Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 3, 2010

BRIT HUME SAID WHAT?.... As regular readers know, I've made no mention of Tiger Woods on this blog. I don't care about golf; I don't care about golfers' private lives; I don't care about any aspect of this "story" at any level.

But I was taken aback when I saw that Fox News' Brit Hume, reflecting on Woods' career on the air this morning, talked about whether the golfer may return to his chosen profession.

"The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith," Hume said. "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. So, my message to Tiger is, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Hume was not, as the video shows, kidding.

It's hard to even know where to start with something like this. How many high-profile Christians have had damaging sex scandals of late? Why is Buddhism deemed inadequate for those with family problems? Why is a senior political analyst for a so-called "news" network proselytizing, on the air, during one of the network's "news" programs?

Jamison Foser added, "If this wasn't Fox News, I'd take 'Tomorrow, 2 pm' in the when-will-Hume-apologize pool. But it is Fox, so 'the Fifth of Never' seems like a safer choice."

Steve Benen 2:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (157)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Brit Hume to Tiger Woods: If you only knew the power of the dark side!

Posted by: John Dare on January 3, 2010 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

I've said it before, there was a very good reason why Rome threw them to the lions.

Posted by: Saint Zak on January 3, 2010 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

If Hume had said this on what-passes-for-news-reporting over at the 700 Club, it would have been par for the course, so to speak. I would even expect it. But even for Fox, it's pretty over the top. And where does Hume get off assuming that there's no source of strength (we'll leave aside "forgiveness" and "redemption") for Woods within his own faith?

Wow. Just.... Wow...

Posted by: Sister Artemis on January 3, 2010 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

I started to criticize Xtians who feel smugly superior about their religion, which offers an express trip to heaven for people who live their entire lives as complete @ssholes as long as they repent on their deathbeds. But instead I decided to offer an observation on the entire Woods scandal:

A young, good-looking athlete who is worth a gazillion dollars and who travels most of the year has extramarital affairs?

Quelle suprise!


Posted by: Bored now on January 3, 2010 at 2:46 PM | PERMALINK

The most insane statement by a "pundit" of 2010. I know it's Jan. 3 but that's the winner. And the repulsive and offensive while we're at it. Enjoy wherever you wind up Brit.

Posted by: Steve on January 3, 2010 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Hume seems to have a simplistic and mistaken theological understanding of the concept of Christian forgiveness, one he shares with too many of his GOP brethren. For an accessible primer on the concept to get him straightened out, I direct him to the eloquent Lyle Lovett:

"Who keeps on trusting you
When you've been cheating
And spending your nights on the town
And who keeps on saying that he still wants you
When you're through running around
And who keeps on loving you
When you've been lying
Saying things ain't what they seem
God does
But I don't
God will
But I won't
And that's the difference
Between God and me"

Posted by: biggerbox on January 3, 2010 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

That statement from Brit Hume sounds exactly like the evangelical doctrine being peddled by among others Dr. James Dobson and by "The Family." Max Blumenthal describes it at length in his excellent book "Republican Gomorrah."

That doctrine explains why Dobson tried to keep Ted Bundy from being executed. Bundy had publicly been born-again. That's also why Sen. Ensign and Gov. Mark Sanford do not think they should be punished for their indiscretions. They have been born-again and have confessed their sins. That's also the teaching of the Family of C-Street fame.

Posted by: Rick B on January 3, 2010 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

Didn't Hume's son commit suicide? I guess Brit was a Buddhist back then.

Posted by: abraham tribesky on January 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

This provides some evidence that wingers will go completely, entirely, absolutely batshit crazy in 2010. Happy New Year.

Posted by: MattF on January 3, 2010 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

So what he's saying is that if you are a christian, you can do anything you want and its ok?

Posted by: ComradeAnon on January 3, 2010 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

I think it was more in the way of career advice. Wingnuts eat up the whole "I wuz baaaad, but now I found Jeebus, and so I'm forgiven thankthelord" schtick. If Tiger does a tearful mea culpa he can be back on the links like nothing happened in a few months, but only if he does it Xtian style.

Posted by: jimBOB on January 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Answer to ComradeAnon:

Only if you are a Republican. Their 11th Commandment is IOKIYAR.

Also, "...a so-called "news" network.." is the exact wording that should be used any time on is referencing Fox's phony "news" network. Thanks, Steve,

Posted by: BuzzMon on January 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Sorta what JimBOB said. Hume means what he said in the most depressingly literal way possible. But in this culture, you have to apologize to Jesus first, so it's true that Christianity offers more forgiveness than Buddhism.

Not sure really what Buddhism would have to offer. Seems to me the buddhist response would be, "It is what it is now go back to meditating." Only Christianity places such emphasis on forgiveness because only Christianity makes its followers feel like criminals.

Posted by: inkadu on January 3, 2010 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

Hume will apologize next week, and it will go something like this: "I didn't intend to disparage Buddhists, and I regret that some people who misconstrued my remarks took offense at them."
Then he'll return to the day's topic: Is Obama a traitor?

Posted by: hells littlest angel on January 3, 2010 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, the Christian "god" will even forgive Brit Hume for being a complete monkey fuck. You should try it Tiger!

Posted by: Lord of the Trollops on January 3, 2010 at 3:41 PM | PERMALINK

just love that gospel of hate... you go, brit!

Posted by: neill on January 3, 2010 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

"Who keeps on trusting you
When you've been cheating
And spending your nights on the town
And who keeps on saying that he still wants you
When you're through running around
And who keeps on loving you
When you've been lying
Saying things ain't what they seem
God does
But I don't
God will
But I won't
And that's the difference
Between God and me"

Dog sounds pretty co-dependent if I'm reading this correctly.

Posted by: Lord of the Trollops on January 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

That's Fox 'News'.

Posted by: cld on January 3, 2010 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

The C Street Family specializes in rehabbing wealthy whoremongers. Britt knew what he was talking about.

Posted by: John Emerson on January 3, 2010 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Actually, Britt Hume's comments about Buddhism viz a viz Christianity actually overshadowed a comment Bill Kristol made that was even dumber and more outrageous: that our closing the Embassy in San'aa in response to a specific terrorist threat handed al-Qaeda a victory this week.

Never mind that closing the embassy in response to a specific threat is evidence that the fucking system is working .

Also, considering that Britt Hume's brand of Christianity probaby drove his gay son Sandy to suicide, I wonder how all that Jeebus Luv is working out for Britt.

Posted by: calipygian on January 3, 2010 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, inkadu, what a great way to put it! I can't think of a single Christian denomination that DOESN'T make its members feel like criminals. No offense intended if one does exist & I am unaware of it.

Posted by: psychobroad on January 3, 2010 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

Brit's version of the death row conversion. Worked for Tanya Faye Tucker ... not!

Brit was kind of slurring his speech. Did anyone else think he might have been a little more than drunk w/ Jeebus? Good golly, if not, then what? Premature senility?

Posted by: lou on January 3, 2010 at 3:53 PM | PERMALINK

No forgiveness or redemption in Buddhism? That's news to us.

Of course, it really isn't news when someone on Fox News shoots off about something they don't know anything about.

Posted by: Algernon on January 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Welcome to the New Fox News Ministries. Get your salvation from the convenience of your sofa. And never worry again about starting wars or torturing people of having affairs.

Thank you, Brit. Thank you, Fox. Hallelujah and amen.

Posted by: News Corpse on January 3, 2010 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

"I can't think of a single Christian denomination that DOESN'T make its members feel like criminals. No offense intended if one does exist & I am unaware of it."

Ahem, mine doesn't. Sinners, who need to do better by and ask forgiveness of their fellow humans and their God, yes. (But that's not the same as "criminals", ie someone breaking a civil law.)

And Hume was waaaaay over the line, IMO.

Posted by: A Lutheran on January 3, 2010 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

I can't think of a single Christian denomination that DOESN'T make its members feel like criminals. No offense intended if one does exist & I am unaware of it.

I'd suggest Quakers and Unitarian-Universalists (although the UUs often aren't strictly Christian).

Posted by: Snarkworth on January 3, 2010 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Yes Tiger there is a Christian God

What follows is the 1897 original with 16 simple pastes to bring it up to date...

DEAR EDITOR: I am 34 years old."Some of my golfing friends say there is no Christian God."Papa says, 'If you see it in POLITICAL ANIMAL it's so.'Please tell me the truth; is there a Christian God?
TIGER, your little golfing friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Tiger, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.
Yes, TIGER, there is a Christian God. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! how dreary would be the world if there were no Christian God. It would be as dreary as if there were no TIGERS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.
Not believe in Christian God! You might as well not believe in Santa Claus! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Christian God. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.
You may tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest men that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance, can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, TIGER, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding.
No Christian God! Thank God! he lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, Tiger, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

I am so fucking sick of humanity trading in shitty fairy tales.
More serious science please...

