Secularism’s Drones ‘Sting’ Brit Hume
by Adam BaldwinOn Fox News Sunday, panelist Brit Hume offered a hopeful New Year’s message for the fallen Tiger Woods:
“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very open question… the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist, I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So, my message to Tiger would be: ‘Tiger, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.’”
As an avid golfer, Christian man, and therefore a witness to the historic fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Mr. Hume clearly offered his message in good faith with honest concern for both Tiger’s future and for that of his family, friends, fans and business associates.
Sadly however, some drones of Secularism have reflexively stomped on their Political Correctness brakes; stinging at Mr. Hume with personal demonization, as if he’d somehow committed a sin against their totalitarian faith:
Keith Olbermann: “This crosses that principle [of keeping] religious advocacy out of public life, since, you know, the worst examples of that are jihadists, not to mention, you know, guys who don’t know their own religions or somebody else’s religion, like Brit Hume.”
Dan Savage: “Whenever we have a discussion in our country about jihadism and radical Muslims, you always hear, ‘where are the moderate voices? Where are the moderate Muslims? Why don’t they speak up?’ Where are the moderate Liberal Progressive Christians when something like this happens?… American Christianity’s been hijacked by the lunatics [including] people like Brit Hume.”
Comparing Christians that preach the Word to actual lunatic jihadists whose sole mission is to kill those who are non believers is beyond reprehensible. It’s almost as if they want make Mr. Hume an ‘Un-person’.
Forgiving all that for now as merely clumsy bombast, their point — and others’ like Tom Shales is clearly to intimidate Americans. It is to thwart and punish people who speak publicly in Jesus’ name. It is to force people into adhering to Secularism’s unwritten rulebook and principles, not the Bible or First Amendment — whither the Free Exercise Clause?
Remember the uproar in the Ivory Towers when candidate George W. Bush dared to claim that his favorite philosopher was Christ? Here, there, samey-same.
Secularism conveniently provides its followers a comfort of religious (and/or political) false-neutrality.
But, Secularism is not an impartial philosophy, it is an ardent competitor in the arena of ideas, and must be treated accordingly.
Hunter Baker defines Secularism as “a radical concept that involves the privatization of religious belief: [i.e.] when we are together in the public square, if we are ‘virtuous and civil’ then we will not speak of religion at all, we will confine it to our private lives and presumably – many elites believe – when we do that, religious belief will eventually disappear.”
From their scornful pedestals, Secularism’s faithful entitle themselves to preach intolerance towards varying viewpoints as a means to stifle civil public discourse into one party rule.
Mr. Savage scolds, “we’ve got to stop, we’ve got to deescalate this rhetoric and the rhetorical war pitting one religion against another religion,” yet his radical rhetoric is self-inoculated because he somehow believes his secular faith to be the referee.
Mr. Olbermann smarts, “is it not in the interest of people of faith to avoid this kind of public proselytizing, I mean, the smart ones get that it just makes them look bad no matter what the thought might be?”
How smart is that, really?
Perhaps when Messrs. Olbermann, Savage et al. next gaze in their mirrors, they’ll realize their vulgar jihadist comparisons and smug rhetorical hypocrisies are both illogical, and utterly self-defeating.
How did America arrive at the disgraceful crossroad where “Elton Trueblood’s Cut Flower Civilization thesis may well be in danger of fully manifesting itself”?
I sure hope we make the right turn.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
261 Comments
Succinct and well written, kudos.
To Savage, Olbermann, et. al.:
All religions may be wrong, but they cannot all be correct.
If they are all wrong…then go nuts, do whatever you want because ultimately it doesn't matter. But each religion, faith tradition, spirituality and belief system states things that are in conflict with others and therefore cannot all be correct.
As for Buddhism…it comes fairly close to nihilism and is therefore very popular in the postmodern west.
Sad but not surprising.
Jesus said in John 15:18-19, "If the world hates you, be aware that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love you as its own.
Do you really fel that Tiger Woods needs the forgiveness of Jesus more than the forgiveness of his wife? Do you really not think that converting to christianity would be a cheap cop out? Do you really feel that religion had any place or merit in that discussion?
You believe Jesus is real. That's your right (though how it makes the ressurection a historical fact is beyond me). And I can see that from within that perspective you'd consider Jesus to have plenty to offer Tiger in the next world. But here in this world Tiger needs to deal with his family, not his faith.
Believers are quick to claim religion is "personal" when it suits them, but belongs in the public sphere when that suits them too.
Keep your Jesus personal
thanks Mr. Baldwin for standing up with a voice of reason…intolerance for the sake of tolerance has been their battle cry for far too long and yet not many call them on it. To many have become blind to the "new tolerance" and it's glaring hypocricy. It's a great article, and this believer thanks you.
Jarred
Excellent analysis, and from an interesting angle. It's interesting that those that claim to have no religion don't see that position as a religious position. They proselytize just like Christians do, but they fail to see the irony in demanding that Christians remove their views from the "public square." Brit was not reporting news, he wasn't trying to be objective. He was giving an opinion. Anyone that has been saved by the grace of Christ that sees someone go through what Tiger is going through knows that the answer to all of Tiger's needs is at the Cross of Christ. It's unsurprising that a Christian would suggest this.
Can't wait for 2 hours of Chuck, Casey, and Sarah on Sunday night. Thanks for giving us an unashamedly pro-American agent that loves his country.
Remember the uproar in the Ivory Towers when candidate George W. Bush dared to claim that his favorite philosopher was Christ? Here, there, samey-same.
When that happened I wanted to reach into my TV and newspaper and just shake some sense into these idiots.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a book entitled "“The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth."
These modern liberals thought they were so smarmy and sophisticated, while Bush just had to be so dumb. The left-leaning MSM are full of idiots who aren't even smart enough to know they don't know everything.
