In reply to this comment by SDGundamX:
@BicycleRepairMan

I think that if, instead of railing against religion, you actually took the time to study it (study...not practice--I'm not proselytizing here) you would find that all of the major religions have important messages of wisdom to offer us about how to live our lives. .... I think you're missing out.

Hmm, well what can I say.. I dont consider myself a biblical scholar, but I'd say I know just as much about the bible or religion in general as the average religious person does, perhaps in some cases even more. I may be missing the ability to actually believe in the various myths, but I am nevertheless capable of reading them and even seeing the value in them. For instance, I find the mantra of "forgiveness" that Jesus represents to be an interesting idea(or should i say ideal?) in the moral realm. And its one of those things worth considering before acting out our too common revenge-instinct. It is an idea I have given serious consideration, and I think that in some sense, the world would have been poorer off without it. I consider such thinking a contribution to moral philosophy as I would any other contribution. (I do have several objections to it, but thats a somewhat separate issue)

There are also similar examples from other religions that are interesting in their own way, and even if I dont believe a word of it, I can always appreciate the concepts and ideas

As an atheist, I am perfectly comfortable borrowing any good idea from any religion, its no different from lets say a Christian person borrowing from Buddhism or vice versa. But do you think I'm "missing out" because I dont subscribe to a particular religion? Since there are so many religions, is it ok if I just make my own, that lets say believe potatoes are intelligent, and I borrow some concepts from here and there of other religions, and voila I wont "miss out"? IAW: do i have to believe some supernatural nonsense to really "get it" when it comes to religious moral teachings?

And what about the BAD stuff? Lets just get it straight: some of the moral codes outlined in the bible are just downright EVIL. How, as a believer in the bible, can people tell the difference? Who or what tells christians that punishing people for killing is ok, but stoning homosexuals or disobedient children to death isnt? How do they decide? I'm guessing they decide the exact same way I decide. By thinking for themselves. By not living in a desert tribe 2000 years ago, and by having an innate sense of right and wrong that works with facts, knowledge an philosophy cumulated over hundreds of years.

So what am i missing exactly?

I have no doubt faith can be and is a powerful thing. I have seen and experienced so.

That being said...

Christianity, not alone in this either, is a faith based religion. Practice based religions, e.g., Gnosticism, the various Buddhisms, Hinduism, etc., are more accepting if not celebratory of knowledge. Is there any doubt where a devout Christiam places those so lost and deceived as to "practice" those ....

Faith, to Christians, and others, trumps knowledge, every time. That was seen to in Genesis. The Fall Of Man was it not? Knowledge severed the cord resulting in original sin blah blah blah.

Is it any wonder, therefore, that seeking to reproach a Christian on any grounds, knowledge based that is, is met with anything but righteous indignation, euphemistically and figuratively speaking.

As to this being rare, for whom? All too common for children in many parts of this country, be afraid, very afraid. When this was legislated in a number of states ten years ago, give and take, people to whom I spoke of this refused to believe it.

I am told it all has its place. Very hard to remember sometimes.

Across all religions, there are many types of prayer, of which intercessory prayer (prayer for the benefit of others), is just a small portion. For other varieties of Christian prayer, for instance, see: Prayer and the Common Life by Georgia Harkness.

While the benefits of intercessory prayer have been scientifically studied, the results are inconclusive. As I have said in other posts, it is unlikely science ever could show conclusive results for intercessory prayer. Does that mean that intercessory prayer is a waste of time? I don't think so.

I'm going to borrow Georgia Harkness's argument from her book above that when we pray for others at the very least we are taking a moment from our mostly self-centered lives in order to cultivate compassion for another human being. Personally, I think regardless of whether or not intercessory prayer works, it no more a waste of time than saying "I hope he gets better." It's an act of humanity and compassion to feel for a fellow human who is suffering.

In the Buddhist tradition, there is no god per se and therefore prayer is really more like meditation--a way to help ourselves grow. The point of this growth is not self-serving--it is to learn how to take action to make the world a better place. In Buddhism, when you pray for others you're not just hoping they'll get better, you're also trying to think of ways you can take action to make the situation better for them. Incidentally, Christianity contains the same exact concept. As phrased by Ben Franklin: "God helps those who help themselves."