Posted by: koreyel on January 3, 2010 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Sincere, serious Christians: Offering serial adulterers an easy way out. That really is a superior religion -- no wonder Republicans like it so much.

Posted by: Alan in SF on January 3, 2010 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

If the one true god is the one that Hume, dobson, Limbaugh et al pray to, then he can go fuck himself.

Posted by: Liam J on January 3, 2010 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Current day, boutique Christianity is a god-damn joke, seething with irony and hypocrisy. These people have a lot of damn nerve, criticizing a philosophy which was in full flower long before Christ was born. Disgusting. When are we going to grow up and take responsibility for our own lives, rather than laying it on whatever forces may have started it all ?

Posted by: rbe1 on January 3, 2010 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

How many high-profile Christians have had damaging sex scandals of late?

As jimBOB and Alan in SF suggested, this is a feature not a bug.

Posted by: Grumpy on January 3, 2010 at 4:36 PM | PERMALINK

Tiger Woods, presumably a Buddhisthas been stomping a mudhole in the asses of everyone on the PGA tour, presumably Christians, for years. Does this mean that the Buddha god is mightier than the Christian god.

In the last 10 years, how many prominent Buddhist have cheated on their wives? How many prominent Christians? Is this evidence of the divinity of Jesus Christ?

Does the fact that Christian priest, with the tacit sanctionn of the Church, serially molest children speak to the righteousnous of Christianity?

Does the fact that Christian ministers condemn homosexuality while themselves being gay speak to the sanctity of Christ?

Posted by: Winkandanod on January 3, 2010 at 4:37 PM | PERMALINK

I'm not sure I want to believe in a God who lets an evil nitwit like Brit Hume work His P.R. for Him.

Actually, I believe in God. And he puts Christians on this Earth for us to suffer. If we can live through their horseshit, we can get to the Promised Land. They, in turn, will be given nothing upon death but a window to Earth, where they can spend eternity seeing just how stupid and wrong they were, and how much better off humanity is by their passing.

Posted by: slappy magoo on January 3, 2010 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

In his next incarnation Hume will come back as duck food, to teach him what it means to be useful.

Posted by: exlibra on January 3, 2010 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

Britt Hume is an idiot that is why he is on Fox News. If I were inclined to join an organized religion, Buddhism would be my choice. It is a very peaceful religion.

What bothers me about the Tiger story is the Captain Renault attitude (I'm shocked, shocked . . .) towards Woods' adultry. Once I started dating at about 18, through my 20s and 30s, nine out ten dates I was asked on came from married men. When did this country become so Puritan. In my experience, 95 percent of married men fool around. It's nothing to be surprised about. And, Tiger being in the public eye has so many more opportunities for infidelity than all us average people. It's just so passe.

Posted by: Bonnie on January 3, 2010 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

I like the other guy who follows and laughs kinda nervously at Brit's concern for Tiger's soul.

Posted by: rabbit on January 3, 2010 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

"Only Christianity places such emphasis on forgiveness because only Christianity makes its followers feel like criminals."

You've obviously never been to my church.

http://www.fcchurch.com

Posted by: KTinOhio on January 3, 2010 at 5:19 PM | PERMALINK

"In my experience, 95 percent of married men fool around."

Either you've spent your life around a pretty undesirable class of men, or I have a lot of catching up to do.

Posted by: KTinOhio on January 3, 2010 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

KTinOhio- From your church's "about us" page:
# Strive to follow the path of Jesus Christ, while recognizing other pathways to the Divine.

Other pathways?

Your church is Christian the same way ordering a hamburger at Taco Bell makes me a Mexican.

Posted by: inkadu on January 3, 2010 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

I was beginning to think that no comment these people make could be asinine enough to surprise me. I was wrong. I'm gobsmacked.

Posted by: Skepticat on January 3, 2010 at 5:43 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, other pathways. We don't claim a monopoly on God. Why should everyone else have to be wrong?


Posted by: KTinOhio on January 3, 2010 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Turns out Buddhism does have a thing or two to say about forgiveness. Imagine my shock! (Click on my Internet handle to find out what I found by doing an Internet search).

This should put to rest any doubts anyone has that Fox "News" is anything besides a source of entertainment and reinforcement for people who are too stupid to find anything out on their own.

Posted by: Cujo359 on January 3, 2010 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Hmm. Turns out the Internet handle thing doesn't work here. Here's the link:

http://cujo359.blogspot.com/2010/01/in-which-i-do-brit-humes-research-for.html

Posted by: Cujo359 on January 3, 2010 at 5:57 PM | PERMALINK

"Didn't Hume's son commit suicide? I guess Brit was a Buddhist back then."
Posted by: abraham tribesky on January 3, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Much, much worse than that.
If the info on the intertubes can be trusted (and clearly, if it's on the web, it must be true), Sandy Hume's suicide was at least in part a reaction to his having been outed by New Gingrich and his allies, as part of the struggle Newt was then engaged in to keep his Speakership.
Apparently, one of the leaders (and the main contender to replace him as Speaker) of the Publican intifada against Gingrich was Rep Bill Paxon (R, Closet) -- who either was or had recently been involved w/Hume. (This also explains why Paxon crashed from major-league player to not running for re-election.)
I have no children, so can't speak directly to this, but my understanding is that losing a child -- at any age -- is one of the worst things to have to suffer. But what must it feel like to lose a child because some leaders of the party / movement you support found it expedient to publicly reveal private information about them -- and they were not even the target of the maneuver, but just an easily-exploited non-player?
The psyche and soul of Brit Hume are not places I would ever wish to even glimpse from a great distance...
None of this, of course, in any way validates or justifies any of the evils perpetrated daily by Hume and his ilk, of which this latest is just one tiny, and relatively victimless, example. (If anything, in Hume's case, it clearly makes it all even worse.)
Fox them all, every last Foxing one of them.

Posted by: smartalek on January 3, 2010 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

KT - Not arguing with your approach to faith, just questioning at what point Christianity stops being Christian and begins to be something else. Since the foundation of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God who died on the cross to redeem of us our Christianity, anyone who thinks there are other paths is necessarily not a captial C Christian, though they may be small c christians, or those who follow the selected ethics of Jesus. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: inkadu on January 3, 2010 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

Give poor Mr. Hume a break, he's just offering Tiger Woods forgiveness on behalf of his chosen deity. That's actually mighty white of him, don't you think?

Posted by: eb on January 3, 2010 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Inkadu: I don't deny that others might not consider us as "Christian" as we should be, but we make no apologies for our approach to faith.

Posted by: KTinOhio on January 3, 2010 at 6:20 PM | PERMALINK

Bill Kristol predicts Tiger will win the Masters?!? Now we know he won't even make the cut.

Posted by: vagodin on January 3, 2010 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

I forgot about the Quakers. I did think of Unitarians, but am unsure if they're consider themselves Christian or not.

Posted by: psychobroad on January 3, 2010 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

...unsure if THEY consider themselves Christian.

Posted by: psychobroad on January 3, 2010 at 6:37 PM | PERMALINK

"Not arguing with your approach to faith, just questioning at what point Christianity stops being Christian and begins to be something else."

Well, Inkadu, this is precisely the same uncharitable thought I often have about fundamentalists, who seem to worship conservative culture rather than Jesus Christ.

In any event, reading this thread, I'm not sure which is more troubling: Hume's highly offensive comments, or the assumption by some that Hume is in any way an authorized spokesman for Christianity.

Posted by: Ed Kilgore on January 3, 2010 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.

But he really has no idea, does he? This is what I don't like about conservatives: they can't come out and say what they really think. Hume doesn't give a shit about the relative merits of Christianity vis-a-vis Buddhism or any other religion for that matter. He cares about cultural hegemony, with religion as the linchpin. He wants familiarity, sameness, predictability, and most of all, the continued dominance of a culture that grants celebrity status to aging, wealthy, white guys who fancy themselves daddy figures and can pontificate in front of a camera.

Posted by: DelCapslock on January 3, 2010 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

At least Hume didn't advise Woods to blow his own brains out with a shotgun.

We all know how well that worked out last time.

Posted by: Jesus Christ on January 3, 2010 at 7:12 PM | PERMALINK

God\Jesus the Christ doesn't interfere with our lives. How we choose to live is up to us. Buddhism is a way of life based on life practices of compassion and lovingkindness. Whether one professes to be a Buddhist or other is less important than how one lives life. Condemning Buddhism for wood's transgressions is putting Christianity in deep jeopardy when one considers some self-professed Christians. Let he who is without sin/error cast the first stone.

Posted by: st John on January 3, 2010 at 7:44 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Brit, go to hell

Posted by: Hoggy on January 3, 2010 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Tiger Woods; in winter he's a Buddhist, in summer he's a nudist.