Look, obviously Brit would be a far better, calmer, more compassionate, more peaceful person if he just converted to Buddhism. Christianity just doesn't offer the sort of calm equanimity and detached loving-kindness that Buddhists have.
Mr Hume's comments could be construed as offputting…
Unless you heard the man- the sincerity in his voice and goodwill towards the lost soul that occupies Tiger Wood's body was palpable.
We expect heathens like Olbermann to react as he did; no surprise there. But Britt Hume is a class act, no doubt about it, and he meant well.
Good enough for Mr Baldwin- and us as well…
I think Mr. Hume's point is that faith and family can go hand in hand but that Tiger's mistakes were his own and he needs find a way to fix himself personally in order to have any chance to save his family. By the way, "keep your Jesus personal" sounds a little like hide your Jesus. Reread the descriptions of "Secularism" in the article and see why followers of Christ are probably not interested in that concept.
Brit offered the idea of Christianity to Tiger. He didn't decapitate him for having a different religion.
Olbie, you are The Dumbest Person In The World.
There is something that you apparently don't understand — Christians believe that Jesus has plenty to offer Tiger in THIS world, not just the next. So it's quite reasonable for a Christian to suggest what Hume suggested. And yes, Tiger does need Jesus's forgiveness more than his wifes. Not to discount the importance of his wife's forgiveness, though. But one has eternal signifigance while the other does not.
You don't seem concerned about keeping you non-faith (I presume) personal. So why do you ask me to keep my Jesus that way? That was the whole point of Adam's article. It hypocritical to expect others to do what you clearly don't choose to do yourself.
I think the point is that all believers will thank him, and that's where the "where are the moderate christians" question comes from. After all, if you believe Jesus is real, and the ressurection is a historical fact (as Adam Baldwin seems to) then it is easy to see how this was a well intentioned man reaching out to another human being,
but we dont live in a world where everyone believes that. We live in a world where people have all sorts of beliefs, and your country expressly forbids itself (wisely) from favouring any one belief in particular.
Tiger has a faith, Buddhism, and Brit Hume implicitly was saying that Christianity was "better", why? because it i the faith he beleves in. But every faith has its believers, and they'll all claim the high ground for it.
I guess this is a mountain of perspective we probably cant scale. I respect Adam Baldwin, but I know I have difficulty trying to understand his perspective, so maybe mine seems just as inexplicable from the other side.
We all disagree about the next world, but we live in this one, cant we concentrate on this one then?
The healing he *might* find with family is forgiveness for the acts of betrayal. The healing he could find from a source of faith will be the reason he will really "mean" what he says in the way of sorrow and apology and be able to live with himself, avert further self destruction and cruelty toward others. The game will benefit too, although it might be strictly charitable once his eyes and heart are opened to true purpose.
NO WAY! I too tried to keep my religion personal, but everywhere Atheists speak out against Christianity, in the guise of "religion causes all war", forgetting that Man causes all wars. Even our kids are being taught that religion (aka Christianity) is bad. In our schools! ____Your claim for us to keep it 'personal' is exactly the FIGHT. It is EXACTLY what Christianity is going up against since Jesus began teaching.
Sorry, but in this case – I think Britt was wrong.
First, it's bad theology and worse faith. Christianity isn't unique in the idea that humans are flawed and there are ways to deal with bad decisions and rebuild. The method may differ, and as a Christian I believe in what my faith says in how to deal with this, but to claim that ONLY Christianity gives the ability to get forgiveness is just false. Worse – faith is a belief in how the world works, in the greater realities. "Hey, if you switch to Christianity, we can make it all better" is a lousy reason to give up ones beliefs. There are belief systems that Tiger could adopt that says that what he did was just fine, that's got even better benefits, so by that reason, THAT's the belief system he should adopt.
More importantly – one's faith, their view of the greater world and right and wrong and our place in it, is one of the most personal aspects that exist. Some choose to make it public, and if at some day in the future, Tiger were to become a Christian and speak publicly of how it affected his life, that would be his choice. Britt, who doesn't know Tiger personally, has no idea where his mind is at, what he truely believes, had no right to publicly exhort Tiger to change religions.
If someone were to publicly tell you to give up your Christianity, even with the best of intentions, how would you feel? What's the difference between that and this case, except Britt happened to be pushing the faith you hold?
Look, if you had a terrible event happen to you (as Brit Hume did), and you found comfort in something, whatever that might be (as Brit Hume found comfort in his Christian faith), then what the heck is wrong with offering that same comfort to someone else? Christianity does have a forgiveness aspect as an integral part that is not present in other faiths. Of course, Tiger Woods needs the forgiveness of his wife, but he might not get it. Christians believe that God forgives everything, and sometimes that can make all the difference in how an individual deals with adversity. There's really no need to get all snarky about Brit Hume's suggestion, which was made, as far as I could tell from watching it, in a spirit of goodwill and with all sincerity.
The USA is the most charitable nation in the history of mankind. It is 90% Christian & founded in Judeo-Christian principlies.
I didn't hear the first remarks by Mr. Hume. I only heard his follow-up remarks and they were quite logical, humble and appealing to Tiger in redemption. If you are redeemed by Christ, then you are at peace in this world. It leads to being a better husband and father as well if your faith is in a Creator and not in the created. The answer is not to have faith in this world, for it is fallen. Forgiveness from his wife comes when she knows Tiger is sincere. Giving yourself to Christ is the most humble act a man can do, because it means turning over control and releasing Christ in you.
you just want us to surrender. so atheists can spread. that's all you want.
You do understand Mr. Baldwin, the only opinion that matters is that of the secular leftist, at least in their minds. Brit Hume simply offered advice or “a” path of redemption for Tiger and perhaps save his family. It would appear that the life of cocaine, caviar, and wild women is not working out so well for the young father/husband, we’ll see.
Somehow I just knew that was going to be too subtle.
