Brit Hume, senior political analyst for Fox News and former anchor of Special Report With Brit Hume candidly opened up about the ongoing Tiger Woods scandal while a guest on Fox’s Sunday political talk show.
"The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He is 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. 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."
It should come as no surprise that speaking the words of Christianity on such a large platform would immediately generate every kind of outrage and vitriol from the American left. After all, the American left has evolved into a secular-humanist cult forcefully pronouncing its belief system on every facet of American life. From schools to media/entertainment outlets to so-called public service positions at every level of American government, generic platitudes of tolerance for all religions and moral relativism have seeped into our culture.
These ostensible practitioners of tolerance and equality are nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing. Something my Christian God warned me about many, many years ago. (Did I just write that? You betcha.)
Prestigious commentators such as MSNBC’s David Shuster supported his creed’s Ten Commandments of Tolerance by stating, “This isn’t church, this isn’t some sort of holy setting, this is a political talk show. Doesn’t that minimize the significance of Christianity, when you bring a discussion of Christianity into a conversation about politics? I do think it diminishes the discussion of Christianity … when you have a conversation out-of-the-blue on a political talk show. This wasn’t the ‘700 Club,’ this wasn’t ‘Theocracy Today.’” He further insinuated that the “separation of church and television” was grossly violated by Hume’s out-of-the-blue comments.
His charming co-anchor, Tamron Hall, felt it necessary to further explain her personal obedience to all-things-tolerant by saying, “[D]o we need to run down the list, just in the past year, of so-called Christian politicians who’ve been accused, or in many case[s] flat-out admit because they were backed up against the wall, that they had affairs and other discretions? I mean, to the heart of what David is saying, if this is just about religion, all are flawed. Isn’t that what the Christian Bible says?”
Like freshly-bloomed lilacs on the first day of spring, I can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that our liberal left still holds a view of Christianity edified by their Harvard professors and Washington D.C. beltway buddies. I smell tolerance in the air. Besides Shuster and Hall’s gross factual misrepresentations, the heart of what they say is an all-too-common philosophy in American society. Christianity must stay out of politics. And since politics encompasses every aspect of our daily lives, Christianity must stay out of our daily lives. Go find a closet, Christ, and lock yourself inside for all eternity.
I think the ACLU needs to make that last statement their new epigram. No reason to be ambiguous with lawsuits against high schools that hold graduation ceremonies inside churches or crosses displayed on public property all in the name of “separation of church and state.” Christianity and the name of Jesus Christ play no role in our spoken society. But feel free to think thoughts of Christianity. Or, wait…
“It takes a religious zealot to strap explosives around his or her waist and, murmuring prayers, blow up a CIA facility in Afghanistan, or take down an airplane over Detroit, or steer a jet into the World Trade Center. Or, for that matter, to treat the world to Crusades and Inquisitions and the kind of faith-based savagery we've seen in places like Belfast, Bosnia, Beirut, and Jerusalem. That is what made Brit's comments so creepy: the self-certainty that ‘my god is better than yours.’ Hume has the right to yak. People get paid to say all sorts of provocative things these days. I have no doubt that some of his best friends are Jewish, or Buddhist, or of a different Christian denomination. I am sure he loves all wogs, in his way. But, jeez, what a stupid thing to think.”
John Aloysius Farrell, the “award-winning Washington reporter” and US News and World Report contributing editor believes that Christian principles are not something to think proudly. Apparently you are in company with terrorists who blow up airplanes and kill thousands of innocent Americans when you believe that your God may be better than someone else’s. Maybe I should subject myself to a full-body scan the next time I want to get on a plane. I could be the next one…
To sum up, Christianity doesn’t play any part in politics, should not be pronounced to another on television, or even in held as an intellectual thought. And if by chance you slip up and spew forth such bigoted beliefs, there is only one resolve: apologize. In the Washington Post, Tom Shales explains this resolution thoroughly. “In a way that many others had spoken of this particular faith, Hume seemed so bolstered by Christianity that he just had to go tell it on the mountain. And the golf course. And Fox news-talk shows. First off, apologize. You gotta. Just say you are a man who is comfortable with his faith, so comfortable that sometimes he gets a wee bit carried away with it.”
I, and many other well-intentioned Americans, have a lot to be sorry for. To think of all the countless times I got a wee bit carried away and professed myself a Christian to anyone, which by the very act diminutives all other religions and surely thrusts judgment upon their souls. So long as our politicians don’t jump to conclusions and characterize the radical Islamists as anything other than poor, lost souls engaging in man-made disasters I suppose all is not yet lost.
David Shuster also said, “ Why go there? Why – I mean, look, we all respect Brit’s view, the faith works for him, it work’s for you, my faith works for me. But why go on a political show and anoint yourself the adviser to a celebrity in trouble and say ‘my faith is the right one, his is a failure for him’?” Along with the Ten Commandments of Tolerance, the American left hold tightly to the golden rule of moral relativism. What’s right for you is right for you and what’s right for me is what’s right for me. We live in a gray world, not a black and white world. Brit Hume can believe in Christianity but that doesn’t mean he has any right to say so. But what is missing is the right side of that equation. If Christians should not be allowed to spread the good news of Jesus Christ as the one and only way, then Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Islamists and atheists cannot share their answer to the world’s ails either. But when was the last time a public display of Buddhism or atheism was shunned? I will not wait for an answer.