Posted by: jrw on January 3, 2010 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINK

"If I have harmed anyone in any way
either knowingly or unknowingly
through my own confusions
I ask their forgiveness.
If anyone has harmed me in any way
either knowingly or unknowingly
through their own confusions
I forgive them.
And if there is a situation
I am not yet ready to forgive
I forgive myself for that.
For all the ways that I harm myself,
negate, doubt, belittle myself,
judge or be unkind to myself
through my own confusions
I forgive myself."

Posted by: John Schaberg on January 3, 2010 at 8:47 PM | PERMALINK

Well Brit Hume is a bigot. I don't know why people will not call it what it is.

Posted by: Bill on January 3, 2010 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

My, what a strange universe Brahman is dreaming this time!

Posted by: Speed on January 3, 2010 at 8:48 PM | PERMALINK

"In the last 10 years, how many prominent Buddhist have cheated on their wives?"

How about every politician, business leader, general, and police chief in Thailand? It's considered normal there. Kind of like France. Speaking of Thailand, I have a traditional Thai curse for Mr. Hume: May he be reborn as a gnat on a dog's asshole.

Posted by: fostert on January 3, 2010 at 8:51 PM | PERMALINK

Looks to me like Buddhism is better for your golf game than Christianity.

And apparently extramarital sex helps your game.

I'm sure glad I don't play.

Posted by: Repack Rider on January 3, 2010 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Brit, if Tiger really wants to get his act together, Buddhism will help him more than Christianity.

For Christians in Tiger's situation, Christianity would help them most.

For Muslims, Islam.

For Jews, Judaism.

For Hindus, Hinduism.

Please try to understand this concept.

Posted by: PeninsulaMatt on January 3, 2010 at 9:37 PM | PERMALINK

Proselytizing.

Tiger is not going to go the "saved" route.

Being Christian is not about SAYING you are.

One more reason why I'm a devout atheist. But I will not proselytize my faith.

It's up to each individual to decide what deities or not to believe in.

Faith is a very personal thing and proselytizing for any religion is the biggest human foible.

Posted by: Tom Nicholson on January 3, 2010 at 9:42 PM | PERMALINK

Most of the conservative power brokers Hume ultimately works for, don't really give a sincere crap about religion anyway. To them, Xtianity via Christianism is just a tool for domination and fooling the rubes to vote against their own interests. Also, I wonder how many Jews notice re "Christianity" and not just Judeo-Christian (which latter makes little sense, in that the former are defined as rejecting the latter.) More grave, not as hilarious as the comment about Italians along with "other species" which my thus extracted GF considered hilarious too.

Posted by: neil b on January 3, 2010 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

Brit if I have it right was making these comments from "Fixed News." Just wait until Keith O gets words of this. On second thought, I am tired as you are of Tiger "tails."

But Brit's diagnosis for recovery...is remarkable. Hahaha. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZXu5FJKGdI

Posted by: Tricia on January 3, 2010 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

Ed & KT - If you do not believe in the divinity of Christ then you are worshiping a philosopher not a god. I'm not even sure how that's even a religion, much less a Christian one.

Posted by: inkadu on January 3, 2010 at 10:22 PM | PERMALINK

alone 2005 low natural decline compliance suggested

Posted by: westbrocna on January 3, 2010 at 10:47 PM | PERMALINK

psychobroad,

Just cause you asked, the ELCA Lutheran synod is big on grace and not concerned with much else. I've never been made to feel like a sinner, much less a criminal. We also allow divergence of opinion within the synod though, so you will find some members that are wingnutty too. I guess I'm with A Lutheran and KTinOhio.

Posted by: ajohng on January 3, 2010 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

He isn't going to apologize its Fox. He's on to something. This country is about to enter a period of deep religious conservatism. Tough times as the President noted has a way of drawing people to their guns and their faith.

Posted by: aline on January 3, 2010 at 11:21 PM | PERMALINK

"...he's lost his family, it's not clear to me whether he'll be able to have a relationship with his children..."

WTF?

Posted by: maverratick on January 4, 2010 at 12:23 AM | PERMALINK

I was raised Catholic Christian but as an adult in my 30's, left due to emotional reaction to the childhood fear I had felt. As an adult of 67, I don't have resentment toward the Catholic Church. But forgiveness IMHO is a part of Christianity AND the credible world faiths. Buddha, 500 years before Jesus, narrated the story of the Prodigal Son (albeit a more complex version). So to say that only Christianity offers forgiveness (or redemption, to use a different term) is, I believe, a mistake and shows a lack of awareness of the teachings and the lives of followers of other credible faiths. From studying "A Course in Miracles" for years, I believe that what is referred to as "The Holy Spirit" in Christianity is found in other faiths, albeit using culturally different terms. I am certainly not "offended" by what Brit Hume said, but I think he might benefit from dialogs with informed believers of other faiths. Furthermore, I think most faiths believe that the Love of the Divine is unconditional, but we ourselves need to learn to truly love unconditionally ourselves (i.e., act as "children of the Father") before we are likely to actually FEEL the love of the Divine. It isn't the Divine which withholds forgiveness. It is our own barriers to loving others which need to be dissolved by the Spirit, and then we in turn will feel the Love which is actually our inheritance.

Posted by: BobR on January 4, 2010 at 12:25 AM | PERMALINK

Religion is a disease of the mind; people with religion are as mentally crippled as people with MS are physically crippled. It's no accident that 93% of the National Academy of Science are nonbelievers.

Posted by: no fairy tales on January 4, 2010 at 12:56 AM | PERMALINK

Only those who accept Christ as living (not dead, like Buddha) Savior and Lord can possible understand the depth of love and forgiveness available freely to a Believer. I am sad to read the bitter cynicism and derision directed toward those professing the saving power of Grace in Christian faith, but I also recognize it from my past. Until I made a decision to follow Christ at almost thirty, I professed similar sentiments. For a long time, I thought quietly practicing my faith and avoiding confrontation with those who did not agree with Christianity was the best way to go. I no longer believe this to be true as I witness the increase of overt hatred and attempts to marginalize and persecute Christians in the U.S. and abroad. Political correctness demands the view that all religious doctrines should have equal weight in society. Since Christians believe that Jesus is "the way, the truth and the life" and "no one come to the Father" except by faith in Him, it is impossible to live the Christian faith and please unbelievers. I am sure replies to my post will bear witness to this many times over. Indeed, I hope and pray for a Christian revival in America that is not delineated by political stripe or geographical locale. This revival is not a threat to unbelievers because the country will benefit as a whole from the increased productivity, work ethic and optimism, as well as the decrease in crimes both petty and Madoff-sized. May God bless the U.S.A.

Posted by: excynic on January 4, 2010 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

Brit Hume is simply reflecting the fact that he and the Christian hypocrites that make up the bulk of his audience will forgive a fellow Christian almost anything if they mouth the right words and aren't notably liberal in the politics.

So from a purely practical point of view, converting to Christianity and being publicly repentant does in fact offer Tiger his best opportunity for recovering his reputation in the wake of this scandal. That doesn't mean it will make him a better person or a better golfer or in any other way be the right thing to do (not that Brit Hume would see it that way).

Posted by: tanstaafl on January 4, 2010 at 1:04 AM | PERMALINK

Inkadu: For the record, I consider myself a Unitarian, but not UU. (Only a minority of UUs consider themselves Christian.) I don't believe Jesus is/was God in any unique sense, but he's definitely more than a philosopher. (Actually, the only person I've ever heard of who called Jesus a philosopher was GWB.) I also don't buy the virgin birth, the (physical) resurrection, the Genesis account of creation, original sin, substitutionary atonement, any sort of afterlife, and lots of other traditional doctrine. But I do believe that God is "in" us all, that Jesus was keenly aware of this fact, and that he lived this belief to the end, despite the consequences. I know this isn't "Christian" enough for some people, and I really don't care.

Posted by: KTinOhio on January 4, 2010 at 1:05 AM | PERMALINK

I don't want to be unkind, but only in America could a buffoon like Brit Hume be taken seriously.

Reporter? No. Newsman? Suck my dick.

Even the name screams "Ted Knight" as life imitates art yet again.

Posted by: Squeaky McCrinkle on January 4, 2010 at 1:07 AM | PERMALINK

inkadu:

If man was created in the image of God, doesn't that mean there is a spark of the divine in all people? Including Jesus?

Also, a philosophy that says "Blessed are the peacemakers" is probably deserving of "reverent honor and homage" -- the definition of worship. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship)

Posted by: Mary Contrary on January 4, 2010 at 1:08 AM | PERMALINK

The arrogance of people like BobR who think their incoherent ramblings gain authority by being Capitalized is rather amusing.

Posted by: no fairy tales on January 4, 2010 at 1:15 AM | PERMALINK

"But I do believe that God is "in" us all, that Jesus was keenly aware of this fact"

How can someone (who, by best historical analysis, probably never existed) be "keenly aware" of an incoherent fairy tale? Furthermore: who the fuck cares what you believe, when it isn't based on evidence or any rational analysis?