But where's your starting point? On what grounds do you begin talking about what good things mean in "this world"? That was the point of the Cut Flowers Civilization link (which totally rocks my world, that Jayne/Casey is familiar with the Cut Flowers thesis.)
And yes, Hume was saying that Christianity is "better". Yes, adherents of a religion will all say their religion is "better" (although some will opt for "true" instead.) And? Mere disagreement on an issue does not mean the issue is impossible to resolve or that no one has the right answer. Furthermore, I can acknowledge that others disagree while firmly and forthrightly believing in my own culture. The mere fact of competing cultures does not entail that I be timid and tentative about the virtues of my culture. Indeed, that misguided belief helps a culture die.
I got ya.
While I agree with you that it was a strange thought by Mr. Hume, I believe he was referring more to the standard Christian model admission-penance-redemption-forgiveness.
And that would necessitate his family's participation because he's asking them for redemption.
And this statement kind stuck out for me:
Believers are quick to claim religion is "personal" when it suits them, but belongs in the public sphere when that suits them too.
That lumps every person in America (and last I heard that would be about 75% or so of your fellow Americans) into a single stereotype. How do you know the next silent stranger you run into isn't a Bible thumper through and through?
One last thought, in order to keep "your Jesus personal" kind of demands speaking up on the subject.
He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." MK 16:15
And we get to eat hamburgers.
Wait, is that Hinduism?
replying to Steve, but also Scott and Ron, I just dont want to spam you by repeating myself…
Obviously my preference would be if faith was personal. Yes I am a person without faith, but there are many people in my life who would not know that because I dont push it on them. It is part of who I am, but it isnt everything about me.
I used to be christian and I know your God commands you to preach. Or certainly did approx 2000 years ago. I'm sure by now the actual gospel story is pretty well known so I'd say it'd be better for you guys to live a good example of why christianity is better than to preach on street corners.
I also knew I was jumping into trouble posting on a piece about religion, on a right of centre blog. But I got 3 thumbs down in 20 minutes for a comment in which I was fairly plite and respectful. FYI I will not be thumbing you guys down just for thinking differently to me.
I am afraid the idea that Jesus' forgiveness trumps his wife's is beyond me. It seems like a "get out of jail free" card.
I'm not in the US so I dont know your schools, but from the stories that make it out schools are more likely to be unconstitutionally pro christian than unconstitutionally anti christian.
Peace, good luck, and I await my thumbs down with what grace I can salvage
i like buddhist.. i dont have a problem with buddhist & their self unselfness. and your ever knowing of not knowing that makes you so briliant. but still… Christianity just rocks. in all of its good bad tragedy and joy, Christianity is the last bastion of freedom & liberty in the world…. UNLESS you know of a Buddhist nation you'd just LOVE to raise your family in?
what other faith of forgiveness do you refer to?
and again, you're telling Christians to shut up.
Any faith shouldn't come from a place of atonement, but a place of actually feeling that faith. Otherwise it's not real, it's instead a sort of appeasement, kind of like sacrificing a bull at an altar and saying "Gee, I'm sorry." I'm secular because I don't feel that faith, but folks who do, I think they're probably happier and more fulfilled. The problem to me with Brit Hume's message wasn't in that he was honestly speaking from his heart, which he was, but instead the way it was meant – the way I took it anyhow – "Turn to this religion and you'll find forgiveness, and all will be right." No. If you're going to find any faith, it shouldn't be because you're trying to make up for something. It's not going to stick that way, it's not going to be as meaningful. I don't see anyone else anywhere making this point – I see sneering at the religious, and then the sneering at the sneering of the non religious, and whole matter of actual faith is kind of being shunted aside in place of some sort of war of words that are just meaningless – totally without any real intrinsic meaning here. Faith is emotional.. so it's an emotional discussion, it's not going to come from logic or wordsmithing or reason. And I know Adam Baldwin disagrees, I follow his Tweets (very happily), but I don't see the two as reconcilable – faith and reason. I don't see that as necessarily WRONG, either. I understand the anger at the overweening sort of cackling at religion. I also see a problem with casting ALL reason aside to BE religious – the world is NOT 6,000 years old, damnit. But the two can meet, and a lot of people, scientists included, have managed to reconcile the two. It's just too bad that the media seems to be trying to split it all up so ferociously that people feel they ought to "take sides". The twain CAN meet, if people stop casting aspersions all over the place and become more tolerant.. and that includes the left AND right, both of them claiming tolerance, while having very little.
It is very possible that Hume was not saying that Christianity is "better" but "different". Theologically speaking, Hume was correct: Buddhism's journey is not one of sin to redemption from sin, but one of freeing oneself from attachments on the way to enlightenment. [If there is a more accurate one-sentence description of Buddhism, please feel free to substitute it for the previous sentence. - GR] It has no grammar in regards to "redemption", as it has no real grammar in regards to "sin".
Buddhism also differs from Christianity in that its primary focus in achieving its ends (enlightenment) is in one's relationship with oneself, whereas in classical Christianity, the health of one's soul is largely reflected in one's relationship with others (i.e. The Golden Rule, most of the Beatitudes, etc.). There is no cause nor need to read in to the words of someone pointing out these facts a claim that Christianity is "better" than Buddhism, only that the goals being pursued – along with the framework in which they are pursued – are entirely different. Hume felt that the grammer of sin and redemption from sin – especially in relation with others (like his wife) – would be more useful to someone who has put himself in the mess that Mr. Woods has. That's all. Being respectful of other faiths does not require me (or Mr. Hume) to pretend that all faiths are alike.
Comparing Christians that preach the Word to actual lunatic jihadists whose sole mission is to kill those who are non believers is beyond reprehensible — You've obviously forgotten that jihadists kill as many believers as unbelievers… so the comparison is even more ridiculous.
Where did Hume say that "only" Christianity would work for Tiger? I think you're reading something that isn't there. Furthermore, I gotta wonder about your recommendation that Woods look for a belief system that gives him better benefits. Something seems off about shopping for a faith like you do a car.