The problem the left has with Hume’s comments do not stem from a desire to level the playing field of all the world’s religions. It comes from a place of fear. Fear of what they don’t understand, fear of what they don’t want to hear, and fear of our own country’s Christian heritage. And fear that America’s first principles such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech and the right to bear arms actually come from a religion that they so desperately want to deny and silence.
To which I say, good luck. Since you have no faith you wish to speak of, you will need that rabbit's foot. A battle of unprecedented proportions is on the forefront and all hell will break loose.
It is more than blatantly obvious that we have a significant moral dilemma in the United States. I agree that it can in large part be attributed to a decline in daily adherence to the Christian faith, the moral bedrock that helped found our country. I say 'daily' because life is an event that expects one's A-game, all the time, and not just when the cameras are rolling. That is why I don't think Tiger undergoing a publicized lesson in faith would really mean much of anything, and why I don't find Hume's comments helpful or relevant if he is implying any sort of fan fair attached to Tiger's rehabilitation.
ReplyDeleteI judge people by a human standard, not just a Christian one. While I would agree that my beliefs and values are most certainly based on largely Christian concepts (and I am not even a religious person), fanatics aside I think there is a generally accepted standard of behavior for all of the civilized world, regardless of religion. It is a standard that, when violated, is generally referred to as a 'violation of human rights' etc. No specific reference to religion.
Again, I do not think it helpful for Hume to have brought religion into the mix. I do not think Christianity is meant to be a Sham-Wow that can suddenly be discovered, be mastered quickly, and then showcased in a televised competition that tests what tool is best suited to help mop up a kitchen. Brit threw it out there as if to say "and tune in next week to see if the sham-wow beat the sponge in the kitchen contest" like it was some sort of challenge between the religions. I don't think that is the point, nor do I think it helpful.
Christianity and its values are the bedrock of America. But that doesn't mean Brit should be the bad-mouther of other religions, unless, per se, those other religions happen to condone the use of violence in the name of their respective creator. As far as I know, Buddhists are not in the least violent, and I would bet that they probably do not look too kindly on adultery. I haven't even looked it up yet, but I would put money on it. So, that is to say that the problem really is quite simple: Tiger is not morally adrift because of a religious problem, he is morally adrift because he is not a principled person or an adherer to any sort of code of behavior that requires commitment, other than the one expected of him for cocktail hour at the country club. I think many a Buddhist monk would find his actions deplorable.
Hume is a wise, articulate, and well-spoken man with a composure and sense of judgement and justice that few can match. Tiger Woods is an idiot. All appearances indicate he never grew up in the real world. Quite frankly, the problem here is media insanity. The incredible amount of attention we pay to those who are morally bankrupt is our epidemic; those who violate the most, those who represent the most atrocious deviations from humanity's moral compass are allowed to commit their acts and not only recover, but usually end up elevating their publicity astronomically and attain a higher red carpet status.
I am not against a genuine repentance and followed by genuine forgiveness, but Tiger Woods (for now) has nothing to offer the world once you turn off Sports Center. If he decides to become a man, a true honest-to-goodness man - one of virtue, he should chart his own course and see it through. If we should stumble on his progress years from now, and discover that he has charted his own course, and done it off camera and out of the spot-light for the right reasons, then I will be the first fan of Tiger Woods, the man. But it takes a long time for someone to prove something to me, and, in this celebrity-insane day and age, how can we really ever know anymore what is genuine and what is a stunt?
While I do largely agree with your comments, I do have to reiterate my point that what Hume said regarding Tiger and faith is completely acceptable. Hume was asked his personal opinion and he gave it. To me, it doesn't matter if he gave that comment to a stranger at a street corner or on national television. It's his opinion and when asked he can give it anywhere and on any platform.
ReplyDeleteSpecifically, Hume did not bad mouth Buddhism. He said the honest truth: Christianity offers a level of redemption that Buddhism does not. That's a fact, based on the principles within those two religions. Nor did he imply that if Tiger wanted to wake up a new, redeemed man all he would need to do is become a Christian. There's no "sham-wow" as you put it in Christianity, and that is not what Hume intended (I believe). He said that Tiger would be able to make a recovery- which (my words here) is a long, long process, and over time become a better man. I say that because that is what Christianity and the Bible teach, which is what Hume believes in.
I completely agree that it is difficult to determine what/who is genuine and what/who is not in today's world. The media does run wild with captivating stories of fallen celebrities...it is quite deplorable. But I think it's a dangerous path once we start saying that "religion should be kept out of the mix." Because to some people- myself included- that is impossible to do. If you want to keep religion out of the mix, most people in the world would have nothing to say. Most people's principles and personal code of conduct come from their religion. If you believe we should keep religion out of the discussion in hopes of not offending people of other faiths, that again is an impossible task. People can choose to get offended about ANYTHING.
What I personally think should happen is everyone should bring their religion to the table when discussing issues. Let's discuss what should happen in our families, in our economy, in our government and in our world based on our religious beliefs (or core principles of humanity). Of course we won't all agree, but at least we will all speak from the heart. No need to hide religion.