The arrogance of these fools and their idiotic "beliefs".

Posted by: no fairy tales on January 4, 2010 at 1:23 AM | PERMALINK

"If man was created in the image of God"

Humans are one of many life forms that evolved -- through a mindless mechanical process -- on an insignificant planet of an insignificant star system of an insignificant galaxy of an insignicant galaxy cluster of one of infinitely many possible worlds ... only the most pathetically arrogant sort of person can believe such incredible nonsense as "man was created in the image of God". It's a fairy tale, even less credible than that a frog could become a prince.

Posted by: no fairy tales on January 4, 2010 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

"Also, a philosophy that says "Blessed are the peacemakers" is probably deserving of "reverent honor and homage" -- the definition of worship. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/worship)"

Misuse of dictionaries can lead people into such idiocy as worshipping a philosophy.

I'm a pacifist and I reject irrational nonsense -- hey, worship my philosophy!

Posted by: no fairy tales on January 4, 2010 at 1:39 AM | PERMALINK

Pat Robertson 2.0

Posted by: Manix on January 4, 2010 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

NFT: First of all, there is historical evidence that the man we know as Jesus of Nazareth existed. Second, and more to the point, we're on the same side here, so please get off your high horse. I really don't care if you do or don't believe what the fuck I do.

Posted by: KTinOhio on January 4, 2010 at 1:59 AM | PERMALINK

Not sure really what Buddhism would have to offer

My guess for Thai style Buddhism is that he could get off by building a temple or two, plus a yearly stipend to pay for a couple monks.

So Buddhism does offer a way out, same as Christianity. You know what it doesn't have, that Christianity has in spades? The belief that it's the number one religion, all others suck, and the world is saved by converting the misled (see excynic above. Devout Christians may be annoying, but your average devout Buddhist gets along fine with the rest of society.)

Posted by: Boronx on January 4, 2010 at 2:12 AM | PERMALINK

I forgive you Brit for your hatred. I forgive you for your anger. I forgive you, Brit, for being naive. I forgive you for being ignorant. I forgive you for your myopic world view. I forgive you, Brit, for co-opting the entire Christian faith for your own narrow views.

Posted by: JWK on January 4, 2010 at 3:04 AM | PERMALINK

You did better ignoring the Tiger Woods story.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler on January 4, 2010 at 3:09 AM | PERMALINK

To your point, Mr. Benan, that a senior political analyst would say so pointedly that which any strategically-minded person could predict a wide, potentially polarizing reaction...then under what scenario would it make sense?

And yes, JWK, I feel sorry for those whose faith has been co-opted, too, for whatever hidden agenda Hume's statement was designed to serve.

Of which, frankly, I have no clue. But I don't think it is really about religion. I just think it's meant to make us think and act as if it is.

Posted by: Diane on January 4, 2010 at 3:56 AM | PERMALINK

Hume's comment is just further evidence that the GOP has become the Born Again party, both spiritually and politically.

Any normal political party that had suffered the defeats Republicans had in 2006 and 2008 would have undertaken a period of soul-searching, politically speaking, as it rethought its program. No such thing happened with the GOP.

Those of us who have watched the GOP over the past two decades transform itself into a religious party stand in awe of the ability, the shamelessness, of its members to simply wipe the slate clean of its failures and move on with precisely the same agendas and mantras as if nothing at all had happened. It's as if the entire GOP, like its individual members, undergoes a Born Again experience after every electoral defeat and absolves itself completely of its past wrongs so that it can emerge if anything even more self-righteous and aggressive with little of the ordinary doubts and regrets that burden the rest of us poor mortals.

Posted by: Ted Frier on January 4, 2010 at 6:22 AM | PERMALINK

What an interesting thread. Brit Hume draws out the worst in all of us.

Folks, billions of people believe in a God of some kind. Most of them (Jews, Christians, and Muslims) believe in the same God, the God of Moses.

None of us know if there is a God, which is why we use the word "belief," but belief can affect our behavior just as powerful as reality.

Politicians routinely co-opt belief in the devine for their own purposes. Sometimes we call such politicians priests, ministers, Imans or rabbis, but they are all in the same business-gaining power from of the beliefs of the rest of us. Sometimes they do so for the best of purpopses and sometimes for the worst, but they are all using belief in the devine for their own human purposes. Here Brit Hume is using belief in the devine to enhance his temporal power and to promote his personal agenda. In this he is no better than your average priest, professional minister, or other organized religious advisor.

Does God exist? I don't know, but I believe a God exists. There is much evidence that God doesn't exist, but there is also much evidence that man's knowledge of the universe is hopelessly incomplete. Is that God the Christian God? Is he the Jewish God? Is that God the Muslim God? No. If, as I believe, but don't know, God exists, God is simply God. The qualifiers are simply words imposed by religious politicians like Brit Hume for their own purposes.

The one thing I do know is that discussion of God mostly brings out the worst in people, including the readers of Political Animal.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 4, 2010 at 6:48 AM | PERMALINK

Ted Frier
It's as if the entire GOP, like its individual members, undergoes a Born Again experience after every electoral defeat and absolves itself completely of its past wrongs so that it can emerge if anything even more self-righteous and aggressive with little of the ordinary doubts and regret...

Aaaaaahhhmmen

Posted by: FRP on January 4, 2010 at 7:53 AM | PERMALINK

I am a former minister and a current Substance Abuse counselor. Religion can help someone who is in need of recovery but, it is not the total answer. There has to be a change in the way of thinking about life. There also has to be complete honesty and accountability. While honesty and accountability are Biblical, they are rarely practiced in church.

Posted by: Ed K. on January 4, 2010 at 7:59 AM | PERMALINK

It is the vanity of these Thugs that amazes me the most. They are so assured that they alone know, by their superior instincts--not by education, experimentation or demonstrable proof--how government should operate successfully. After failure upon failure upon failure, they continue to espouse their doctrine of militaristic laissez faire capitalism, bankrupting the nation and creating enemies far and wide.

Then they claim to know the unknowable. It is only by the obeisance to their sky Daddy that you can live happily in the clouds in the hereafter. You don't have to be a good person, only "forgiven"--and heterosexual (VERY important).

There is something about the authoritarian mindset that encourages this vanity.

Posted by: candideinnc on January 4, 2010 at 8:01 AM | PERMALINK

Right, because the way the Democrats found there way to the majority, encouraging the likes of Cindy Sheehan and Markos Moulitsas, is so much better,
"$%Y^$um, they're Mercs, they deserve what they get"
is his claim to fame, as I recall.Is Tiger being a Buddhist really indicative of how someone lives their faith, as is John Ensign's nominal
Christianity, I don't think so, The hatred for Joe Lieberman, for pointing out that there is a problem
with Yemen, which you continue to deny, despite mounting evidence.

Posted by: bishop on January 4, 2010 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

Wow! Bishop--my computer lets me preview my comments before posting, just so I don't look so amazingly confused or stupid. What is wrong with yours?

Posted by: candideinnc on January 4, 2010 at 8:41 AM | PERMALINK

excynic, the Buddha is not dead, he has only become something else, just like you believe Jesus did. Buddhism allows you to make mistakes without guilt; it allows you to forgive yourself and it teaches you to become a better person. Think of Buddhism as a philosophy and not a religion.

Posted by: Milt on January 4, 2010 at 8:52 AM | PERMALINK

Brit Hume is probably the best news reporter going!

Posted by: bobc on January 4, 2010 at 9:23 AM | PERMALINK

So what denomination of Christianity is Britt Hume?

I don't know, but whatever it is, I've decided he needs to change to one of my choice.

Posted by: g on January 4, 2010 at 9:27 AM | PERMALINK

Everyone knows that Buddhists are base, despotic, carnally-addicted, greedy, fear-mongering, xenophobic, racist, hedonistic necrophiliacs. And Christians are practically perfect in every way.

Posted by: chrenson on January 4, 2010 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

What really has you guys frothing at the mouth is that Brit Hume so obviously doesn't care a hill of beans what you or anyone but God thinks of him.

"For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I've delivered unto him against that day..."

Posted by: Kristin on January 4, 2010 at 9:38 AM | PERMALINK

It's always humorous to hear a liberal complain about a Christian's statements. I'm usually left with the impression that pro-Jesus statements hurt them like holy water hurts a vampire.

Posted by: Kevin on January 4, 2010 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK
What really has you guys frothing at the mouth is that Brit Hume so obviously doesn't care a hill of beans what you or anyone but God thinks of him.

ROFL.... Dear heart, expressing amusement at the sheer stupidity of Hume's remarks is not "frothing at the mouth." You really should learn to the tell the difference.

It's always humorous to hear a liberal complain about a Christian's statements.

It's always humorous to hear a moronic right-wing knee-jerk "Christian" defend even the dumbest of remarks by their kind, regardless of the sense of said remarks.