Why in the world does Hume not have a right to publicly exhort Woods to change religions? Just because something is intensely personal to one person does not entail that everyone else must be gagged on the topic. Perhaps I would not "feel" happy if you publicly exhorted me to give up my Christianity, but so what? I'm an adult, and I can choose to reject or follow your advice. I'm not so tender that I'll collapse upon someone giving me public advice.
what other religion offers forgiveness & redemption?
are you actually a Christian? you don't believe someone coming to the faith is better than all other belief systems? so speaking of God's love, the good works of Christ is insulting?
Given that I'm a Christian myself, unlikely. And yes, Buddhism has its own practice towards forgiveness.
Again, I'm completely in favor of those who talk about what their religion has done for them. I know Britt's faith helped him through some very tough situations, and I think it's completely appropriate, in public as well as in private, for him to talk about it. And as a general statement, saying what one believes can come from giving oneself to Christ is wonderful. But to say, on a national broadcast, to someone who he doesn't know, "you should change your faith", is wrong. I'd say whether it's advising for Christianity, for Buddhism, for Scientology, for Atheism.
Hi Chris, risking yet more thums down, but I think you were genuinely asking me so it'd be rude not to reply.
Perhaps I am in a way supporting Adam Baldwin's point. After all I only found this post (and follow him on twitter) becaus I think he seems like an intelligent and interesting person who might say things wort reading. I cant always understand his perspective, and that's part of what my original reply was meant to address.
To answer you then. I have no desire to arbirtrate what people can say or believe, or (to quote a tweet) to yuck their yums. I'm vegitarian, but you can eat all the beef you want, just dont expect me to join in. If I'd been on the show I'd have focused my response on his relationship with his family. You think that is excessively secular perhaps? But I simply would not have been bringing religion into the discussion. I am not bringing a whole host of topics that interest me into this discussion. For example none of my posts have addresses the type of books I enjoy reading, or my favourite time of year. An anti religious response would be something like "Tiger is a Buddhist, which is ridiculos in a public figure" but I'd never say that except in parody.
Let me try to put it another way. It is not that only one type of response is valid. But I'd hope to get more done by building from what we can agree on than by locking horns and entrenching over what we dont.
I dont know you Chris, but if I met you in a bar I'd hope we would look for common interests as well as disagreements, and ,sure, I expect you'd tell me I was wrong about Jesus, but I bet there'd be more to the converstaion than just that.
mmmm…tasty Brahma burgers…..
/ What Mike said. Plus a few musings of my own.
Cards on the table; I'm a Christian and an ordained Interfaith minister. I have found much to inspire me in most of the major spiritual paths. Buddhism does have an understanding of redemption and forgiveness; in fact most of the major faiths have a way of dealing with 'sin'.
It may benefit Tiger Woods to convert, it may not. That's a decision only he can make.
Mr Hulme is perfectly entitled, as a Christian, to extend the possibility of conversion and faith in Jesus Christ.
I wonder what would have happened if a Hindu had spoken? A rabbi? A Druid? A Native American shaman?
I owe you a thumbs up, I hit the wrong one. Sorry,
Faith or no faith, Christian or Buddhist, the current trend in todays society is to squelch what used to be our founding principles of Christianity. Keith Olberman is a self-centered, egotistical blowhard that believe the universe rotates around him. His exhortation that "This crosses that principle [of keeping] religious advocacy out of public life, …” is so full of crap. Since when did that become a principle? Since when did living a Christian life in public become a bad thing? I congratulate Brit Hume for his willingness to offer Christianity as an avenue for Tiger to reconcile his life. Obviously Tiger has a lot of "demons" to overcome and if he can't do it through his faith, whatever he may choose, then that is his problem to deal with.
I tried not to come across as snarky and I specifically mentioned that I could see how from a christian believer's perspective (ie what I imagine Brit Hume intended) that it was an attempt by one human being to reach out to another.
I'm trying to engage with you guys here. I can see you dont see what the fuss was about so I tried to share an opposing view in as polite a way as I could.
Judging by all the thumbs down I didn't succeed to well, or the way I think just inherently offends here.
No worries, I've seen the same in reverse on youtube so…
To clarify. I do not believe Brit Hume is a bad or vindictive man. I believe him when he says he didn't see himself as prostelitising [never had to spell that before, sure I got it wrong]
I don't think a thumbs down means we are coming for your life. I believe a thumbs down to be at least as polite as telling people you don't believe their God exists.
I thumbs downed you because I disagree with what you wrote.
I'm pretty happy with Singapore in general. Mostly actually pretty libertarian in important ways, pretty, good food. Little tough on chewing gum.
How thoughtful of Mr. Olbermann to be concerned that Christians don't look bad by proselytizing. I've only seen segments of his show a couple times, but it seems to me that he sure does proselytize about what he believes. Of course, he wouldn't see it as such. Those pushing the humanist/secularist agenda believe it's okay for them to do so, not realizing that they are pushing a faith just as much as anyone else. It's okay because they're so much smarter than the rest of us. They're just trying to help out us dumb folks.
If one truly believes in their faith, I mean REALLY believes it's true, then why would they care about how they look to others? Keith Olbermann et al have demonstrated for us that it's okay to push your beliefs on others.
So, go ahead Mr. Hume, share your faith. Mr. Baldwin, ditto.
Peace out. <><
Part of it's the old Golden Rule, Do Unto Others As You'd Have Them Do Unto You. I'd be highly offended if, say, Bill Mahr were to say "You know, GadgetDon would really be so much better without all that guilt and those restrictions if he was just to give up that religion he believes in." Would Bill Mahr have the right to say that? Yes, but doesn't make it right.
And given the way that I'd react – I doubt that the desired goal (of having Tiger give himself to Christ) was helped much.
