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 5, 2010

BRIT HUME SPEAKS, AGAIN.... I didn't intend to return to the subject, but Fox News' Brit Hume spoke to Bill O'Reilly last night about his calls for Tiger Woods to change his religion. At this point, Hume now wants to debate the meaning of the word "proselytize."

To briefly review, on "Fox News Sunday," Hume said the golfer's Buddhism is inadequate to deal with Woods' personal problems. The ostensible journalist said Woods can "make a total recovery and be a great example to the world" if he'd only "turn to the Christian faith."

O'Reilly asked a reasonably good question: "Was that proselytizing?"

"I don't think so," Hume said, before reiterating his comments from Sunday that Woods should convert to Christianity.

Hume said that given Woods problems, he "needs something that Christianity, especially, provides, and gives and offers." That includes, he said, the chance for "redemption and forgiveness." Later in the segment, Hume said: "I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs."

I suspect for Fox News, dictionaries suffer from liberal biases, but "proselytize" isn't a word burdened by nuance. It means "to induce someone to convert to one's faith." For Hume to deny that he was proselytizing on the air is absurd. That Fox News considers this incident consistent with its professional standards tells us all we need to know about the so-called "news" network.

I've been trying to think of a way to frame this in a way Hume's far-right defenders would understand. How about this -- imagine if, after David Vitter's (R-La.), John Ensign's (R-Nev.), and Mark Sanford's (R-S.C.) humiliating sex scandals, a Buddhist media personality appeared on national television and said Christianity is clearly inadequate, and that the right-wing Republicans' lives could get back on track if they'd give up their faith and embraced Buddhism. The Buddhist said this during a news program, and later insisted his/her comments did not constitute "proselytizing."

Is there any doubt that Christians would expect that media figure to be promptly fired? Would conservatives defend the Buddhist's remarks?

Steve Benen 8:00 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (72)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Given that Christianity has "failed" Vitter et al, they might try reading some Depak Chopra. . .

Posted by: DAY on January 5, 2010 at 8:10 AM | PERMALINK

Deepak Chopra is not a Buddhist.

Posted by: Mark on January 5, 2010 at 8:21 AM | PERMALINK

To folks like Mr. Hume, "proselytizing" is always in the second or third person; "you" or "they" were doing it. In the first person, it's just friendly advice and never seen as smug, arrogant or pompous.

Posted by: Mustang Bobby on January 5, 2010 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

Deepak Chopra is not a Buddhist.

-of course he isn't. He is, however, a better choice as "spiritual guide" than Brit Hume. . .

Posted by: DAY on January 5, 2010 at 8:30 AM | PERMALINK

Later in the segment, Hume said: "I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs."

If Jesus Christ was a buxom cocktail waitress, I'd still be Christian.

Posted by: inkadu on January 5, 2010 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

What makes anyone think that "Christianity" failed anyone? "Christians," not to be confused with actual Christians, are famous for fucking as many people as possible over, getting their "forgiveness" and then doing it again. It's the perfect religion for the west.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Posted by: Alan Tomlinson on January 5, 2010 at 8:31 AM | PERMALINK

"Senators Ensign and Vitter and Governor Sanford are mired in a religion which offers redemption after repentance, but are using it as a sort of 'get out of jail free' card. Instead of sinning, then assuming that their God will forgive them, wouldn't these men--and their families--be better off if they didn't in the first place? Buddhism is a faith that emphasizes renunciation of physical desires, something that would have been very beneficial to these Republican leaders. I urge them to put aside the facile and false promises of forgiveness offered by their current faith and turn to a religion that would help them gain a deeper spritual understanding of themselves and overcome their physical urges."

If Brit Hume had said that, all the Fox news audience would be totally OK with it, right?!

Posted by: seriously on January 5, 2010 at 8:34 AM | PERMALINK

Christianity didn't fail Vitter. What Britt is saying that Christianity specialized in rehabbing whoremongers like Vitter. That's his pitch to Tiger.

Posted by: John Emerson on January 5, 2010 at 8:35 AM | PERMALINK

Left out the word "sin" in my 8:34 posting. Second sentence should read..."be better off if they didn't sin in the first place."

Posted by: seriously on January 5, 2010 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

Hmmm, then doesn’t it make sense for monogamous Christians with concentration problems to turn to Buddhism...