Posted by: PaulB on January 4, 2010 at 10:00 AM | PERMALINK

I'm not a Christian. Not an aetheist, either. But, if you take a realistic view of the world, it's obvious that for some people, the Christian faith offers them a way to become better people. Maybe they're not as "morally" strong as you Liberals, but it works for them. Why does that incense you Liberals?

Posted by: Cap'n Rusty on January 4, 2010 at 10:11 AM | PERMALINK

Any religious people remember that we live in a secular republic? Why do you ignore the obvious dangers of theocracies? America is not a theocracy. It was carefully set up to avoid the wishes of people who want a national Christian government. Go away, traitors.

Posted by: deb in oregon on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe they're not as "morally" strong as you Liberals, but it works for them. Why does that incense you Liberals?

A news anchor should never, ever make religious judgments about the subjects of his stories because this country isn't a theocracy, it's a pluralistic democracy. If you want that kind of news reporting, head to Iran.

But, if you take a realistic view of the world, it's obvious that for some people, the Christian faith offers them a way to become better people.

So does Buddhism. And for some people, their "Christian faith" offers them a way to become worse people; liars, hypocrites, war-mongers, secret-adulterers, corrupt ponzi-scheme salesmen, and sexual abusers of children.

Madison, Jefferson, and others expounded in great detail on the historical dangers of clericalism and why religion should have no place in government. Similarly, it has no place in news reporting, where by serving the masters of ideology and profit it can by definition only be false religion.

Next.

Posted by: trex on January 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM | PERMALINK

What really has you guys frothing at the mouth is that Brit Hume so obviously doesn't care a hill of beans what you or anyone but God thinks of him.

On the contrary, he cares very much about Fox ratings. I have no idea whether Hume believes the things that come out of his mouth, and I don't much care. I do know that he made this statement for the express purpose of setting up the cult of Christian "victims" to screech that they're being oppressed by all the people who object to Hume making such a remark on a "news" channel.

On this side of the aisle, the story is Hume's towering arrogance and inappropriateness. The right will spin it it as a courageous Christian defending his faith against the barbarians. This was a calculated move to solidify the ignorant viewer base in its cultural war-making and never-ending persecution complex.

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2010 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK

when I saw that Fox News' Brit Hume

Steve, you mean you actually watch Fox ?

Posted by: Neo on January 4, 2010 at 10:57 AM | PERMALINK

Max Blumenthal's book, "Republican Gomorrah", explains Hume's logic very simply. Today's evangelical christianity allows its followers to cleanse their souls of sin and start with a clean slate, no matter how awful the transgression. Cheat on your family? Steal from the poor? No problem. Pastor Dobson will put his hand on your forehead, and your sins will be washed away, like it never happened. Make a generous donation on your way out the door, go commit more egregious sins, and come back in a year. The whole process can be repeated as many times as neccessary.

I am not religious, but I have always admired Bhuddism. Of all the spritual disciplines, it seems like the most intelligent and balanced.

Posted by: getplaning on January 4, 2010 at 11:19 AM | PERMALINK

The "Lather, Rinse, Repeat Road to Righteous Christian Salvation" works this way:

1. Screw your secretary while your wife looks after your kids.
2. Tearfully apologize for your sins and beg for forgiveness.
3. Accept your Christianist pastor's forgiveness on behalf of Jesus.
4. Screw your new secretary while your wife cooks dinner.
5. Repeat steps 2 and 3 as necessary.

Posted by: bluestatedon on January 4, 2010 at 11:32 AM | PERMALINK

Kristin, Kevin, et al, have proven my point precisely. Morality and religion are hardly mutually exclusive, no matter what your faith. The idea that converting from one religion to another is going to somehow change a person's base instincts is ludicrous. Just as there are people who will find faith helpful when they're down, there are people who find faith useful for getting the upper hand, making a buck, gaining power, etc. Where there is a gullible congregation, the corrupt will find power of them. There are plenty of examples in every faith and throughout history.

Posted by: chrenson on January 4, 2010 at 11:36 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, I meant to type: "Morality and religion are often mutually exclusive...

The bigger the type, the bigger the typo.

Posted by: chrenson on January 4, 2010 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK

Hume and Fox news need to read the left-wing media bible so they learn to report only the 'news' that preens over Obama and supports his every socialist policy. Hume and Fox News should become part of the media that has refused to report on Climategate, that reports as 'news' their own leftie opinions on the front page. Hume should play his role too in making the word 'media' a joke.

Posted by: Rob on January 4, 2010 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

What is more appropriate to bring up when the issue is such a spectacular moral and personal failure of a champion athlete than the issue of faith?

Besides, Brit Hume is right.

The grace of the Christian God provides a way for people to come back from such an awful place that Tiger is in. It is called confession and repentance. This involves admitting one's wrongs, expressing sorrow for them and promising to turn away from those behaviors by the grace and mercy of God. And because the wrongs we so often do seem so much "who I am", God gives us grace (power) to actually turn away from them. That is what Christianity really is -- along with salvation through belief in Jesus Christ, of course. Many of the posters here seem to have no idea what Christianity really is.

Posted by: Rob on January 4, 2010 at 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Yeah, that Dalai Lama really keeps a grudge.

Posted by: CrabApple on January 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINK

Is this why priests are always banging little boys? Because they know that all they have to do to be right with their God is to look towards the sky and say "sorry."

Posted by: Sepia on January 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINK

Guys? Where's Steve? Should we start looking at the emergency room admissions in the Washington area?

KTinOhio -- You sound like a gnostic more than anything else. But you say you don't care if you're called Christian or not, but I think you do. My reasons for wanting to exclude you from the term are that it's very difficult to talk about anything if it's not delimited. Mormons aren't considered Christian in general parlance, but they are under a broader definition. So how can we even begin to talk about religions at all unless we have some working definitions?

By a broad enough definition almost everyone is Christian or nobody is. Everyone believes we should be nice to each other; are they all christians at heart? Or are the true Christians those who believe in smashing social structures that separate the rich from the poor? In that case, only communitarians are true Christians and most people who call themselves Christians are not.

There's a political aspect to being a "Christian" in that people don't ask a lot of questions and invite you to church, even though what you may practically believe is 180 degrees. In fact, your views on the divinity of Christ are about the same as a jews, Buddhists, or atheists. But you catch no flack for being weird or different, even though your views really are radical to a traditionalist Christian. It's an effective strategy -- both to avoid hassle and to win converts -- but it seems dishonest. "I am a Christian, like you, but believe everything you believe about Christianity is wrong."

Lastly, I call Jesus a "philosopher," because there are a lot of people -- mostly former Christians -- who dig the message. So the idea of Jesus (if not Christ) influences many people, many people who are not religious, which is why I think it's especially important to differentiate the followers from the believers. In your case, since you believe in the divine spark and God and all that, you are following a religious philosopher (or magician or whatever) and not an ethical one... anyway, interesting convo.

Steve, ashrams and churches are praying for your return.

Posted by: inkadu on January 4, 2010 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Inkadu: Fair enough, but there are many definitions of "Christian." Mine happens to be more inclusive than most.

Posted by: KTinOhio on January 4, 2010 at 12:23 PM | PERMALINK

The grace of the Christian God provides a way for people to come back from such an awful place that Tiger is in.

Really? So does Buddhism. What a coincidence. That doesn't make it any less appropriate for Hume to turn Tiger Woods' return to golf into a doctrinal, moral, or religious issue.

Posted by: trex on January 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

The main argument being proffered here seems to be that if a major religion encompasses any individuals at all who engage in the sorts of self-destructive acts that all humans seem to engage in, that religion commits a serious and egregious ... um... I'd say "sin," but that seems verboten here... INTELLECTUAL FAUX PAS by claiming to have anything to offer people in need.

If this argument holds weight here, one wonders how anyone could ever offer anything to another human being.

It's think it's obvious on its face that such an argument is absurd. There are dozens of plausible reasons why a religion offering real help might encompass some individuals who have not fully availed themselves of that help. Only a few of them require that the offer be false. Even fewer require that the offer be offensive.

So, why, exactly, are so many people here so very eager to lend their voices to what is clearly and obviously a nonsense argument??

Posted by: Plumb Bob on January 4, 2010 at 1:03 PM | PERMALINK

The main argument being proffered here seems to be...

Well, no. It's only one of the threads in this thread. It's understandable, though, why you've chosen to zero in on it instead of addressing the many other solid arguments for why Hume's little outburst was wildly inappropriate.

Posted by: Philip on January 4, 2010 at 1:25 PM | PERMALINK

God is...fair and balanced. He/She/It/Them are the source and substance of all that is. It does not matter to God what one says or believes "about" God. There is an aspect of God that is personal and there is an aspect of God that is law. There is no separation, except in our minds. The God all of us are discussing is a creation of the human mind. God, the creator, cannot be contained within anyone's box of beliefs. If that were possible, God would not be God, but some being of limited powers and perception. One of my particular favorite texts is The Science of Mind by Ernest Holmes. I will say nothing further about this than to suggest those interested in a broad interpretation of spirituality and religion do some research.
I am committed to Oneness through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john

Posted by: st john on January 4, 2010 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

media is giving more importance to the tigerwoods case when there are more problems and cases are pending.