While clearly most of Hitchens' fans do not subscribe to any religion, might I suggest that if you do consider yourself a fan you try to find a way to send him words of support and encouragement. It seems a bit difficult to contact him (I did a bit of Googling while writing the post; couldn't find any contact info), but if you can find out which agency represents him you could send letters or cards care-of his agent and I'm sure he'll get them.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Ok, you pray. And I will talk to my imaginary friend too.
Prayer: doing fuck all while convincing yourself you're helping.


>> ^rottenseed:

Praying is such a masturbatory, externally useless ritual. It won't do anything, but it makes the person doing it feel better about themselves. I hope nobody prays for me when I have cancer.

@BicycleRepairMan

Come on now, we were having a nice discussion about religion privately before (sorry I haven't responded recently--work is a bit crazy right now) without having to resort to gross over-generalizations and mudslinging. All religious ideas are insane? Buddhism teaches respect for all life, the unlimited potential of all human beings (regardless of race, class, sexual orientation, etc.), and cooperatively working together to improve the world. Crazy huh?

Most of the people who are on here spewing hate against religion and/or religious people seem to have a very superficial view of religion--I'll call it the "religion as myth" viewpoint. That's a very simplistic view of a very complicated social phenomenon. Religion, at it's core, is about bettering ourselves as human beings. This is a common theme you can see across the world's religions: Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Judiasm. Again, that doesn't seem very crazy to me at all.

Some people (including the guy in this video) do indeed abuse religion and steer it from its true purpose of helping people lead better lives. But people do that to ANY social system (democracy or communism being used as a reason to "liberate" other countries from "oppressive" regimes for instance). I think this is Lawdeedaw's point--that singling out religion as a source of problems seems as illogical and reactionary as a fundamentalist Christian attacking Darwinism. Both viewpoints stem from both a lack of understanding and the lack of a willingness to explore the other's viewpoint.

>> ^kronosposeidon:

He's constantly sarcastically labeling Islam as the "religion of peace." And you know what? It ain't a religion of peace. (GASP!) But neither is Christianity. Nor Judaism. Nor Hinduism. Nor even freaking Buddhism, if you can believe that. They all have lovey-dovey peacey-huggy teachings, but they also aren't afraid to pick up the sword whenever they deem it necessary for whatever god-awful reason. So why is he singling out Islam?


Maybe you should watch his other videos. He is singling out Islam lately because of the Southpark vs Islam thing but historically he has been a lot more anti-religion in general and more specifically anti-fundamentalist Christian.

Maybe hold back on those attacks until you've done some research.

At 0:31 he says, "Although many* Muslims struggle, I mean really struggle with this new-fangled technology of making fire." It doesn't sound like he's differentiating between flag-burning Muslims and the rest of them. He's casting a blanket assertion that most Muslims are so retarded that they can't even make fire.

But it's more than just that. He's constantly sarcastically labeling Islam as the "religion of peace." And you know what? It ain't a religion of peace. (GASP!) But neither is Christianity. Nor Judaism. Nor Hinduism. Nor even freaking Buddhism, if you can believe that. They all have lovey-dovey peacey-huggy teachings, but they also aren't afraid to pick up the sword whenever they deem it necessary for whatever god-awful reason. So why is he singling out Islam? Because he's a bigot? Yes, most definitely.

And that's why I'm sick of this guy. Fuck him. He's the West's counterpart to Ahmadinejad or bin Laden. Put them in Thunderdome. Except let no one come out.

*Bold face my emphasis

>> ^MilkmanDan:

I tend to think his "so stupid they can't even light a fire" was directed more specifically at the flag-burners themselves, and less at Muslims in general. He referred to the group as an "angry Islamic mob"; presumably he would take less issue with a "peaceful Islamic mob", or a "collection of average Muslims". "Maybe the Koran would burn better" could be offensive to Muslims in general, but I would assume particularly so to the flag-burning extremists.

@ponceleon (for a response to your Dark Matter questions see above)

First off, I'd like to thank you for a very interesting discussion. It is through such dialogue that we clarify our thoughts, and your responses have really helped me explore many different ideas.

I'd like to start out by explaining why I responded to your post in the first place. Your initial post called for the end of all religion. It seemed to be a gross overreaction to the clip. You seemed to be equating every single religious person with a fanatic Muslim willing to kill for his beliefs.