No thumbs down from me, for what its worth. Living a good example, or as best we can, is certainly an excellent way to share our faith with others. Its something I aspire to do. But being silent about our faith would make no sense either. I believe I've learned the most amazing news in the history of the world, and I should just keep it to myself? If I truly believe there is salvation for my neighbor, I think I would have to be a grade-A jerk to not tell him about it. Heck, I tell my co-workers when there's a coupon for the cafeteria and my faith is a bit more important than that. Harrassing people about it or that old "throat shoving" method…of course not. Doing it out of respect, as I would want to be treated, absolutely. But for some, having a Bible within sight constitutes "throat shoving".
Whatever you choose to do in your life, do you want people telling you you shouldn't express your thoughts on faith publicly? I assume you'd like that option. And as a Christian, so do I.
Okay, I'll play along and ask questions I already know the answer to…
Where, exactly, do the condemnations of "secularism" fit into this particular scenario? Woods isn't an Atheist, and Hume wasn't talking about lack of belief. He was talking Buddhism vs. Christianity, religion vs. religion.
I don't care WHICH two faiths are in play here, or whether or not anyone has the right to say something: In terms of basic Manners 101 decency, Hume was way out of line. It doesn't matter how "compassionately" he sounded when he said it, ANY variation on "his religion isn't gonna work for him, mine would be better" is just GAUCHE. This is the sort of thing a mother slaps a six-year old for doing in public, not the behavior of an adult professional.
Believers are quick to claim religion is "personal" when it suits them, but belongs in the public sphere when that suits them too.
The sheer ignorance of that statement defies belief.
I believe that abusing dogs is wrong. I don't say abusing dogs is wrong because that is what my neighbor believes, I say it because it is my personal belief.
According to you, personal beliefs do not belong in the public sphere. That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.
Regarding the rest of your post and your grasp of Jesus and Christianity; you don't have a clue. Really, it's best to refrain from speaking about something you have no understanding of.
BTW – I'm not saying Britt was a bad person for doing it, had bad motives. I'm sure he was giving heartfelt advice that he believed honestly, and meant it with the best of intentions. And many of the reactions made are beyond the pale.
I just think that it's not a good idea to publicly provide specific personal religious advice.
I can more-or-less agree with this assessment, save that you're missing the key point of this whole dust-up: Hume didn't just offer the comforts of his own faith to Woods, he made a point of first declaring the faith Woods already has to be inadequate. Does he have a right to say that? Of course he does… and I have the right to point out that it's simply a RUDE, uncouth way for a grown man to act.
"Where are the moderate Liberal Progressive Christians when something like this happens?"
That's a trick question. There's no such thing as a moderate "liberal progressive" or, for that matter, a "liberal progressive Christian". Self-identified Liberal Progressives who claim to be Christians invariably don't believe in any of the tenets of Christianity, such as the Ten Commandments, or the even the concept of sin. In fact, the only thing in the Bible that Liberal Progressives really believe in is that Jesus didn't throw stones at a whore, which they constantly point to in order to justify whatever new form of depravity they've concocted. So when folks like Dan Savage and Olberrman complain about Christianity being "hijacked" by the likes of Brit Hume, what they really mean is that the Christian religion would be more to their liking if there weren't so many Christians in it.
I more meant – pick a side. Is it personal and so nobody else's business, or is it public.
But I am more than a little unwelcome here, you are not wrong about that. I just thought I mght ask a few questions and see how the other side thinks.
MovieBob: Well, at least we've got you on record endorsing corporal punishment for children.
To the larger point: I think the reason the rest of the media are invoking separation of church and state is that they believe the media are a branch of the current government. (They certainly act that way.) And so, in their minds, Brit Hume's comments were a violation of the Constitution.
I appreciate your comments which is why my previous reply was neither snarky or otherwise mean spirited. I also didn't give you any thumbs down.
My comments were framed in the sense of individual liberties and the comfort people can derive from their faith (be it Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Judaism, etc.). As evident with millions upon millions of Christians, if they find salvation with Christ, it should come naturally that they should want to spread the Word. That strikes me as intrinsic to the faith. Otherwise, couldn't they be considered selfish to withhold their beliefs from others if they were so helpful for themselves?
Simplified: I don't tell Keith Olbermann what he should or should not say so what makes him think that he should tell Hume?
Also, I'm not necessarily a believer but I will always hold out hope for myself.
Singularly Buddhist? Can't think of one… though Japan splits between Buddhism and Shintoism with a sprinkling of Christianity and it seems to work for them just fine.
Amen.
I have to agree. The problem with Hume's statement is that he sought to elevate one religion above the other. Regardless of what one's belief is, you should never try to assert that your beliefs are better, or more complete than someone else's, unless you've spoken to that person directly, and know precisely what they believe.
EDIT: I agree that Mr. Hume's assertion was poorly informed. That is all I'm agreeing with from MovieBob.
But I simply would not have been bringing religion into the discussion.
The point though is that Mr. Hume was asked what should Tiger do to get his life straightened out and he offered his view on the matter. Why should that require a non-religious response? His response was pertinent to the question. He didn't give the response in answer to a question about Tiger's golf swing.
The problem with your view is that in the end it results in we can never bring up religion unless it is in a completely religious context. Why is a non-religious answer better than a religious one? How is it that your response is better than the one give? You seem to be making the point that your response would not be divisive. Right now though, your general comment (and I know you didn't want to get detailed) while sounding nice can run into trouble with the details. Let's say your response would have been "Tiger should dump his wife, move on, and live the bachelor wild life." I'm sure that would have caused a stir without any religion involved.
In the end you are simply saying that religion is divisive, so don't mention it. It's hard to determine what we agree on when on side declares certain discussions verboten.
GG,
I'd say you're very welcome here. You just triggered over a dozen replies to your comment, mostly disagreeable but also mostly sincere, with no charges of racism, anti-Americanism, no your-mother-is-a-blank jokes. You stimulated a good conversation.