Posted by: sm on January 4, 2010 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Arguments against Buddhism: http://kwelos.tripod.com/argumentsagainstbuddhism.htm

Posted by: Moss on January 4, 2010 at 2:32 PM | PERMALINK

Why do Christians always write single huge block paragraphs with no carriage returns? Is the RETURN key forbidden by any of the Commandments?

Posted by: maverratick on January 4, 2010 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Actually you should see the comments on newsbusters.org about this (it's #3 on blogsearch.google.com). There's not a single person with common sense in sight.

Posted by: maverratick on January 4, 2010 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

I say, just as all of you have had your say...that I am glad that someone who had something they wanted to say, wasn't too afraid to stick to the political correctness heap that we've been forced into...this is his opinion...you all have aired yours...what's the difference. If this topic heats you up like this over a quote from the Sunday morning TV...uhhh...that just says something about your own convictions...everyone won't hear the Gospel with fertile ears...

Posted by: R_E_D on January 4, 2010 at 3:11 PM | PERMALINK

this is his opinion...you all have aired yours...what's the difference.

Are you fucking serious? You can't tell the difference between a self-described professional news organization and a bunch of commenters on an opinion blog? Perhaps not. Too many years of slavishly watching Fox as it blurs all lines of responsible journalism have left you unable to think. Doubtful that you had much raw material to begin with.

And our ears are plenty fertile. I'm lobbing a big gob of wax directly at your slackly gaping maw right now.

Posted by: Philip on January 4, 2010 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

A news anchor should never, ever make religious judgments about the subjects of his stories because this country isn't a theocracy, it's a pluralistic democracy. If you want that kind of news reporting, head to Iran.

Of course, Brit was stating his opinion in the commentary section, and he was not the anchor. I understand not wanting the kind of news reporting that comes out of Iran, but what has that got to do with reprters that aren't mouthpieces of a theocracy? Your comment about theocracy seems to indicate that, while you understand the separation of Church and State, you seem to be weak on the whole separation of Media and State. A free press expressing its free opinion doesn't threaten me at all. Why does it threaten you? Unless you believe that the media ought to present the official truth. That is rather frightening to me.

Posted by: Chris H. on January 4, 2010 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK

Shut up shut up shut up you atheistic God mockers. What is your problem? People like you say turn the channel ALL the time when Christians complain about sex in television shows, indoctrinating our children, and even us..... so why don't you all change the channel!
Making fun of Christians won't keep you out of hell you know... to tell you the truth, Christians don't care what you think, but you seem to really care what Christians think, kind of an obsession with some of you... you don't even know why you'r so obsessed with attacking Christians do you? I do: You want them to think like you do so "hell" will go away and there will be no consequences for your actions. Newsflash people: "Jesus is the only way to heaven" if you can't handle that, then it is your own fault nobody is making you do anything.... or.... change the channel!

Posted by: What the Heck on January 4, 2010 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

I say, just as all of you have had your say...that I am glad that someone who had something they wanted to say, wasn't too afraid to stick to the political correctness heap that we've been forced into...this is his opinion...

You're absolutely right. Let's jettison that political correctness altogether. I'm going to being encouraging Muslim news anchors on major cable networks to begin opining on why Sharia law is the only thing that will save the souls of lax Americans every time they go to commercial.

I'm going to begin encouraging Orthodox Jew meteorologists to explain how all the recent bad weather is because Americans aren't keeping kosher and engage in physical activity on Saturday, the sabbath.

I'm going to frontload ESPN with nothing but Jain sportscasters, and look forward to the mayhem that ensues on the hunting and fishing shows as sportsmen engage in the unforgivable sin of wounding and killing living things.

You don't have any problem with that, right?

Of course, Brit was stating his opinion in the commentary section, and he was not the anchor.

Brit Hume IS an anchor. Just because he turns to the side camera or walks over to a table that makes it commentary? Fox New is always trying to blur that line so that when they sow disinformation and innuendo they can pretend it's just "commentary."

And since when the fuck does religious moralizing have anything to do with news commentary on a news network that is by its very definition supposed to be impartial?!? Are you fucking kidding me?

Brit Hume's faux Christian pretensions don't frighten me at all. For a guy who spends his life misleading others, I rest comfortably knowing he'll get his due. What bothers me is the abandonment of reason and the embrace of vague hickabilly religous notions by people whose job it is to inform, not pretend they're preachers. If you don't think that's exactly what happens in theocracies, you're every bit the idiot you appear to be.

Posted by: trex on January 4, 2010 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

to tell you the truth, Christians don't care what you think

Then how come they're all over this thread telling us feverishly what they think?

or.... change the channel

Never watch it, just here to mock it.

Posted by: trex on January 4, 2010 at 5:03 PM | PERMALINK

Brit Hume IS an anchor.

No. He retired from that position last year. Perhaps you should retire as well, from making an ass of yourself.

DEFINITION. Theocracy The rule, let me say that again, the rule of a religious elite with governmental enforcement of that religion.

Not much about people in the press stating their opinions, idiotic or not. Perhaps you think yourself qualified to say what opinions are idiotic and what aren't and to forbid the press stating things you don't believe. Maybe you should move to a country that supports that kind of "freedom" of the press. Venezuela or China sound like your kind of place.

Posted by: Chris H. on January 4, 2010 at 5:26 PM | PERMALINK

DEFINITION. Theocracy The rule, let me say that again, the rule of a religious elite with governmental enforcement of that religion.

Twisting news stories into religious exhortations is precisely what happens in theocracies. I'm sorry that your knowledge of the cultural practices of countries that labor under such governments is limited to a dictionary definition that you googled, but I'm not responsible for your poor education or lack of critical thinking skills. Try and grasp the distinction: a theocracy is government by religion. One of the characteristics of a theocracy is a press in which news is distorted by religion. Brit Hume is exhibiting the latter.

No. He retired from that position last year.

Brit Hume retired? And not thirty years too early. I ask again: how do discussions of Tiger Woods' eternal soul have anything to do with news commentary? This isn't the 1500's. And it isn't Saudi Arabia where the teasers read: "Should Ali be whipped for lying to his shareholders and offending Islam? Story at 11."

You're willing to go the wall to defend this ridiculous notion because Brit Hume spoke from a vague Christian point of view and you feel like you're defending your team against the dirty fucking hippies. But had Brit Hume been a good Calvinist and said, "Well, it's clear from Bush's actions that he is predestined to go to hell" I don't think you'd be so quick to defend religion in the news where it has no right to be. I don't think you'd be so quick to defend if it were a former news anchor on CNN opining that Sarah Palin should get herself right with God by getting back in the home where she belongs and wearing a burqa. I could be wrong, but I'm just trying to give you the benefit of the doubt.

No one here is arguing that Brit Hume can't say what he said. They're saying he's a ridiculous idiot for saying what he said, and a cynical opportunist to try and score cheap points in the culture war by making a completely inappropriate statement that's meant to stimulate the very sentimentality and tribal religious apologetics that appear on this thread.

By cynically turning news stories into shallow religious commentaries you make a mockery of both news and religion. And "news men" -- and I think it's safe to say that Brit Hume still considers himself a "news man" -- injecting poorly understood sentiments about soteriology into a discussion about an athlete's prospects for a return to the game is the absolute height of absurdity.

Well, I take it back: defending such nonsense is the height of absurdity.

Posted by: trex on January 4, 2010 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

Shut up shut up shut up you atheistic God mockers

This is totally fun to sing to the tune of "Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?"

Posted by: shortstop on January 4, 2010 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK
It's think it's obvious on its face that such an argument is absurd

Which explains why nobody here actually made that argument. You basically made up that lovely little strawman all on your own, just so that you could have the pleasure of knocking it down. How precious....

Sheesh... can we get some smarter monkeys, please?

Posted by: PaulB on January 4, 2010 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Cluelessness.

That's all that I see here. It is truth that Christ came to save sinners, which includes Tiger, and me, and you. Your own beliefs don't impact the truth of that statement. But, for logic's sake, set that aside for a moment. Can Tiger aspire to be better than he is? Can you? Can I? Is there any way to rise over the mistakes of yesterday?

Our culture is born out of the Judeo-Christian principles that have proven themselves over time. Western civilization has thrived on these principles as the bedrock of our Legal, Cultural, and Behavioral tenets. Would you consider it good to execute people for jaywalking? Why do we send people to prison with the hope of rehabilitation? Is this based on a possible redemption?

