April 2022

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

« Addition by subtraction | Main | The hotel business »

Jan 06, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Andrew Brod

As stupid as Hume's remarks were, Stewart gets one thing wrong. I think what Hume was doing was evangelizing rather than proselytizing. That doesn't make it any less inappropriate for a network news show, however.


...Except that it was a roundtable discussion, the whole purpose of which is to get the opinions of the participants.

Let's see. First Shuster, then Stewart, now Cone and Brod. Hmmm.

I wonder why nobody from the above mentioned cast of characters gets mad when Paul Krugman attacks Christians.

Andrew Brod

Oh, I get it. Spag's discovered a Jewish cabal! Yes, that's sure to advance the debate in an honorable way. Because no one other than Jews object to Hume's narrow-minded and sectarian punditry. Come to think of it, "Olbermann" sounds Jewish too, doesn't it?


No I just think it's interesting that some people are quick to scream "anti-Semitism" any time Pat Buchanan opens his mouth, yet seem to have no problem with attacking/ridiculing Christians.

It isn't about religion/ethnicity to me. As with most things, it's the utter hypocrisy of it.


As with most things, it's the utter hypocrisy of it

You sound a little uptight. May I suggest a coffee colonic?

Spaghetti Monster

A. Commenting on Hume's high-profile dis of Buddhism ≠ attacking Christians.

B. Christians and Christianity have no privileged position that makes them immune from discussion or criticism.

C. Nasty ancient irrelevant Nazi-coddler Buchanan has nothing to do with any of it.


And there you go.

Helms Jackson

Spag: You must understand deconstruction to understand what is happening. It is not hypocrisy in their eyes since European Christians have dominated World History for the last 600 years. Despite the fact that Judaism and Islam are much richer in historic and cultural significance both before the 15th Century and still today than is Christianity, because Christianity and it's offshoot (Western European nationalism and capitalism) has been ascendant for six centuries it must now be taken apart piece by piece in order to be shown to have no real moral ground to stand on.

I mean, yeah, Patton prayed to God for clear weather so he could get to Bastogne and relieve the 101st Airborne before the Wehrmacht chewed them to bits, but today none of that matters man, we are all one and need to live together in spite of our differences and if one set of folks believe they are set apart or chosen as special, well it is incumbent upon us to tear their little fallacy down with ridicule and hyperbole to obfuscate the fact that either Jesus Christ was who he said he was or he was a fucking nut.

Oh wait, no, we should accept everyone's personal belief, no matter which path they chose, because how can any of us know until we die, even though the three Abrahamic religions are incompatible. One is true or none of them is true. They are irreconcilable.

I'm flirting with atheism myself these days, which makes all of the above comments a joke, but I think I may side with Pascal on his wager.

Deconstruction, my friend. It drives the blogosphere.

Ed Cone

+1 to the FSM for figuring out how to make the Not Equal Sign.

Also: "[W]e all believe that the sacred texts of religions other than our own are, essentially, mythologies -- stories that explain the world but are not true; unless you are a literalist, you believe the same of at least parts of your own religion."


My point had very little to do with religion, something that I am generally skeptical about. It had a lot to do with hypocrisy. Some people can say whatever they want about the beliefs of others, but scream at the slightest criticism of their religion/ethnicity.

Helms Jackson

Again, you can deconstruct what is in power. European Christianity has been in power. That gives license to attack it.

We are part of that demographic, religious or not, and therefore aren't fit to practice Orientalism or post-colonialism.

Once you realize what is going on in the culture at large, you won't get so dizzy or upset at the seeming "hypocrisy" of The Other. They are asserting themselves, as Woodrow Wilson wanted them to, and that means the West has to set a lot more plates at the table and you can't go around spouting off about needing to convert to Christianity from Buddhism to find forgiveness.

You are the progeny of the suffering of The Other and therefore are able to have your foundations undermined.

Ed Cone

Prejudice based on belief or ethnicity is not the same thing as disagreement on theology; the latter is inevitable, even within religions, while the former is more of problem.

Hume's put-down of the beliefs of Buddhists was objectionable because of the context in which it was made.

In a broader context, I have no problem with people discussing their beliefs, or the beliefs of others, although a certain amount of factual accuracy is preferable when doing so.

Thus "I think Jews are going to Hell, because of the whole John 14:6 thing," is just fine by me, in that Jews don't approach God through Jesus.

But "Jews should stop drinking the blood of Christian babies" would be unacceptable, because ritual murder is not, in fact, a part of Jewish practice.

If Brit Hume said to me during a discussion on religion that he believes I'm going to Hell, I'd nod in understanding.

If he said it during a televised news program in which religion was not the subject, a lot of people would find it disturbing.

(A different scenario would be if he said in either context, "I just don't like Jews," which would indicate that he was an anti-Semite.)


I don't know from objectionable; it's just weird. Like getting lovemaking tips from Cliff Clavin.

Spaghetti Monster

I can see how people could impute an anti-Buddhist angle to this story, but where's the part where people are "attacking/ridiculing Christians?"

Buie Knife

Yes, where did Paul Krugman "attack Christianity," Sam? He did write columns
critical of right-wing Christians
within the Bush government, but that was hardly an attack on Christianity. And why, Sam, is the highlighting of Hume's remarks an example of Jewish hypocrisy? Many non-Jews find his remarks to be ridiculous.

The comments to this entry are closed.