You very clearly place a high value on reason and logical thought. My initial purpose in posting, then, was to show you how illogical it is to condemn an entire group of people for the actions of a few individuals. You would not consider it reasonable to call for an end to Democracy simply because some people have started wars in the name of Democracy (see Lawdeedaw's post above). It is just as illogical to call for an end to all religion because some people have committed evil in the name of religion. Likewise, just because Sarah Palin blew some hot air on national TV about fruit flies, it doesn't logically follow that all religious people are against science. Or that they all want to convert you. That's another gross over-generalization. As a refutation, I provide the example of two of the worlds biggest religions--Buddhism and Hinduism--which co-exist peacefully with multiple other religions and do not try impose their teachings on those who don't voluntarily come seeking them.

So that was my original point, basically. Your initial call for an end to religion wasn't logical, reasonable, or even plausible. How could you accomplish it? By force? That would rob you of the moral high ground. By law? In the U.S., at least, you would face the problem that freedom of religion is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Given the improbability of a religious-free world anytime in the near future (almost certainly not our lifetimes) wouldn't it be better to use our intellectual powers for figuring out how to get along? And how to deal humanely with those radicals and fundamentalists who refuse to try to get along or insist on imposing their views on others? Personally, I feel that is a much better use of our time and energy than trying to ban religion outright.

This will be my last post here. I'll let you have the last word on the matter. If you want to continue talking about this or other things, send me a profile reply. However, I'm very busy with work right now and might not be able to reply right away, so I apologize for that.

>> ^ponceleon:

@SGD Ah I think we are coming a bit closer together here, but you are backpeddling a bit.
There is a BIG difference between you telling me that it is MY job as a rational person to disprove the existance of God the Son and the Holy ghost, v. telling me that dark matter is unmeasurable.
You see, Dark Matter is based on actual calculations and rational deliberation which leads scientists to see that something is missing from their model. As it turns out, I'm willing to CONSIDER dark matter as a possibility because it is based on something thought out and observable (though itself it may not be). That said, I would not be surprised at all if it turns out to be bunk. But that's the great part of science, Dark Matter can turn out to be real or not real and NO SCIENTIST is going to FATWAH me for believing on either side. It's exactly as you say.
As for why religion needs to go, well it is exactly for the reason you state: they DO try to force their views on others. When Sarah Palin, champion of the religious nuts in this country, gets up and tells us that fruit fly research is "silly and pointless" I see that as highly dangerous and definitely something that needs to be addressed. Killing and threatening artists. Suicide Bombers, child-abuse cover-ups, intelligent design, Jesus camps, invading the west bank, female oppression, and good christians don't vote for Obama.... all great examples of how "good teachings" of a religion have been cast aside in favor of fear, hate mongering, and irrational behavior.
Religion has forced itself on human culture for all of our history and while some good has come of it, a great portion of the bad in the world can be traced back to someone listening to a magical being in their head (or as I often suspect, saying they do in order to sway uneducated masses).
So in conclusion, I think you are now a lot closer to me in what I mean (though I fall on the other side of the argument when it comes to the usefulness of religion), but I do think you backpedaled a bit. Dark Matter /= Jesus.

>> ^daxgaz:
To me, that doesn't seem like what sword fighting should be about. But, I'm American and I may not "get it".



Its a cynical way of thinking, but I agree that it is odd that (on the surface it appears that) one has to bend ones style specifically to prove you can fit the mold to get the merit badge.

However, I should say it reminds me of Zen Buddhism and how masters are said to be looking at the state of mind when determining how far along disciples are progressing.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
That is the same sound I make when the limited format of text fails to fully convey the ideas in my head! Like when 2 missiles pass each other in flight hehehe (they don't call them missiles for nothing I guess!)