Posted by: Subroutine on January 5, 2010 at 8:37 AM | PERMALINK

In the old Naked Lunch, frozen moment sort of way, this is a snapshot of the stereotype for old, white, Christian-Conservative, establishment figure who seems incapable of even the most miniscule self awareness, yet cheerfully determined to analyze others down to their underwear stains in order to provide friendly advice. This is the modern day version of what Jesus called a pharisee.

Posted by: Capt Kirk on January 5, 2010 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK

And if a Muslim said that, the collective screech of anger from conservatives would pose a serious health hazard to eardrums everywhere.

Posted by: Basilisc on January 5, 2010 at 8:45 AM | PERMALINK

Ditto Mustang Bobby. Here's the singular conjugation of the verb:

I share my faith
You evangelize
He/She proselytizes

Posted by: scott_m on January 5, 2010 at 8:46 AM | PERMALINK

Would conservatives defend the Buddhist's remarks?

No, because for conservatives 'Freedom of Religion' applies only to "real" religions, i.e. Protestant Christianity and sometimes to Catholicism and Judiaism.

"With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief it is entirely clear from our nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists." -- Antonin Scalia, McCreary County vs. ACLU of Kentucky

Posted by: SteveT on January 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM | PERMALINK

So what would be Hume's advice be to Rupert "3 wives" Murdoch?

Posted by: CarlP on January 5, 2010 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

It is a little simplistic to say that Buddhists "renounce" worldly desires .

Posted by: FRP on January 5, 2010 at 8:53 AM | PERMALINK

I wasn't aware of the learned justices profound insight into the fine matters of counting chits on a pin .

Posted by: FRP on January 5, 2010 at 8:56 AM | PERMALINK

Hume has jumped the crucifix.

Posted by: Danny on January 5, 2010 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

What would be Hume's advice to Vitter, Ensign, Sanford, etc.?

Posted by: ComradeAnon on January 5, 2010 at 9:21 AM | PERMALINK

In many ways, Hume has always been the worst among Fox's stabIe of right-wing spokesmodels, continually couching outrageously biased newscasts in the trappings of cool, privileged authority and experience. The likes of Beck and O'Reilly never annoy me as much because, however loony their opinions, they practically beg you to agree with them. Hume regarded anyone who disagreed with him like a dead rat in the kitchen, a classic case of a guy compensating for his lack of erudition by affecting an air of unassailable arrogance. He is as contemptible as he is contemptuous, and that's saying something.

Posted by: beejeez on January 5, 2010 at 9:29 AM | PERMALINK

..more like "prostituting".

Posted by: Jesus H. Trollop on January 5, 2010 at 9:33 AM | PERMALINK

Here's the question that popped into my head when I first heard about Hume's homily: Has Brit Hume forgiven Bill Clinton's philandering? Clinton is a Christian and he has asked for forgiveness.

The right wing, however, keeps bashing the guy 12 years later.

Posted by: Lifelong Dem on January 5, 2010 at 9:37 AM | PERMALINK

I am not sure you can frame this in any way that Hume's far right supporters would understand, Steve.

You and I are alert to hypocricies and double standards and principled inconsistencies, so we get the basic inappropriatness, unfairness -- and danger -- in having another person's faith rammed down our throat, the way Hume did to Woods and his audience the other night. But from the fundamentalist Christian point of view where "Truth" is not a contingent concept that is up for grabs, our reach for even-handedness just makes us moral relativists, secular progressives, people without firm principles.

The overwhelming influence in these people's lives is the sense of security and certainty they enjoy from obedient membership in a community united by an unshakable belief that Christianity is the one, true faith -- the single road to salvation. They cannot accept the legitimacy of any other religion, as we do who value our pluralist society, because to embrace an eccumenical attitude risks undermining that absolute certainty that is at the core of their spiritual existance.

I am not sure that turning the tables by having Hume push Buddism instead of Christianity would make any difference at all. The far right would simply say that for Hume to push Buddism would be wrong because Buddism is "wrong" but perfectly acceptable for him to evangilize on behalf of Jesus, Our One True Savior. Remember, these are people, as we saw during the Sotomayor hearings, for whom "empathy" is a controversial concept. So embracing a double standard isn't likely to faze them at all.

Posted by: Ted Frier on January 5, 2010 at 9:39 AM | PERMALINK

Has Brit Hume been paying attention to those paragons of morality and virtue over at C street?

