Kiva founder on Buddhism
Mar. 5th, 2010 06:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hatman posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
kivaA couple of weeks ago, after the Tiger Woods apology press conference, Matt Flannery, Kiva's founder, Tweeted his reaction:
"Thought Tiger used Buddhism in an uncommonly Christian context: faith, forgiveness and redemption."
That struck me as a rather odd take on the situation, especially from someone as worldly as he is. I responded, saying that those values were hardly unique to Christianity. His response didn't help:
"I agree. But, in the very American tradition of public apologies, tiger used buddhism in a place where Christianity is common."
My take on that (to which he didn't respond) was that this was perhaps due to the fact that Tiger actually is a Buddhist. I could understand the point that he was clearly using the standard fill-in-the-blanks post-rehab apology script, and yes, it's unusual to hear Buddhism stuck into that blank. But that doesn't change the fact that the reason he did so is that he actually is a Buddhist.
To me, it's especially jarring after the comments from Brit Hume of Fox News, in which he said that Tiger, in seeking redemption, would be better served if he turned to Christianity (and away from Buddhism).
What's your take? Am I misunderstanding? Reading too much into what Matt Flannery is trying to say? Is there a valid point that I'm missing? Or is he entirely missing Tiger's point, which was that he screwed up (so to speak) and, in seeking forgiveness and redemption, he's turning to his own faith?
"Thought Tiger used Buddhism in an uncommonly Christian context: faith, forgiveness and redemption."
That struck me as a rather odd take on the situation, especially from someone as worldly as he is. I responded, saying that those values were hardly unique to Christianity. His response didn't help:
"I agree. But, in the very American tradition of public apologies, tiger used buddhism in a place where Christianity is common."
My take on that (to which he didn't respond) was that this was perhaps due to the fact that Tiger actually is a Buddhist. I could understand the point that he was clearly using the standard fill-in-the-blanks post-rehab apology script, and yes, it's unusual to hear Buddhism stuck into that blank. But that doesn't change the fact that the reason he did so is that he actually is a Buddhist.
To me, it's especially jarring after the comments from Brit Hume of Fox News, in which he said that Tiger, in seeking redemption, would be better served if he turned to Christianity (and away from Buddhism).
What's your take? Am I misunderstanding? Reading too much into what Matt Flannery is trying to say? Is there a valid point that I'm missing? Or is he entirely missing Tiger's point, which was that he screwed up (so to speak) and, in seeking forgiveness and redemption, he's turning to his own faith?
no subject
Date: 2010-03-06 09:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-03-06 09:09 pm (UTC)Thing is that trying to find a positive way forward isn't restricted to any one religion (or, you're right, to religion at all). Tiger turned to his faith for that*, which is only right. Start with what you believe, deep down, whatever that may be, and work from there.
But to say that you have to have a given set of beliefs to make that work (which is basically what Brit Hume said) or that it is the proper/traditional role of that set of beliefs (which is more or less how I read Flannery's comments) just seems wrong. As wrong to say that against Buddhism as it is against atheism.
(Besides which, many forms of Buddhism are atheistic.)
*Or, in any case, paid lip service to doing so. If you want to be cynical about it.