Anyway, I didn't mean to exasperate you. This was not my intent. You are always a very insightful and humble person here on the sift, and for that you have my greatest respect. Here's to the next delightful convo!

i find you an interesting person also.
and one i feel i can discuss things with that others may either take offense or become indignant.
thats why i wrote you.not to be inflammatory but to suggest your over-simplification of buddhism/christianity may not be close to a reality but rather closer to the western worlds abridged and condensed version.
western philosophy/theosophy could not exist without eastern philosophy/theosophy, not the other way around.

i pointed out that many in the western world take a myopic stance,not intentionally i would presume but rather one set by culture.i was not implying that you are myopic but that you were espousing certain well-grooved tracks used by many concerning buddhism.soundbytes usually perpetrated by the church itself and then parroted.

it is interesting to note that even teillhard de chardin remarked on the similarities of christs teachings and buddha.this was rejected by the church but i tend to agree with chardin.

while i agree that text is not a suitable and contextual medium to express such dynamic concepts and philosophies let me make a few observations and you tell me what you think.
1.you stated that buddhism does not recognize the "changing soul".this is an incorrect statement due to the fact that just about every precept of buddhism stems from ones journey and the self realization that one must change,grow to move on to a greater consciousness.
the primary vehicle for this is forgiveness,but while in buddhism this is a starting point and eventually should lead to an awareness where forgiveness is moot due to the fact that your choices will no longer need to be forgiven,christianity tends to view forgiveness in the latter stages of awareness.
which one is correct?that is for you to decide.
2.you stated that KARMA is not a vehicle of divine salvation,but that is a misnomer,it is very much a vehicle of divine salvation due to the fact that buddhist view all life as divine.while christianity views humans as dirt,sinful and unclean and the only path to salvation is through jesus christ.this is a very complex paradigm and i do not do this subject justice but that can wait for another conversation.while the concept in itself is simple,to express it in all its simplicity takes volumes.(just look at all the writings on this subject,many many perspectives).

these are only a few points.points i make to show that coming from a christian perspective may color the beauty and depth of buddhism.i do not feel you are a fundamentalist and that is a good thing because the teachings of jesus are beautiful as they are succinct but if viewed only from the eyes of the church i have always felt the meat of jeus christ's teachings have gone either misinterpreted or outright twisted.then again,i view religion with a suspicious eye and read the teachings from a different vantage point.
does this mean i am right and my views infallible?
no..that would arrogant.
but it does mean i have the ability to glean understanding that is not tainted by the church because i view the teachings from a different angle.
studying cultural religious history has given me context to better understand those teachings.
that has been a work in progress for 25 years and im still going,still learning and still fascinated by it all.
as always my friend..a pleasure discussing my favorite subject with you.
till our next conversation.
namaste.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
You have to define terms when talking about such things, which usually makes talking about them on internet forums hard, and that is why I stopped commenting there because I saw the conversation tending to be negative.

While the nature of Buddhism is complex, no doubt, I garner most of the basic precepts of Buddhism. For instance, Karma, is not part of divine salvation but of ones life. There is nothing a higher power can do to restore you Karma as it is the direct action of your life. Karma is one of the essential elements of the rebirth cycle, so the fact that it is the direct consequence of your life, forgiveness (for an over all moralistic stand point, not living at peace with your neighbor) isn't available.

More over, Buddhists do not believe in the unchanging soul. An idea steaming from Dharma, that there is no such thing as self. This is a small but important point as this basic notion isn't really applicable to most people whom live in the west. Self reliance, determination, and ultimately identification all point to a one unique self...it is just the western way. This doesn't go to say that an American couldn't be a Buddhist, but the culture here is very toxic to it.

Anyway, mostly, from my perspective, Buddhism is about fundamentally different ideals that Christianity. Christianity stresses the need for an external power to rescue you from yourself. The Buddhist doesn't belief in self, or salvation, and as a consequence, forgiveness (we are talking about moralist forgiveness not about your neighbor stealing your car). I think this is where my point was being missed. Of course most every religion has a "golden rule", be at peace mindset, that wasn't what I was addressing though.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I have always found Buddhism rather neat personally. But I have to draw issue with your statement of forgiveness as a fundamental precept. The middle path doesn't usually care about forgiveness because it leads with the idea that people owe you things. The middle path is separate from such concerns. The real problem I would see with most Buddhist interjections into the life an any American is really, we don't want a middle path. We want stuff, to be the best, to life for this life! Buddhism isn't about that, it is about the flow of this life into the next, preparing yourself for the next phase. Living for the moment, and being a sports super star is incompatible with that world view...imo.

And what I heard from Hume was concern, not looking his nose down. Think of it from his perspective, he really things Christ could help this persons life, and that is how he said it. He thought, either in ignorance or wisdom, that Buddhism couldn't save him from his current situation and offered an answer. One could say it is out of place of a news anchor to not read news from his sheet however...but news hasn't been about that in ages.

And you don't hear about Buddhist extreamist because the media you listen to doesn't care.

http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557

i dont think you truly understand buddhism my friend.
many people take a myopic approach when dealing with different religions.it is really just a perspective thing i would presume.but buddhism is a far more rich religion than you are alluding to in your comment.
so just like christianity may have many variables,facets and understanding for you due to you actually BEING a christian,buddhism in all its variables offers a rich contextualization of theosophy.

while never confirmed by tangible evidence but only by hints and historical references there are some theologians that believe that jesus not only studied with the assenes and greeks but also buddhists.which if you read the gospels it is not so large a leap considering much of jesus's teaching have a buddhists element.
and yes..forgiveness is paramount.

sighs...ok man.
thank you for your thoughtful reply.
namaste.

You have to define terms when talking about such things, which usually makes talking about them on internet forums hard, and that is why I stopped commenting there because I saw the conversation tending to be negative.

While the nature of Buddhism is complex, no doubt, I garner most of the basic precepts of Buddhism. For instance, Karma, is not part of divine salvation but of ones life. There is nothing a higher power can do to restore you Karma as it is the direct action of your life. Karma is one of the essential elements of the rebirth cycle, so the fact that it is the direct consequence of your life, forgiveness (for an over all moralistic stand point, not living at peace with your neighbor) isn't available.

More over, Buddhists do not believe in the unchanging soul. An idea steaming from Dharma, that there is no such thing as self. This is a small but important point as this basic notion isn't really applicable to most people whom live in the west. Self reliance, determination, and ultimately identification all point to a one unique self...it is just the western way. This doesn't go to say that an American couldn't be a Buddhist, but the culture here is very toxic to it.

Anyway, mostly, from my perspective, Buddhism is about fundamentally different ideals that Christianity. Christianity stresses the need for an external power to rescue you from yourself. The Buddhist doesn't belief in self, or salvation, and as a consequence, forgiveness (we are talking about moralist forgiveness not about your neighbor stealing your car). I think this is where my point was being missed. Of course most every religion has a "golden rule", be at peace mindset, that wasn't what I was addressing though.

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I have always found Buddhism rather neat personally. But I have to draw issue with your statement of forgiveness as a fundamental precept. The middle path doesn't usually care about forgiveness because it leads with the idea that people owe you things. The middle path is separate from such concerns. The real problem I would see with most Buddhist interjections into the life an any American is really, we don't want a middle path. We want stuff, to be the best, to life for this life! Buddhism isn't about that, it is about the flow of this life into the next, preparing yourself for the next phase. Living for the moment, and being a sports super star is incompatible with that world view...imo.

And what I heard from Hume was concern, not looking his nose down. Think of it from his perspective, he really things Christ could help this persons life, and that is how he said it. He thought, either in ignorance or wisdom, that Buddhism couldn't save him from his current situation and offered an answer. One could say it is out of place of a news anchor to not read news from his sheet however...but news hasn't been about that in ages.

And you don't hear about Buddhist extreamist because the media you listen to doesn't care.

http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557

i dont think you truly understand buddhism my friend.
many people take a myopic approach when dealing with different religions.it is really just a perspective thing i would presume.but buddhism is a far more rich religion than you are alluding to in your comment.
so just like christianity may have many variables,facets and understanding for you due to you actually BEING a christian,buddhism in all its variables offers a rich contextualization of theosophy.

while never confirmed by tangible evidence but only by hints and historical references there are some theologians that believe that jesus not only studied with the assenes and greeks but also buddhists.which if you read the gospels it is not so large a leap considering much of jesus's teaching have a buddhists element.
and yes..forgiveness is paramount.

In reply to this comment by GeeSussFreeK:
I have always found Buddhism rather neat personally. But I have to draw issue with your statement of forgiveness as a fundamental precept. The middle path doesn't usually care about forgiveness because it leads with the idea that people owe you things. The middle path is separate from such concerns. The real problem I would see with most Buddhist interjections into the life an any American is really, we don't want a middle path. We want stuff, to be the best, to life for this life! Buddhism isn't about that, it is about the flow of this life into the next, preparing yourself for the next phase. Living for the moment, and being a sports super star is incompatible with that world view...imo.