Otherwise we just hang around and e-high five each other for agreeing.
For all this talk about whether or not non-Christians approve of a Christian inviting a Buddhist to his faith, I dont see any of the nay-sayers of Christianity applying their logic to Islam. Try and tell THEM not to say their faith is superior and I'll enjoy watching them laugh in your face. Will you then lecture them the way youve been trying to lecture Brit Hume?
I think not.
Considering that secularist institutions in China and the old Soviet Unions are responsible for the killing many millions, and the torture of countless believers of both Christianity and Buddhism, I am surprised KO and DS had the guts to actually pretend that evangelizing publicly is even similar to Jihad.
Do you really fel that Tiger Woods needs the forgiveness of Jesus more than the forgiveness of his wife?
This is not a mutually exclusive endeavor.
Do you really not think that converting to christianity would be a cheap cop out?
Only if he did it as a cheap cop out. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is pandering or trying to get out of a tough spot. If he's sincere, it's no cop out at all.
Do you really feel that religion had any place or merit in that discussion?
Of course it does. Religion is traditionally a source of moral foundation. The immorality of marrying someone and then sleeping with others numbering in the double digits is questionable. One does wonder what Tiger is taking away from his Buddhist faith when he goes on like this. Not that Buddhism is teaching him this, but that he's misunderstanding or even ignoring the moral underpinnings of his religion.
You believe Jesus is real. That's your right (though how it makes the ressurection a historical fact is beyond me).
Way to state the obvious. I suspect there are a lot of things beyond you, yet they still exist.
And I can see that from within that perspective you'd consider Jesus to have plenty to offer Tiger in the next world. But here in this world Tiger needs to deal with his family, not his faith.
Again, not mutually exclusive endeavors.
Believers are quick to claim religion is "personal" when it suits them, but belongs in the public sphere when that suits them too.
Keep your Jesus personal
Nice broad brush. Faith being a personal pursuit (as all religions are personal for each and every individual) doesn't mean it can't be spoken of in public. Again, you're bringing up issues that are not mutually exclusive. My faith can be personal to me even as I might apply it in a public way.
I will not hide my religion because your religion (secularism) demands that I do so. But then, leftists have many totalitarian demands. Keep your tyranny personal.
We live in a world where people have all sorts of beliefs, and your country expressly forbids itself (wisely) from favouring any one belief in particular.
What the heck are you talking about? Brit Hume isn't speaking for our country.Our country holds free speech in high esteem. We can even freely speak out against our country. Furthermore, there is no such thing as freedom from religion. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I have no religion and no demands to make of you. I'm trying to ask questions, and I was hoping to build some kind of mutual understanding.
I think the point is that all believers will thank him, and that's where the "where are the moderate christians" question comes from. After all, if you believe Jesus is real, and the ressurection is a historical fact (as Adam Baldwin seems to) then it is easy to see how this was a well intentioned man reaching out to another human being, but we dont live in a world where everyone believes that. We live in a world where people have all sorts of beliefs, and your country expressly forbids itself (wisely) from favouring any one belief in particular.
Brit Hume is a private citizen with all the rights of the Constitution. He can espouse any religion he wants any time he wants. If he loses Fox ratings they can can him. What you seem to be demanding is a form of censorship. Not surprising. Leftists often demand that people they disagree with STFU.
Tiger has a faith, Buddhism, and Brit Hume implicitly was saying that Christianity was "better", why? because it i the faith he beleves in. But every faith has its believers, and they'll all claim the high ground for it.
Brit Hume may believe that Buddhism (or the way Tiger understands it) is not helping him. In that case, he's simply offering an alternative to something that is failing Tiger Woods at this time. Yes, he did make a negative comparison. Free country.
I guess this is a mountain of perspective we probably cant scale. I respect Adam Baldwin, but I know I have difficulty trying to understand his perspective, so maybe mine seems just as inexplicable from the other side.
Not everyone is obtuse just because you are.
We all disagree about the next world, but we live in this one, cant we concentrate on this one then?
As I said multiple times in response to your above post: these are not mutually exclusive endeavors.
Oh and Buddhists don't care how many bimbos you have on the side either!
a few things…
no doubt there are more folk of a Christian stripe here than not, but they (we) are a forgiving lot. No harm, no foul. Mr Hume did go into territory we would have avoided but it was an op-ed piece, he is a fine man and is entitled to his views.
US schools are more anit-Christian than pro…
And we knew you to be across the pond straight away. No one there believes in God; hasn't for decades. Too comfortable from Yank protection for the last 50 years- soon your faith will be tested as well by your booming Islamic population. Either way, good luck…
It is really bizzar that you would comment on this piece with so little understanding of the faith you once claimed…It is equally bizzar that you use the work Peace as if there could be such a thing without God. I believe you need to re-evaluate your lack of faith because you clearly did not hear the gospel of truth. Jesus does not "forgive" Tiger, he is Tiger's forgiveness to his God (and yes, whether you like it or not, He is all of our God) and subsequently the only way Tiger can truly understand his sinfulness and shaming of his wife. There is no moral code with out God…
Keep your Jesus personal
No.
Which is, of course, why "refrain from sexual misconduct" is one of the Precepts.
Thanks Steve, it is a breath of fresh air to have a reply that doesn't assume I am a troll
Stepping into Adam Baldwin's blog clearly means I will not be getting a 74p by my name in Intense Debate anytime soon.
I'm interested in how the idea of individual liberties matches up with spreading the gospel. Like you said about Olberman and Hume, who are any of us to tell anyone what to believe.But then how can any of us get anything done if we cant talk to others about the things that are important to us? Kind of a catch 22. I'm definitely not interested in imposing any kind of tyranny, and I love my (and other people's) freedoms as much as anyone.