There are those who are quite smug in their estimations. They've got a good bead on things, and can explain the whole world and all of it's interactions in quite scientific and dispassionate terms. Just as Morpheus said, "My beliefs don't require them to believe." In the same way, those of us who know the Truth, offer that truth to you. If you choose to use that as a doormat after trudging thru dogkrap, that's your option, and your freedom.

Oh. By the way... Where do you think that you got that concept of freedom from?

I thought so.

Posted by: Medbob on January 4, 2010 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

Twisting news stories into religious exhortations is precisely what happens in theocracies.

Perhaps, but it's not what defines a theocracy. Secondary characteristics shared by various distinct entities are hardly relevant.

One of the characteristics of a theocracy is a press in which news is distorted by religion.

Only in theocracies in which there is no freedom of the press. It is conceivable to have a theocracy with a free press just as it is conceivable to lack a free press without having what you would recognize as a theocracy. China, again? Is this distinction hard for you to understand because you don't like a free press if they disagree with you?

I wonder if you are bent out of shape at the "twisting" of news stories into exhortations of a different nature, saving the environment or feeding the poor or making the world a better place in general. Maybe you just don't like religion. Fair enough, but an antireligious bias is hardly different from a proreligious bias, at least to a neutral observer (if there are indeed any such creatures).

I ask again: how do discussions of Tiger Woods' eternal soul have anything to do with news commentary?

One might as well ask how discussions of Tiger Woods have anything to do with news commentary. Who exactly are you to decide which aspects of a story that is of a purely personal nature are relevant and which are not.

Posted by: Chris H. on January 4, 2010 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

I challenge to Brit Hume that if you are really a brave man not caring about your head, propose the same thing to a Muslim sportsman or any professional famous Muslim person. You will see that the value of your head would increasingly growing up. If you are a real bold please do that in public. But do not forget then, not to go out without a gang of bodyguards...

Posted by: William on January 4, 2010 at 6:59 PM | PERMALINK

It is truth that Christ came to save sinners

It is truth that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is his prophet, so I'm going to direct Tiger to convert to Islam on tonight's broadcast. If you object, you're just denying truth.

Posted by: Ali Hume on January 4, 2010 at 7:27 PM | PERMALINK

It is truth that God is in and of all things, so I'm going to direct Tiger to convert to pantheism on tonight's broadcast. If you object, you're just denying truth.

Posted by: Minnie Gods Hume on January 4, 2010 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

It is truth that God made a covenant with the children of Israel and the messiah is not yet come, so I'm going to direct Tiger to convert to Judaism tonight. If you object, you're just denying truth.

Posted by: Sheldon Hume on January 4, 2010 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

It is truth that Brahma is the creator, Vishnu is the preserver and Shiva is the destroyer, so I'm going to direct Tiger to convert to Hinduism tonight. If you object, you're just denying the truth.

Posted by: Ravi Hume on January 4, 2010 at 7:36 PM | PERMALINK

Oh. By the way... Where do you think that you got that concept of freedom from?

The Enlightenment, with a groundwork laid by pagan Greek and Roman scholars and a little help from the Reformation and the rise of the middle class.

Christianity gave its blessing to slavery, repressed learning (only priests were allowed to read) and stymied individual rights (God wanted Monarchs and churchmen to rule) for about nineteen centuries until Enlightenment forces were able to take root.

Perhaps, but it's not what defines a theocracy

Who gives a fuck? No one is making that argument.

Secondary characteristics shared by various distinct entities are hardly relevant.

Is that so? Since I'm making the case that we in this country look upon news reporting in theocracies as inferior because it can't be relied upon for accuracy or impartiality (and this is the argument made by wingnuts for years against Al Jazeera) and I'm showing that Hume is engaging in this kind of behavior, it is precisely relevant, your straw men notwithstanding.

Only in theocracies in which there is no freedom of the press. It is conceivable to have a theocracy with a free press

It is logically possible just incredibly improbable. Theocracies in this world use the organ of the press to keep the populace in line. A free press threatens the stability of the government and cannot be tolerated. Fucking duh, you idiot.

China, again?

??? China is not a theocracy. China does not have a free press. Are you free associating?

Is this distinction hard for you to understand because you don't like a free press if they disagree with you?

There is no sensible argument here that I'm failing to understand.

I wonder if you are bent out of shape at the "twisting" of news stories into exhortations of a different nature, saving the environment or feeding the poor or making the world a better place in general. Maybe you just don't like religion.

No, I just don't like pretentious morons who wade into arguments unprepared and then try and talk themselves out of it through red herrings and distractions. Saving the environment or getting food to hungry people aren't metaphysical issues, they are moral and practical ones. Deciding that Tiger Woods' religion doesn't have what it takes to give him forgiveness by a god he doesn't even believe in IS a metaphysical issue.

One might as well ask how discussions of Tiger Woods have anything to do with news commentary. Who exactly are you to decide which aspects of a story that is of a purely personal nature are relevant and which are not.

It isn't me, it is the standards that have been in place for reporting news in this pluralistic democracy that have been in place for probably a hundred and fifty years. Without them every story just turns into, "Well, if only those vacationers had turned to Jesus maybe their car wouldn't have gone off the road." In other words, abject stupidity.

Just cut out the silly ass first year philosophy nonsense, it's just making you look bad. Brit Hume was so wrong to make that statement it's not even funny.

He was wrong in his understanding of Christianity: God isn't going to weaken Tiger's backswing until he repents and converts. Tiger golfed just fine as a frolicking Buddhist.

He was wrong in his understanding of Buddhism: Buddhism has an abundance of material to offer in the way of turning one's life around and finding inner peace.

And on the meta level, he was wrong in his understanding of news reporting if he thinks that doctrinal judgments have any place in it at all.

Posted by: trex on January 4, 2010 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

It is truth that the Tao created the universe and is a force that flows through all life, so I'm going to direct Tiger to convert to Taoism tonight. If you object, you're just denying truth.

Posted by: Xao Xi Hume on January 4, 2010 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

The Rede is truth, so I'm going to direct Tiger to convert to Wicca tonight. If you object, you're just denying truth.

Posted by: Sabrina Hume on January 4, 2010 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

Since I'm making the case that we in this country look upon news reporting in theocracies as inferior because it can't be relied upon for accuracy or impartiality (and this is the argument made by wingnuts for years against Al Jazeera) and I'm showing that Hume is engaging in this kind of behavior, it is precisely relevant

It is the use of the press as state instruments which generally make them unreliable. And Hume was precisely not engaged in news reporting because he was clearly offering commentary, a distinction you seem unable or unwilling to make. If you don't like opinion and analysis being offered within a news program take it up with Roger Mudd, Harry Reasoner, Tom Brokaw and all other senior journalists who have served as commentators on the news. If you don't like the religious angle because you don't trust religion that's your problem. I don't like liberalism, but it's a free country and a free press.

??? China is not a theocracy. China does not have a free press. Are you free associating?

No. I was making that exact point. China is not a theocracy and yet has no free press, thus it is not the presence of religion or theocracy alone which make the press untrustworthy. It's that state control thing.

Just cut out the silly ass first year philosophy nonsense,

Ha, ha! I don't think you have the intellectual capability to distinguish first year from third, you are so fixated on an ideological hatred of religion or perhaps just Christianity.

He was wrong in his understanding of Christianity: God isn't going to weaken Tiger's backswing until he repents and converts. Tiger golfed just fine as a frolicking Buddhist.

Yeah, nice, except Hume never made any such point. And that's my point. You aren't reacting to what he actually did and said because you are simply reacting. A reactionary antireligious bigot is still just a bigot.

Posted by: Chris H. on January 4, 2010 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

And Hume was precisely not engaged in news reporting because he was clearly offering commentary, a distinction you seem unable or unwilling to make.

Made it upthread, more than once. In fact, I keep asking you how judgments of someone's religion have a place in news commentary. You keep studiously avoiding the question with red herrings about what could or could not exist in theocracies and trying to take refuge in technical definitions -- which is what people do when they've lost arguments.

It is the use of the press as state instruments which generally make them unreliable.

No, that's not true at all. In an atheist totalitarian state this is true. In a theocracy where the rule of government is based on some sort of scripture, the driver is religion. The state can't make pronouncements or take actions that contravene religion or risk an uprising, and nor can its press organs. Again, fucking duh.

And again: what the fuck do someone's personal religious views have to do with news commentary? How do they advance the discussion or preserve civil discourse in our democracy? What happens tomorrow when the conservative Catholics newscasters begin offering their opinion that all Protestant politicians are going to hell? When the conservative protestants begin opining that the Wiccans need to be jailed because they're weird and "dangerous"?

I have no problem with news commentary, I have the same problem with pharisees bleating propaganda in the public square to bring attention to themselves that Jesus apparently did.

If you don't like the religious angle because you don't trust religion that's your problem.