And what I heard from Hume was concern, not looking his nose down. Think of it from his perspective, he really things Christ could help this persons life, and that is how he said it. He thought, either in ignorance or wisdom, that Buddhism couldn't save him from his current situation and offered an answer. One could say it is out of place of a news anchor to not read news from his sheet however...but news hasn't been about that in ages.

And you don't hear about Buddhist extreamist because the media you listen to doesn't care.

http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557

i dont think you truly understand buddhism my friend.
many people take a myopic approach when dealing with different religions.it is really just a perspective thing i would presume.but buddhism is a far more rich religion than you are alluding to in your comment.
so just like christianity may have many variables,facets and understanding for you due to you actually BEING a christian,buddhism in all its variables offers a rich contextualization of theosophy.

while never confirmed by tangible evidence but only by hints and historical references there are some theologians that believe that jesus not only studied with the assenes and greeks but also buddhists.which if you read the gospels it is not so large a leap considering much of jesus's teaching have a buddhists element.
and yes..forgiveness is paramount.

Our Lady Rosa Mystica has been a source of friction between Catholic and Buddhist communities in Crooswatta for years. In the last four years, extremists have stopped the construction of the church, which is near a Buddhist monastery. In 2006 and 2007, the Church was targeted by Buddhist extremists, and construction was halted.

(source)

There is an ongoing problem with over-aggressive Christian proselytizing conducted in a dishonest and unethical manner by some conservative evangelical groups. Missionaries have targeted the poor with offers of money if they would renounce the Buddha, for example. They have distributed inflammatory literature, such as pamphlets condemning the Buddha as a reincarnation of Satan.

(source)

Yeah, those innocent Christians just minding their own business....

Sometimes it's really easy to hate Christians, and totally understandable, too.

They prey on the weak. They constantly go around pushing their beliefs onto other people, and then they call anybody who finally gets sick of their shit and stands up to them an "extremist."

They've been doing it for hundreds of years.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I have always found Buddhism rather neat personally. But I have to draw issue with your statement of forgiveness as a fundamental precept. The middle path doesn't usually care about forgiveness because it leads with the idea that people owe you things. The middle path is separate from such concerns. The real problem I would see with most Buddhist interjections into the life an any American is really, we don't want a middle path. We want stuff, to be the best, to life for this life! Buddhism isn't about that, it is about the flow of this life into the next, preparing yourself for the next phase. Living for the moment, and being a sports super star is incompatible with that world view...imo.
And what I heard from Hume was concern, not looking his nose down. Think of it from his perspective, he really things Christ could help this persons life, and that is how he said it. He thought, either in ignorance or wisdom, that Buddhism couldn't save him from his current situation and offered an answer. One could say it is out of place of a news anchor to not read news from his sheet however...but news hasn't been about that in ages.
And you don't hear about Buddhist extreamist because the media you listen to doesn't care.
http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557


Show me one case of Buddhist extremism other than the monks in Vietnam setting themselves on fire in protest of the war. I think there were some Buddhist monk protests in some country a while ago, but there sure as hell weren't any bombs going off.

Buddhism is about forgiveness. It's about letting go, among other things, and to think that Christianity has the market cornered on that front is nothing short of arrogance.

And if you think Brit Hume really means what he says, you should make absolutely certain that you never take candy from strangers.

You're not really paying attention, and you haven't looked at either Buddhism or Hume's character very closely at all.

I have always found Buddhism rather neat personally. But I have to draw issue with your statement of forgiveness as a fundamental precept. The middle path doesn't usually care about forgiveness because it leads with the idea that people owe you things. The middle path is separate from such concerns. The real problem I would see with most Buddhist interjections into the life an any American is really, we don't want a middle path. We want stuff, to be the best, to life for this life! Buddhism isn't about that, it is about the flow of this life into the next, preparing yourself for the next phase. Living for the moment, and being a sports super star is incompatible with that world view...imo.

And what I heard from Hume was concern, not looking his nose down. Think of it from his perspective, he really things Christ could help this persons life, and that is how he said it. He thought, either in ignorance or wisdom, that Buddhism couldn't save him from his current situation and offered an answer. One could say it is out of place of a news anchor to not read news from his sheet however...but news hasn't been about that in ages.

And you don't hear about Buddhist extreamist because the media you listen to doesn't care.

http://www.tamileelamnews.com/cgi-bin/news/exec/view.cgi/1/1557