Posted by: ckelly on January 5, 2010 at 9:47 AM | PERMALINK

So apparently a professional athlete is supposed to be a moral compass and a professional snake oil salesman thinks he is a spiritual adviser (to someone who hasn't asked for his advice). We appear to be a nation of lunatics.

Posted by: gelfling545 on January 5, 2010 at 9:48 AM | PERMALINK

Would conservatives defend the Buddhist's remarks?

No, because for conservatives 'Freedom of Religion' applies only to "real" religions, i.e. Protestant Christianity and sometimes to Catholicism and Judiaism.

"With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief it is entirely clear from our nation's historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists." -- Antonin Scalia, McCreary County vs. ACLU of Kentuck

Posted by: SteveT on January 5, 2010 at 8:49 AM

Nailed it. I'd just add that to Xianists, xianity is the only true religion. Buddhism is one of those off-brand religions, not "real" and not deserving of any consideration.

Posted by: Yellow Dog on January 5, 2010 at 9:58 AM | PERMALINK

Radical right thinking:
US is best nation.
US is Christian nation.
Ergo, Christianity is best for everyone.

Posted by: Tom Paine on January 5, 2010 at 10:07 AM | PERMALINK

Vitter likes prostitute-lizing.

-G

Posted by: GregB on January 5, 2010 at 10:10 AM | PERMALINK

In addition to a comment on Mr. Mooney's piece link to yesterday, there is a great essay that is also apropos to this post:

"[...]

"In short, there is plenty of reason to challenge religions and contest their doctrinal claims, not just as an academic exercise, but as a matter of real urgency. Atheists and sceptics should deny the authority of religious organisations and leaders to pronounce on matters of ultimate truth and correct morality. This will require persistent, cool argument, but also moments of outright denunciation or even unashamed mockery of religion’s most absurd actions and truth-claims.

"We should never flinch from expressing the view that no religion has any rational warrant - that these Emperors really have no clothes - and that many churches and sects promote cruelty, misery, ignorance, and human rights abuses. Yes, there are liberal forms of religion, but whatever good will we might feel towards them should not make us hesitate to speak uncomfortable truths. In particular, we ought to insist that religious leaders are not our moral leaders, despite their affectations.

"[...]"

http://www.philosophypress.co.uk/?p=962

Posted by: jhm on January 5, 2010 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

Although Hume's ministrations are appalling. Who cares. It's just the same never ending drivel that fliesd out of the maw of fox people. Does anyone honestly believe Tiger Woods is going to come out and embrace Jesus?

Posted by: Gandalf on January 5, 2010 at 10:16 AM | PERMALINK

I wouldn't have taken offense at Hume's on-air suggestion that Woods should look to Christianity if, in fact, Woods were a Christian. Since Woods is apparently a Buddhist, Hume is, in essence, suggesting that he convert; that's offensive under pretty much any circumstances, but to use the platform of a national television news channel to do this is especially offensive, and if Fox News had any class, it would issue a statement disavowing this.

Even more offensive (and ignorant) was Hume's assertion that Woods' chosen religion is inadequate to deal with his problems.

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Woods is Jewish. Would Hume have made this comment. I'm guessing not. Hume exhibits the unfortunate tendency to be dismissive of any beliefs or customs which aren't "Western".

Posted by: DRF on January 5, 2010 at 10:22 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, it is very Buddhist of Brit Hume to suggest that words have no meaning.
"To proselytize is not to proselytize." Fascinating.
Now, let's see if Hume can wrap his head around this one: "If you meet the Buddha, kill him."

Posted by: Govt Skeptic on January 5, 2010 at 10:27 AM | PERMALINK

Remember, these are not very bright people. They probably thin "prostelyte" is a low-calorie hooker.

Posted by: DocAmazing on January 5, 2010 at 10:35 AM | PERMALINK

According to the latest Pew Forum U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, only 16 percent of American Protestants and 16 percent of Catholics are college graduates. 9 percent of the Protestant population and 10 percent of the Catholic population have post-graduate degrees.

Buddhists, on the other hand, show 22 percent are college graduates and 26 percent (!) have post-graduate degrees. So on the whole Buddhists are an educated denomination. See http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/table-education-by-tradition.pdf

In the interest of being fair and balanced shouldn't Brit Hume invite a Buddhist and a "Christian" onto his show to discuss forgiveness?

