![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(Crossposted to ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
kiva)
A 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?
kiva)A 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?
From:
no subject
That was, to me, one of the most interesting things about the whole Tiger story. I didn't want to be involved in his personal life, I don't know any of the people involved, I think our media/culture is too obsessed with celebrity gossip, etc. But he's a Buddhist and he stuck with that and presented it to the public. Which challenges some preconceptions (exactly the things that Matt seems to have missed, unless I'm reading him wrong).
From:
no subject