There is no such monolithic thing as "religion" you moron, there are only "religions" which are by definition all opposed to one another, which is the idea that a number of posters have been trying to beat into the heads of the wingnuts here all night. YOU won't trust religion when the Jews and Muslims start telling you why so-and-so needs to be ostracized or jailed or removed from office for their religious transgressions, you just don't have the integrity to admit it.

Yeah, nice, except Hume never made any such point. And that's my point.

No, he didn't say what I paraphrased there. He DID say, when asked about Tiger's prospects for a return to golf:

"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. So, my message to Tiger is, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Hume is saying that Tiger's return to golf is predicated upon his

1) Leaving Buddhism behind
2) Converting to Christianity and repenting

On the contrary, Tiger can go out tomorrow and shoot X under par and play in a tournament next week without ever following Hume's exhortation to convert. It doesn't follow at all that Tiger's prospects to return to golf are contingent upon him embracing Hume's religion, any more than Tiger needs to sacrifice a bull to Zeus because George Stephanopoulos thinks it's necessary for him to avoid a lightning bolt.

And we're all stupider for having to listen to this drivel.

A reactionary antireligious bigot is still just a bigot.

Bzzztt! Epic fail. Advanced religious study, which is why I understand the need not to debase religion in the way Hume does here. Wanna know where I'm coming from? Read Madison or Jefferson or Franklin or some of the other Founders' writings on the dangers of religious thought in public discourse. They held the same attitude, and were also criticized by religious know-nothings such as yourself for being "anti-religious."

ou are so fixated on an ideological hatred of religion or perhaps just Christianity.

Why would you make such an uninformed and false ad hominem? To distract from the questions that rebut your mess of incoherent points, clearly.

You're done here.

Posted by: trex on January 4, 2010 at 9:18 PM | PERMALINK

And I think it's worth nothing Steve's summary of why Hume's remarks were so ridiculous that he wrote while this thread was in progress that touch on the same themes:

It's also worth appreciating exactly what made Brit Hume's remarks noteworthy. It's not because he talked about Christianity in public; it's because:

* It's arrogant: Hume feels comfortable lecturing someone he doesn't know about what religious beliefs he should embrace.

* It's close-minded: Hume seems to think there's something inadequate about Buddhism.

* It's ridiculous: Hume may not realize it, but there have been quite a few high-profile Christians of late who've been caught up in damaging sex scandals.

* It's unprofessional: Hume at least pretends to be a journalist at a network that at least pretends to be a credible news outlet. "Fox News Sunday" is not "The 700 Club," and having a journalist proselytizing on the air during a "news" program is not even close to maintaining professional standards.

Posted by: trex on January 4, 2010 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

"The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith."
Hume is saying that Tiger's return to golf...

Hume never said his return to "golf", dimwit. Any unbiased listener could see that he meant his return from the emotional and relational destruction he had inflicted on himself. Hume is wise enough to know that Tiger's golf game doesn't matter at all compared to his soul. It was Krystal who brought up Tiger's getting his game back.

As for the rest of your ignorant screed, well it would be a waste of time quoting the Founders' actual words on religion since you would just ignore them as you have consistently ignored the distinction between commentary and news reporting. My faith has a saying involving pearls and swine.

Posted by: Chris H. on January 4, 2010 at 11:48 PM | PERMALINK

It is truth that your thinking processes and mine have been both influenced, and stepping across the line, I would say, Formed, by the Judeo-Christian worldview. (Provided that you, the reader, are in the Western Civilization.) There are many here that have taken up the mantra of "It is truth...".
The fact that there are many voices and many opinions do not affect the logic and philosophy of truth. The very basis of our reasoning is based on the principle of Objective truth. E=MC2 is an example of scientific objective truth. The thing that our society runs away from, is the fact that in theological terms, that same thing is true. There is something that IS the truth, and it is the task of each of us to find that truth. It is a logical fallacy to assume that I have my truth, and you have yours. That bends and twists the basic idea behind the word that means Truth.

There is A Truth. We all may have different opinions about that, and our own opinions are just like bellybuttons. Our opinions do not influence Truth, they are merely testimonies and reasoning.
If you are willing to cheapen and bend the concept so easily, you will have no foundation from which to base reason upon. If that describes you, may I interest you in a Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Posted by: Medbob on January 5, 2010 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

Isn't it amazing when a Christian high-profile person talks about his faith and shares his convictions he is lambasted. So many people are quick to criticize...I think because of fear. Why are you afraid of Christianity? Because it requires a change of heart and wanting to do the RIGHT thing? One can never do the right thing as long as we live according to what we think is good enough. Our "right" can always be compromised. However, if you take God's standard for living, wow, then one really has to acknowledge that "right" is something we can't attain ourselves unless we come to know God personally.

Christian people are not perfect and they know that. Just because people call themselves Christians and go to church, doesnt' mean "they have arrived". The Christian life is a "process".

Lives can truly be changed if we give up living for ourselves and reach for God's standard. There wouldn't be adultery, there wouldn't be killings, there wouldn't be terrorism, there wouldn't be theft. These are God's standards.

Posted by: Renae on January 5, 2010 at 12:50 PM | PERMALINK

I am proud of Brit Hume's brave effort to offer Tiger some much needed advice. What is amazing is the hateful retorts coming from those that have no experience with Christianity, but feel the need to condemn it from afar. A fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that we are all supposed to introduce our fellow man to Jesus and let them make up their own minds about the relevance or importance Jesus will play in their lives. It seems that is what Brit Hume did. Now we will see what Tiger's reaction will be.

Posted by: Mark on January 5, 2010 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

Hume is wise enough to know that Tiger's golf game doesn't matter at all compared to his soul.

A discussion of Tiger's soul has no place at all in a news commentary. It is rude, arrogant, condescending, presumptuous, unfair, and quite, honestly, outrageous. Who is Brit Hume to decide that Tiger's soul needs help? Why is Tiger singled out? Is Brit Hume such an expert on Buddhism that he can just casually dismiss it?

As for the rest of your ignorant screed

I'm confident that anyone reading this thread can see that my arguments have not been based on ignorance. Nice try, though.

well it would be a waste of time quoting the Founders' actual words on religion since you would just ignore them

Hardly. Let's get into it. Let's pop open the Federalist Papers and see what Madison has to say about religion in the public square. Let's read Johns Adams' scathing critiques of the religious-minded or Jefferson's amplification on his statement that the Bible is just a dungheap with a few diamonds. Shall I begin posting them? I'd really like to.

as you have consistently ignored the distinction between commentary and news reporting.

No you dimwitted moron, I've very clearly acknowledged this distinction over and over and over. Were you deprived of oxygen at birth??? There is no place in news commentary for the discussion of someone's soul based on one's own particular religious beliefs AND YOU AGREE WITH ME because YOU DON'T WANT MUSLIMS ON TV TELLING YOU WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOUR SOUL but you're a dishonest coward who can't admit it.

My faith has a saying involving pearls and swine.

Funny, so does mine, but I have plenty of pearls to spare for the pigheaded, as you can see from this discussion.

Posted by: trex on January 5, 2010 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

What is amazing is the hateful retorts coming from those that have no experience with Christianity, but feel the need to condemn it from afar.

News flash: No one living in the U.S. has "no experience with Christianity." You just don't like the particular experiences the condemners have had. Guess what? Neither do we. Guess what else? The atrocities are a large part of the historical practice of your faith. Own it.

Posted by: Alex on January 5, 2010 at 3:54 PM | PERMALINK

Tiger violated one of the five basic abstentions
in Buddhist SILA. So he, at best, is a non-practicing spiritual (or religious) Buddhist.

Moreover, Buddhist KARMA does NOT countenance
forgiveness that removes any/all consequences
of one's acts.

And there is NO permanent life-after-death in a hell
in spiritual or religious Buddhisms.

So, Britt Hume's casual characterization of
a difference between Jesus and (most)Christianity
and Buddhism(spiritual & religious forms) is
true--even if shallow.

Posted by: buddha8 on January 5, 2010 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Perhaps there is a different way to see this in a world that struggles to, well, really believe in anything...

http://the-raw-deal.com/2010/01/04/brit-hume-suggests-christ-for-tiger-woods/

Nathan R. Jessup
www.the-raw-deal.com

Posted by: Nathan R. Jessup on January 5, 2010 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINK

I'm a Buddhist and I forgive you, Brit Hume, for once again apparently not knowing what you are talking about.

Posted by: Bud on January 5, 2010 at 7:35 PM | PERMALINK

Britt had every right and a great deal of sensitivity to say what he did. Until twenty or so years ago, everyone would have nodded and applauded his wisdom. But now, due to the intense anti-Christian agenda being crammed down the nation's throats, normal opinion has become scandalous. In America, everyone has free speech except Christians, and the same goes for the free practice of religion.
Should he have been muslim and said that islam was the answer to Tiger's problems, NO ONE would have DARED utter a word of the slightest question. Admit it - that is true!

Posted by: Connie on January 5, 2010 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly