Hume biased, not media

Good article. And good comments, Clearthinking.

What concerns me is Azeem's phrase on intelligent dialogue on religious life to promote understanding and the wall we face with fanatics like Hume. Or is it religion in general that makes intelligent dialogue futile? (Futile in terms of understanding) Since there is no reasoning with faith, is there any hope of understanding?

"We criticize Hume not for his Christian faith, but for his very un-Christian judgment of another's religious beliefs."

This may sound harsh, but what aspect of Buddhism condemns Woods' actions? None that I know of. However, as a society we clearly condemn taking many mistresses while being having a family. Therefore, if Woods seeks redemption and admits something must change, it is rational to look, among other things, for a religious change.

And how is it inconsistent with the Gospel message to claim religious superiority? Christ said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." He didn't say that he was ONE way to the Father. Please don't claim that the Gospel message allows for some pantheistic interpretation, you are smarter than that.

Excellent artictle.
It is not simply "exceptionalism" but "supremacism" practiced by Christians and Muslims. This is the root cause of the degradation of spirituality in the last 2000 years. The "Western world" has become desentisized to how offensive and often destructive and painful this has been to nonchristians and nonmuslims.
Even Lisa Miller wrote yesterday that
evangelicals evangalize so what's the big deal.
However, this is precisely the problem, as perceived by secularists, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

The urge to evangelize and convert has caused very serious problems around the world. It is not a benign or amusing behavior which can just be ignored or the channel changed.

This is a bit overstated, but murderers murder. That does not make murder OK. One still has to make a judgement about the morality and the consequences of evangelizing and converting.

Let people come to your religion or philosophy based on their own wishes. Respect others traditions and cultures. Respect an individual's rights. Don't stir up trouble for peoples in distant lands like the Amazon. Don't try to exploit the weakness in a society to divide and conquer so Christianity or Islam can spread and be more powerful. This is not politics.

Religion in the western world (Abrahamic) has too often been about power and politics and not about an individual or societies spiritual evolution in harmony. Look at the Pope's (spiritual? leader) reaction the the movie Avatar.

SO, this is not an overreaction. Many people in the modern, global, scientific world sense that the cause of the problem is not just "religion" but certain religions and their behavior, such and evangelizing.

As a gay man and an atheist, I have to say this article is right on the money, particularly with the term "Christian exceptionalism," a phenomenon I have encountered far too many times in my life.

In the arguments I have sometimes found myself in with conservative evangelicals, I have frequently discovered them to be so far gone in their sense of superiority and rightness that there is absolutely nothing to convince them to show even the slightest amount of propriety to people whose beliefs differ from theirs or whose lives don't match their peculiar notions of morality.

I think it's safe to say that this kind of mentality explains why, if you look at virtually every religious war in history, Christianity and/or Islam has played a significant role in it.

True, no religion's history is untarnished, but Hume's disparaging remarks about Tiger Woods' Buddhist faith are a perfect example of the kind of arrogance and contempt that many Christians refer to as "love."

I very much doubt anyone is seriously biased against Christianity in general - not among the media and not in the greater society. It is the TYPE of Christianity promoted by Hume that is drawing the criticism. Most people in our society - including many types of Christians - have risen above the need for a faith that excludes everyone outside of it.

Hume and others at his faith level would do well to realize that their triumphalist views actually give Christianity a bad name. They fail to realize that whatever God and spiritual faith is about - it is surely NOT about excluding most of the civilized world from its graces.

The more Hume et al promote their triumphalist and exclusivist interpretations of their faith, the greater the rift they create between themselves and the bulk of society which tends toward a more mature spiritual level and a more inclusive worldview.

Margaret Placentra Johnston
www.exploring-spiritual-development.com

You are too generous. It is a very christian thing to condemn other religions. It is a very christian thing to not recognize his error. It is a very christian thing to stir things up (see Africa). The prophet's message, as the one and only son of god, through only him is there salvation, is a chauvanistic arrogance. Hume is representing the true form of mono-ideological christianity. And it is the christians coming to his defense.

Those of us "accosted too often" by this attitude of intolerance are generous (correctly so) in saying that everyone of us, even those that disagree with us, are loved by and expressions of God's love. But we need, now in a nuclear age of mono-ideology, to stand up and take up Arjuna's bow to fight the creeping mono-ideological physical and metaphysical terror, each in our own way. For it is our karma to unite the satva, bhakti, and rajas so that humanity can pass this next challenge of possible self annihilation.

hariaum