s and 6.2% "Please"'s than the national average. :clown:
This is a bit petty (Yes yes, I know I don't visit the backroom enough). The first clarification of what you meant by 'bigger' should have been enough. Now you're just arguing about whether that was the right word to use. Semantics.
:beam: Well, I enjoy arguing. But yes, the meaty topic for discussion is what the news should be like.
:laugh4: I know the feeling. I don't even post here that often and yet I have trouble keeping myself away from the forum.
:P, I know how you fail. ~;) I waste more time here than with anything else I use my computer for. :P
And to think that by December 31 I was kinda missing the Backroom. Silly me. :laugh4:
KukriKhan
01-06-2010, 15:24
What if Mister Woods took the advice of Mister Hume - stood in front of Our Lady of Perpetual Guilt Church and declared he'd been born again and now sees the light, repents his sins, and begs forgiveness from Jehova and Missus Woods and the 99 girlfriends, and his children?
Would his wife welcome him with open arms? Would the media lay off? Would a nearby burning bush tell him to go and sin no more? Would he get back his sponsors? Would it improve his short game? Would teh wimmins stop laying nekkid in front of him, causing him to trip, fall on them, and accidentally copulate with them? Could he get a 4-season reality TV show called "Redemption - Not Just for Fundies Anymore"? Or maybe a Sunday-morning "Miracle Hour" show on the Golf Channel?
Could he have a beer with POTUS and Veepie Joe to 'splain hisself? How about a part-time gig on Fox News, as a consultant on forgiveness? Or Fox Sports as an expert on bad-boy atheletes? Or maybe he could replace Oprah; I hear she's leaving.
Scienter
01-06-2010, 15:29
ON TOPIC about Fox though...
C'mon, it is fox news we talk about, anyone actually take it seriosly??
Given that a lot of people think the Daily Show/Colbert Report are actual news shows, I think that a lot of people take Faux News seriously. :laugh4:
Given that a lot of people think the Daily Show/Colbert Report are actual news shows, I think that a lot of people take Faux News seriously. :laugh4:
You´ve got it turned around...
It's channels like Faux News that make the Daily Show/Colbert Report look like real news shows.:2thumbsup:
Kralizec
01-06-2010, 16:53
Yes, you are absolutely right in this. Now that I come to think of it, I've heard fairly little religious intolerance in the eastern Orthodox Churches (Armenian, Coptic, Greek and Russian).
The Armenian and Coptic churches are not part of the Eastern Orthodox family.
As for religious intolerance in them...well, I'm no expert on any of those churches but I recall an anecdote about some Greek neo-pagans who wanted to revive worship of Zeus, Hera etc. and tried to get recognition as an "official" religion, wich the orthodox church vehemently opposed.
There are probably a lot of christians who don't believe in hell as such, but I've never heard of a church who made that their official position...
The Armenian and Coptic churches are not part of the Eastern Orthodox family.
As for religious intolerance in them...well, I'm no expert on any of those churches but I recall an anecdote about some Greek neo-pagans who wanted to revive worship of Zeus, Hera etc. and tried to get recognition as an "official" religion, wich the orthodox church vehemently opposed.
There are probably a lot of christians who don't believe in hell as such, but I've never heard of a church who made that their official position...
Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
The Church of Vuk has made it their official position that there is no hell!
Samurai Waki
01-07-2010, 03:07
Catholics would disagree.
I like conversions, and missionaries about as much as a toothache.
I'll roll with Mirriam-Webster, thanks very much:
Main Entry: pros·e·ly·tize
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-s(ə-)lə-ˌtīz\
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): pros·e·ly·tized; pros·e·ly·tiz·ing
Date: 1679
intransitive verb 1 : to induce someone to convert to one's faith
2 : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause
.If we're going to nitpick, I may as well point out that by the above definition- he wasn't proselytizing. Hume did not induce Woods to convert, nor did he recruit him to Christianity.
As for why I abhor a paid "news" representative calling for a public figure to change his religion, well, if you don't get it now you never will. As a Christian I find it offensive.So you find Hume acting outwardly as a Christian in his personal comments offensive? That's your right I guess. :coffeenews:
I think the Daily Show nailed it pretty well (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-4-2010/the-best-f--king-news-team-ever---tiger-woods--faith).
Follow-up. (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-january-5-2010/the-temple-of-hume)
aimlesswanderer
01-07-2010, 10:26
Hehe, that is great stuff.
But seriously, who watches faux news and expects sensible content?? Have they stopped going on about how President Obama is actually a Kenyan/British/Indonesian/Martian citizen? Or that he is a muslim, and therefore can't be president somehow?
That was really good, Lemur. Nice find.
ICantSpellDawg
01-07-2010, 15:30
From a political point of view maybe Fox shouldn't air that stuff so that they don't offend their viewers, but I fail to see what is inherently wrong with what Hume said. Fox is a sensationalit network like MSNBC and they can air whatever they wan't. I think it is funnier that Christians can claim to believe in a Biblical God and not proselytize (which is clearly what Hume was doing). Lemur, If you believe that it is wrong to ask Buddhists to convert to Christianity that is a peculiar form of Christianity.
All-in-all, nothing wrong with the words, only the venue to some, not me. There is no difference between this and a Muslim doing the same thing. If, after saying what he said, Brit took out a bomb on air and subsequently drove the Fox building into a larger building, I would be playing a different tune.
Gregoshi
01-07-2010, 15:39
Have they stopped going on about how President Obama is actually a Kenyan/British/Indonesian/Martian citizen? Or that he is a muslim, and therefore can't be president somehow?
He's all that and a whole lot more. In the Harry Potter universe, Obama is a boggart to the Republicans - he turns into whatever is your greatest fear. Bush on the other hand, must be a dementor. Whenever he was around, Democrats felt like they would never be happy again. :laugh4:
Er, sorry, I'm in the middle of re-reading the Harry Potter books, so I've got Harry Potter on the brain. :7wizard:
Seamus Fermanagh
01-07-2010, 16:40
...Er, sorry, I'm in the middle of re-reading the Harry Potter books, so I've got Harry Potter on the brain. :7wizard:
Just don't let us see you lips moving as you read.
:beam:
Gregoshi
01-07-2010, 16:45
Just don't let us see you lips moving as you read.
No problem - I'm a ventriloquist dummy.
Scienter
01-07-2010, 18:46
He's all that and a whole lot more. In the Harry Potter universe, Obama is a boggart to the Republicans - he turns into whatever is your greatest fear. Bush on the other hand, must be a dementor. Whenever he was around, Democrats felt like they would never be happy again. :laugh4:
Er, sorry, I'm in the middle of re-reading the Harry Potter books, so I've got Harry Potter on the brain. :7wizard:
I love this analogy! :grin3:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.