Great commentary from the Daily Show. I sometimes have a problem with them because they tend to satirize, but then never show the perspective of the people they're supposedly sympathizing with (I think this blog has talked about it much more eloquently than I'm doing right now). Satire can be useful and funny, but without listening candidly to the aggrieved and making an honest attempt to understand their situation, it's almost worthless. Aasif Mondvi is hilarious and compelling. Way to go, Best ****ing News Team!

How about Karl Rove, that so-called pious Christian hypocrite who ranted against gay marriage... and is on his way to getting a 2nd divorce?

Awww yeah, Christianity is the ANSWER !!!!

/s

"Can you imagine Fox News, or any other news outlet, intentionally giving air time to a person saying that Tiger Woods needs to convert from Christianity to Buddhism (or any other religion) if he’s going to change his behavior? Can you imagine the outcry if the suggested religion was Islam?"

Seriously. as a liberal (and secular) Muslim, I've come across conservative, right wing Muslim douche-bags who aren't any different from these hateful right-wing Christian Republican idiots who are against gay marriage and against other religions. Both groups would get along beautifully!

"None of this, of course, even addresses the irony of suggesting that Christianity is the only religion that can help save you from infidelity...."

Just to be fair here; Humes point was that Christianity offers a better vehicle to seek forgiveness and recover from infidelity ( whatever that means). And not that it could "save you from infidelity".

Simply "converting" won't make you more moral. Christianity does offer the element of forgiveness by God, however, the change comes from a mutual choice between God and you and your desire to have a relationship with God.

I find this idea fascinating because, although, yes, Christianity is supposed to be forgiving, in my experience different branches of Christianity are more or less forgiving of many things, particularly infidelity, although often more forgiving of men than women.

"But I don’t think irony is Hume’s strong suit."

That goes without saying. It's well known that conservative pundits think "irony" is the name of a rare bone disease.

I totally agree with you about so many considering Christianity as a default and that it fits everyone in the country, even the world. It is shocking to see a national news anchor say this on national television and I am embarrassed as a Christian to see this kind of press. Thank you for publishing this, it really got my riled up! :)

My favorite part in the last daily show clip, when Humes plays the victim card. Wow onto Christians who have been pushed round by everyone.

Read the latest news at http://tucsoncitizen.com/

It seems to me that anyone who belongs to any religion is likely to think that their religion is the best. If they did not think so, they would convert to a different religion. So, Christians think everyone should be Christian, Muslims think everyone should be Muslim, even Atheists think everyone should be Atheist.

It's obvious that Hume has this opinion, since he is a Christian. The only seemingly outrageous part is that he went against all convention and actually said so.

Judaism is "tolerant" of other religions with a bif IF.

if they accept their 7 noah laws, then they are cool. however, one of the laws prohibits idolatry and that would exclude any non-monotheism religion and a prohibition against blasphemy, and that one could include Christianity ( is calling jesus a son of god blasphemy?) among other religions.

all religions are exclusive by definition ( though some are less so to a degree).

religions do not have a monopoly on forgiveness. this is a human emotion and not a theological one.

So it's faith that offers forgiveness and redemption, not other people? Hmmm. As far as I can tell from reading various sundry religious texts, they're mostly all the same at their core but differ in their packaging. It's ironic in the extreme that they all have some kind of version of the "golden rule" but will fight to the death over how it's phrased. And to continue the irony, Buddhism is an exception to that since I don't recall any Buddhist Inquisitions or Crusade-type shenanigans attributed to it (probably because it's a philosophy more so than a religion).

I can see two distinct branches of religion in general; one is the spiritual element, and the other is the political. The political branch is a function of a religion being "organized" and is the root of a great many conflicts and assorted problems. The spiritual element is deeply personal, and can be attained independently of organized religion (and is probably easier to attain without political distractions, frankly). Either way, if everyone would just stop preaching and live according to the moral and ethical standards they claim to uphold (lead by example, like Jesus!) then the world would be a lot less annoying IMO. Less violent, too.

Quoting George from above: But if you don’t believe that objective spiritual truth exists then you must believe that all religions that do believe so are objectively wrong.

If objectivity does not exist (which it doesn't) then objective spiritual truth cannot exist either. However, that also means no religion can be "objectively" wrong. Things like "facts" are just reliably reproducible results from a given set of conditions and so are probabilistic as opposed to objective.

Shouldn’t those people should convert to your system of belief, at which point they will no longer be wrong and will therefore be happier?

How is a lack of a certain type of belief qualify a "system of belief?" Since objectivity is an abstract construct, adopting or shedding a belief is irrelevant except in the context of large groups of individuals who organize and politicize their spiritual beliefs so as to impose them on others. Creationism stickers in biology textbooks, anyone? And "happiness" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with belief or facts and can even be based on what more reasonable people would consider atrocities (like genocide; phrases like "The only good X [insert name of hated group here] is a dead X" come to mind). The more some people kill or destroy, the happier they get so happiness is probably not the best metric for big-picture analysis.

On the other hand, I guess I could say that other people 'converting' to a lack of belief can certainly help ME be happier if it means they'll stop legislating their superstitious morality and let me find God on my own.

I'm confused by his and other remarks - I didn't realize that turning to a religion based on what it "offers", as if there were some sort of logic to it.

Isn't the basis of all these religions that they are RIGHT, and therefore everyone should accept and trust their rules and processes to avoid the wrath of GOD? What does that have to do with what sort of forgiveness it "offers".

I have to wonder about the Christians who advocate joining their religion for it's "features".

I actually feel sorry for Tiger Woods.

And I could invoke any number of religiously charged terms to demonstrate the way I feel he is being treated.

I appreciate this as a constructive and valid discussion about religion, I just can't believe people are still talking about Tiger Woods.

Here I am, talking about Tiger Woods.

......?!

As a Hindu, the one thing that really made me uncomfortable in an otherwise great Daily Show sketch was when Aasif agreed that "Ganges does sound like something you would get from a whore." It's all well and good to point out the hypocrisy in Hume's (or anyone's) statements, but I didn't find it constructive to make a rude offhand statement about a sacred river in another religion in its conclusion.

There is a chance I am being too sensitive, but I'm not sure how. Can anyone explain to me another way to have interpreted Aasif's last statement? I felt he had been making rather clear cut and rational observations about the situation up until that point.

When they discussed the Ganges, they were satirizing the Fox News approach of discussing an issue. By saying “Ganges does sound like something you would get from a whore,” he's dryly pointing out how ridiculous Glenn Beck sounds.

I wish people could see that no religion is going to make a difference to anyone's morality. As long as your heart is the same, you will stay the same. That is what Jesus is all about. He is not a religion- He is God and He wants you to know Him on a personal level.