I think Conservatives seem to have a stereotype about what people on the other side are like, and God knows that as a liberal vegetarian atheist I've probably not done my part to dispell that image in AB's readers' minds. And I know you guys are saddled with a stereotype too on the blogs I more usually comment on (what ever they might be!)
Stereotypes aside. I only came here to see what you guys had to say from your own point of view. I'm not even in the US so I hear about your big debates at a remove and sometimes wonder what all the fuss is about. I know you guys dont see yourselves as the stereotype, or at least I assume so, maybe some take pride in it?
I knew I wouldn't agree with everyhing Adam Baldwin said, but I knew it would be genuine. I'd seen this issue discussed by the people on "my" side but I knew your side must see it in entirely different terms. I dont need to agree with the man to respect him.
At least that's my take on it
Brit Hume was offering advice. He didn't say anything nasty about Tiger or his faith but offered what he thought was a better path. There have been many in the pubic arena who have said horrible things about another person but yet their right to say so is defended. As others have commented, if he had been talking about any religion other than Christianity I don't think there would be such an uproar. For the most part Christians realize that the greatest gift God has given to man is that of free will. Ultimately it is up to each individual to decide what path they choose. Don't even get me started on the reactions of Olby & his ilk. How dare they compare this to teachings or radical Jihadists. If & when I discuss my faith with people I always do so in a respectful manner. Today it is a brave person who openly discusses their Christian faith because you know this is the kind of reaction you will get. It seems the right of free speech is reserved for everybody BUT those of us with traditional Christian values. The comments made by those on the "left" in response to this are a lot more hateful than the original comments justify.__May God bless you Mr Baldwin____Yvonne
What he said was that Buddism does not have a forgiveness tradition. Maybe that can be read as an accusation of inadequacy, and I don't know enough about Buddhism to know if it's true or not. If it's true, then Mr. Hume simply expressed a fact and offered an alternative.
Gordon, I appreciate your responses and effort at dialogue.
Agree 100%. I like Brit Hume and consider him less biased than the typical MSM commentator/news-reader but this was stepping over the line. Saying Tiger Wood's religion was less adequate than Hume's.
Plain stupid of Hume. I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant well, but most left-wingers mean well also and are no less misguided for that.
Of Course you have a "religion" it just happens not to be Chrisitianity. You practice non-Christianity everyday by not attempting to keep God's commandments and not recognizing your need for a Savior as you (nor I) will ever be able to.
You are certainly making demands of me when you want me to hide my faith in Christ and believe in God.
Mutual understanding is a two way street. Christianity is not about what Tiger or his wife did or want…it is about what BOTH of them need. A cleansing of transgretion for all time as we know it.
Tiger should convert to my religion, the way of Tango Pango. Then he could find his way through the first three circles of disorder into the land of contentment and beyond.
"I'm not in the US so I dont know your schools, but from the stories that make it out schools are more likely to be unconstitutionally pro christian than unconstitutionally anti christian."
There is no clause in the constitution regarding Chrisitanity. Maybe you mean this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where does it say Christianity? Your words betray you, you anti Christian!
Responding to Keith O: I know of no accepted principle keeping religious advocacy out of public life. The principle he claims is in place has been unilaterally developed by those who wish not to hear the Christian message. Christians have not accepted this idea as a principle and Keith can not reasonably expect us to do so. Of course, he can continue to pursue his present philosophy, but it behooves him to understand that to do so is UNreasonable. Therefore, he should accept that he will face disappointment, if not agitation, pretty much every day for the rest of his life.
Excellent! That hit the nail on the head.
The problem with what Brit Hume said is because it conflicts with the central heart of Christianity. One must be very humble when giving advice to another, especially if not asked for. Remove the plank from they own eye before removing a speck in another's.
Also this notion about simply saying one is a Christian needs to be addressed. You are not saved by saying you are Christian but instead by living as a Christian.
As a Catholic I was instantly disgusted by what Mr. Hume said there. I don't know much about Buddhism, and I suppose Mr. Hume doesn't either. All I know is that if a buddhist were telling TIger Woods to convert to Buddhism over Christianity I would be offended. And that my friends is the only rule that Jesus gave us, Do unto others as you would have them do to you.
Hi @GordonGoblin,
First, I wouldn't worry too much of how many thumbs up/thumbs down points you get. Adam Baldwin would probably be one of the first to tell you, "Other people's opinion of me is none of my business."
Second, I think individual liberties match up just fine with spreading the word of the Gospel (or even tenants of different religions). If you did not have individual liberty of freedom of speech, I doubt you'd go far in spreading the word. And IMO, Mr. Humes was not telling Mr. Woods what to believe, but suggesting a different avenue, based on what he believes is best. Kind of like the difference of saying, "You can't wear that" to "I like this color shirt on you, maybe you should try it." Mr. Oblermann, it seems to me, jumped at Mr. Humes' comments based on interpreting it along the lines of the former rather than latter.
To me, the beauty of the First Amendment is that is protects people when discussing religion, to the extent that it doesn't harm anyone. I'd be the first to advocate for a honest discussion about religions, but not necessarily to convert anyone. The more information you have at your disposal, the easier it is to find what is right for you.
Mr Baldwin,
You continue to truly impress me with your written word. I can not express in words how rewarding it is to hear this level of cognitive commentary from "the man they call Jayne".
Warm regards,
Bob and Donna Cash
I don't doubt Hume's faith or his good intentions in offering his advice to Tiger. I do dispute his timing and his choice of venues. Very little difference, in my opinion, between Hume injecting his religion into a show discussing a sports figure and Mankiewicz injecting his politics into a show about classic film. Not what they're getting paid for, not what we're paying to see…
Here's my views:
I believe in God, the Trinity, etc. However, I believe anyone has the right to profess whatever beliefs they have in public whether it is atheism, agnosticism, Catholicism, or Wicca. Whatever. I don't really give a damn what or why you believe unless it could cause me or others harm. What certain people of other non-Christians faiths need to realize is although it may be annoying and come off as arrogant, most people who try to convert you usually think very highly of the person they're attempting to convert and usually do it out of fear for that person. It can be very altruistic but it certainly can be grating and annoying if you're set in your non-belief.
I'm not God, nor I don't want to think I'm God but I have met plenty of non-believers and people of other faiths with good souls who just can't bring themselves to believe in a God or have had events in their lives that swayed them. I had a brief period of unbelief, and some of the skepticism still resonates even today and I doubt it will ever go away. Something just doesn't click like it did before, and I'm not sure even the most charismatic preacher could ever extract that out of me.
Well ,said, Mike. If Herr Ubermann isn't the dumbest ass in the world, he certainly did place.
That works – as long as you and Mr. Hume are willing to give Buddhists, Mormons, Jews and Muslims equal air time. How about fundamentalist Muslims? How about fundamentalist Muslims preaching jihad and wife-beating?
Tolerance is just as slippery a slope as intolerance.
mr hume was merely EXPRESSING HIS OPINION…
if you don't like it, the next time he come on the screen…
TURN THE CHANNEL..
If I practice nonChristianity to I also practice nonIslam, nonBuddhism, nonJudaism? Do you practice non versions of all those other faiths? Of course you dont. You just dont accept them as truth.
I'm not making a demand that you hide your faith. I was asked if I wanted faith to be outside the public sphere and I said yes. I also want a spaceship, and to win the lottery.
I want people not to believe in things I think of as incorrect or dangerous. I bet you want the same thing. And that's the two way street right there.
I know most of the people who reply to the comments I've left aren't talking about their faith to me to be rude. You think I am wrong and you are trying to correct me. I understand that. I'm trying, fairly hard, to be on that two way street, and for there to be more on it than mutual shouts of "you are wrong"
I've had mixed responses, mainly harsh, but that's fine, the good ones make up for it, and I know more about you guys now.
sorry, but this is EXACTLY what Britt Hume gets paid for..
Kind of a free market of ideas? I'm fine with that.
The thumbs down dont bother me except in that I dont want to come in like a drive by troll shouting "you all just hate freedom" or some such and then vanish into the night. I was using them as a marker of whether the regulars were saying "why doesn't this guy take the hint and leave"
And I do love your freedoms. I wish my constitution had a few of them (I'm Irish by the way). I think writing freedoms right into the foundation of your country was a stroke of genius!
Tell algore to keep his religion of global warming personal. plenty of evangelism by him and the mud sling media
Basic Bible: $4.95
Tithe: 10% of my income
Eternity with the likes of Brit Hume and Adam Baldwin rather than Keith Olbermann: Priceless!
religions have as big a body count as stalin or the chinese communists as someone once said those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and i grew up in a country where catholic killed protestant both in the name of god
although i have never heard of any one killing in the name of bhuddhism
and i see no difference between radical muslims, christians or jew's but why should there be when they all worship the same god.
I completely agree with you. It's like the "mommy wars" – pitting the "working" mom against the "stay at home" mom. They do it for a reason – to gain power, to be the one that says they have the answer to a non-existent problem. While I do not think that the Earth is 6,000 years old, I can understand why those that do because of their faith would feel put upon by scientists who think it's right to teach science and religion at the same time. I took many archaeology and anthropology classes in college and never ONCE did I hear a professor make a claim that any of what we are learning meant that God didn't exist. CONT'D
Plenty of rain this year too, I know I was cursing it all Autumn!
I went to Catholic school and was taught Catholicism along side Evolution and while the twain can meet in the sense that science and religion can co-exist, they do so not by "meeting" but by staying out of each other's realms. Science is about understanding the physical world and universe. It is about theories that can be tested and disproved. Religion is about your soul and what comes after you die. It is about morality and our relationship with the Universe (including God or gods, whatever the case may be) and our relationships with each other. The one cannot answer the questions of the other.
When EVERYONE figures that out, then we can move on to more pressing problems like terrorism, the economy, etc.
Wow, that's a lot to respond to!
First off I'd say I wasn't clear about my position that one has the right to speak one's own mind as well as attempt, through speech, to silence the opposition through ridicule and derision. It get's ugly and dishonest sometimes but it's the best system available. My point is that it's the left that is constantly trying to impose speech codes and hate crimes legislation in order to stifle the speech of the right. I instinctively side with the right on this, on the side of individual liberty. If I don't like what Olbermann says then I turn him off. Naturally I haven't watched him since he did sports broadcasts on ESPN.
Second, after clicking your Twitter link and seeing you're in Scotland (of which I'm 1/8 extraction), I can't figure out how you're a vegetarian. I thought they only had sheep, seafood and grass, and the sheep eat all the grass!
Stereotypes can be fun… but I wouldn't assign them to a large group and assume each member fits. This group at Big Hollywood is actually very diverse, from all over the country, with different tastes and beliefs and opinions. But we tend to share common core values that definitely lean conservative in the American sense.
Well both sides will probably have topics that if not forbidden are at least seen as rude. But that's hardly productive or fair. And, yes, from an outsider's perspective religion is divisive, but that doesn't help us either.
Should you have freedom of belief and conscience? – yes, as should I. And should you be allowed bring it up? – again yes. Should I be allowed dispute with you about it? -again yes.
I'm stumpted for any case where I will not support free speech. I can imagine speech that would disgust and sicken me, but so would censorship.
So, (I'm assuming) we can agree on freedom of belief, conscience, and speech. Where does that leave us? Oh yes, the details of our beliefs are different. Well it would violate the principles I've agreed to for me to force you to change your details to match mine. Tha's the great thing about freedom.
I hope that was clear, I kind of wandered off a bit!
How can you have freedom of religion without the right to have no religion? You have the right to bear arms and no explicit right to not bear arms, but that just means you have a choice.
You must be logged in to post a comment.