Posted by: pj in jesusland on January 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM | PERMALINK

Hume may have a point. I've been thinking of starting my own church precisely because of this point. It is to be called The Church of Christ The Enabler. If you become a member it will not matter what transgression you commit since all are forgivable provided you're up on your tithes. No actual contrition is required. Salvaging careers provides a more substantive service than salvaging putative souls and there is clearly a growing market for such a church. Christianity is, in my opinion, much better dogmatically suited to this function than say, Buddhism. It is your current career you want to salvage not careers from previous or future incarnations.

Posted by: Peter G on January 5, 2010 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

There's nothing wrong with proselytizing as long as it's done on a personal level. What's offensive about saying to someone "I can see you're in trouble and I think I know something that can help you"?

Now, going on national TV and belittling one religion you know nothing about and denigrating another as nothing more than a "get out of jail free care"...THAT's offensive.

Mike

Posted by: MBunge on January 5, 2010 at 11:00 AM | PERMALINK

Commenter Ted Frier is spot-on. There is no reasoning with fundamentalism and no common ground. It's quite disturbing, encountering it up close. The things you assume, or at least would dearly like to believe are true - that facts matter, logic is important, views evolve with knowledge - hold no sway. The fundamentalist mindset is characterized by a defensive wall of certainty, sometimes at the surface, sometimes deeper down, but it's there and it's impenetrable.

Worse still are the creeps who exploit these misguided folk.

Posted by: FC on January 5, 2010 at 11:15 AM | PERMALINK

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,'" Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't - till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!'"
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument,'" Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."


Ah!!! -- now I understand what they mean when they say, "We report, you decide."

Posted by: majun on January 5, 2010 at 11:28 AM | PERMALINK

after observing the perfect hypocrisy of our right-wing for many years I've come to the conclusion that most of the media-figures on the Right (and most of their adherents too, when you get down to it), KNOW they're flaming hypocrites, but could not care less about it.

These people have one rule: win. Win by any means necessary. It doesn't matter what they have to do to win, but winning is the sole goal. IOKIYAR is not an idle joke. It's a basic philosophy with these clowns..and many GOP voters feel the same..if their candidate wins, they win, and they do not care at all what it might take to get there.

They all know they're lying. They lie on purpose, all the time, and even when they're caught, they simply ignore it. They also know it's very tough to fight blatant lying that includes no shame or even acknowledgement, if you're caught.

and so it is.

Posted by: LL on January 5, 2010 at 11:35 AM | PERMALINK

Ted Frier: The overwhelming influence in these people's lives is the sense of security and certainty they enjoy from obedient membership in a community united by an unshakable belief that Christianity is the one, true faith -- the single road to salvation. They cannot accept the legitimacy of any other religion, as we do who value our pluralist society, because to embrace an eccumenical attitude risks undermining that absolute certainty that is at the core of their spiritual existance.

"It's interesting to me at great political battles how you have a Protestant to pray and a Catholic to pray, and then you have a Jew to pray. With all due respect to those dear people, my friend, God Almighty does not hear the prayer of a Jew. For how in the world can God hear the prayer of a man who says that Jesus Christ is not the true Messiah? It is blasphemous."

- Bailey Smith, then-SBC president, at a 1980 Reagan campagin rally in Dallas

Posted by: Chet on January 5, 2010 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

If Jesus Christ was a buxom cocktail waitress, I'd still be Christian.

Maybe she is. The Nazarene has long been rumored to be planning a return engagement.

Posted by: Quaker in a Basement on January 5, 2010 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK

The only thing that disturbs people about what Hume said is that it contains the word, "Christian."

Posted by: voirdire on January 5, 2010 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK

To define Buddhism as a religion using Christianity as a guideline is like defining what a man should be using a brick as the guideline.

Posted by: Muffler on January 5, 2010 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

the way to make it clear to them is to make your proposed commenter richard dawkins and his suggestion that 'abandoning religion and taking responsibility for your own moral decisions is the only way to really take control of your life. anything else is a weak cop-out'.

Posted by: matt on January 5, 2010 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Because Christians NEVER cheat on their spouses!!!!

Posted by: Terry C - NJ on January 5, 2010 at 2:28 PM | PERMALINK

Muffler: in the philosophy of Oneness, man and brick are One, so the definition is valid/snark/

Posted by: st john on January 5, 2010 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

@voirdire No, there have been two posts so far explaining what disturbs people about what Brit Hume said, and it's not simply the word Christian. Try reading as if we are explaining our point of view. Reading to justify your own prejudices isn't getting you very far.

Posted by: Joseph Nobles on January 5, 2010 at 2:35 PM | PERMALINK

Christianity has definitely failed Brit Hume AND his dead gay son, Sandy.

http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2010/01/04/pastor-brit-and-the-boys-in-the-band/

Posted by: David Ehrenstein on January 5, 2010 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Deepak Chopra is a quack and con-artist.

Posted by: Mike Nilsen on January 5, 2010 at 3:00 PM | PERMALINK

Deepak Chopra is a complete charlatan. I can't believe he writes for HuffPo. The guy is a joke.

Posted by: Dan on January 5, 2010 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

Although I thought Brit's comment was rather odd, its kinda hard to "induce" someone who (a) isn't being spoken to directly and (b) isn't even listening to what Brit is saying.

More blogosphere hyperbole. Shocking, I know....

Posted by: Craig on January 5, 2010 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Does anyone honestly believe Tiger Woods is going to come out and embrace Jesus?

Yes, if his PR people believe it is the only way for him to get back all of his endorsements. I mean, come on, that's totally within the realm of possibility, right? When your net value takes a major hit, and some idiot like Brit Hume comes up with an easy-as-pie way to ramp it back up again - and all it takes is mouthing some bullshit pieties to an imaginary being - then why wouldn't Woods do that?

Posted by: commie atheist on January 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM | PERMALINK

"Proselytizing" ? No. Hume was offering public relations advice, from one cynical entertainment figure to another, about the most quickly digestible media narrative by which Woods could recover his brand marketability.

The Christian redemption narrative is totally rote at this point. If only Woods would take Hume's advice! Then cable news producers could script the copy in their sleep, for Hume to read in his; block out time for a hyped sit-down interview; (most importantly) start to sell ads for a special broadcast about it all, right away; and pull down some good ratings for January. The would help (Brit Hume & his network) a lot.

Posted by: Karen Eliot on January 5, 2010 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, Karen Eliot, but I want to see a full-immersion baptism in the water hazard off Augusta's 9th fairway.

Posted by: shortstop on January 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

"So when does Brit Hume advise Charles Krauthammer that if he accepts Jesus as his personal Saviour he will walk again?" -Roger Ailes

http://tinyurl.com/ybw9qzp

Posted by: Elliott on January 5, 2010 at 3:49 PM | PERMALINK

Meh. Fox News knows their audience.

What I find more interesting is that apparently a memo has come down from on high that the FauxNewsers are to start pumping Christianity now, as well as far right talking points. So Brit deftly complies with his corporate overlords at his first opportunity.

I predict we've only begun to hear the overt proselytizing from Fox. Let's keep our ears tuned for the next incident.

Posted by: gypsy howell on January 5, 2010 at 3:51 PM | PERMALINK

Steve: My first thought in this case was actually, "If a Jew had had the nerve to suggest that a prominent personality--who happened to be Christian--needed to get a little Judaism into his life because, after all, Judaism has Yom Kippur and the concept of atonement, which is something that Christianity really can't provide, I shudder to think how that person would be treated."

I mean, imagine Rep. Kantor saying something like that about David Vitter. Think he would get re-elected? Or even last long in his current term? (And how many whack-job neo-Nazi loons would lob fire-bombs at his house or burn crosses in his yard? How long until variations of "blood libel!" would be hurled his way?)

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

I have a better suggestion for Tiger. The only reason for finding religion is to ensure that the soul goes to heaven and not the other place. The Christians say tithe our religions and we can guarantee a spot on a cloud, complete with harp.

The Catholic Church blatantly sold redemption for shorter time in purgatory for those who could afford it. I ask how can anyone rely on the church to actually get you out of purgatory if is not controlled by the diety but by his adversary? Then shouldn't you make payment to the one who can actually get you out of purgatory? By say making a large donation to your favorite humanist or atheist organization who is actually in league with the adversary of the diety.

Indulgences should be paid to those who can actually excuse your transgressions, not the ones who created them in the first place.

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

What I find more interesting is that apparently a memo has come down from on high that the FauxNewsers are to start pumping Christianity now, as well as far right talking points. So Brit deftly complies with his corporate overlords at his first opportunity.

Just so. What's more, they're looking to solidify their viewer base by playing the Christian victim card in reaction to the perfectly appropriate criticism of Hume's behavior. Ramp up viewers' beloved claims to persecution, bump up the ratings.

Posted by: shortstop on January 5, 2010 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

What irked me about Hume's comment is that it trivialized Christianity as a "get out of jail free" card.

And yeah, I think the Christianists are getting serious media backing.


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

You know, Brit could get arrested in Ireland for a comment like that...

Posted by: m on January 5, 2010 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

You'd stand the best chance of hitting you target if you asked conservatives to imagine an atheist telling those politicians to give up their so-called Christianity and embrace godless humanism.

Posted by: s9 on January 5, 2010 at 5:17 PM | PERMALINK

Brit Hume's bigest problem is that gigantic stick lodged up his ass.

I think Tantric Buddhism would offer him the kind of "release" he so desperately needs.

Abandon the Dark Side, Brit, you brainless twit.

Posted by: The Fool on January 5, 2010 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

That Fox News considers this incident consistent with its professional standards tells us all we need to know about the so-called "news" network.

Just this morning someone pointed out to me that shit is actually rather stinky and nasty.

That tells me all I need to know about that so-called "food."

From now on, shit is strictly off the menu at my house.

Posted by: VictorLaszlo on January 5, 2010 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

Robert A. Heinlein

Posted by: JW on January 5, 2010 at 6:23 PM | PERMALINK

... Would conservatives defend the Buddhist's remarks?
�Steve Benen 8:00 AM

Sure, why not? It's not an imperative, a forced action, it's just a remark.

Opinions are like belly buttons...everybody's got one. Hume has his thoughts, the Buddhist has his. Brit simply thought Tiger might be edified and better served by Christianity and said as much. Last time I checked, Tiger is an adult and has free will and can choose as he pleases. He can easily tell Hume to STFU.

It was free advice and Tiger can regard it as worthless if he pleases. It's America.

Posted by: marybel on January 5, 2010 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Christianity has definitely failed Brit Hume AND his dead gay son, Sandy.
http://fablog.ehrensteinland.com/2010/01/04/pastor-brit-and-the-boys-in-the-band/
Posted by: David Ehrenstein on January 5, 2010 at 2:44 PM

David, aren't you one nasty version of humanity? Losing a beloved child is one of life's greatest tragedies. To get off on Brit Hume's great suffering in that way is truly sadistic.
Shame on you.

Posted by: marybel on January 5, 2010 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

Losing a beloved child is one of life's greatest tragedies. To get off on...great suffering in that way is truly sadistic.

It really is. So when Brit Hume described the casualties in Iraq as "neglible," and further tried to diminish the sacrifice of the troops there to boost the fortunes of Bush and the Republicans by falsely claiming they would be more likely to be killed in California, he was REALLY being a sadistic asshole.

But as we know, IOKIYAR. All in the service of flag and country and true America and whatnot.

Posted by: trex on January 5, 2010 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK
I suspect for Fox News, dictionaries suffer from liberal biases

You ain't just whistling "Dixie," Mr. Benen. From March:

Goldberg, on Bill O'Reilly's show Wednesday, started out claiming, like Angela McGlowan, that Jackie Mason's use of the racial slur "schvartze" isn't "a bad word." Then Bill O'Reilly noted that his dictionary, quite accurately, notes that the word is frequently used as a pejorative:

O'Reilly: OK, but here's what the dictionary says. The dictionary says the word s-c-h-v-a-r-t-z-e -- "often disparaging and offensive."

Goldberg: Forgive my arrogance. The dictionary is written by some liberal person.

Persecution complex much, Bernie?

Posted by: AndrewJ on January 5, 2010 at 10:21 PM | PERMALINK

Ok...

Brit Hume = Xstian = 2 marriages

Tiger Woods = Buddhist = 1 marriage

Hume = asshole and sucks at his job

Woods = asshole but awesome at his job

Posted by: connecticut man1 on January 5, 2010 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

What I found interesting is how the two non-Christians on that panel -- Bill Kristol and Chris Wallace (who reportedly doesn't think of himself as Jewish but whose mother and birth father are Jewish) -- reacted. Wallace said nothing, natch. Kristol was obviously uncomfortable, but couldn't bring himself to register a meaningful protest. Obviously, they both know who butters their bread at Fox.

Posted by: Frank on January 6, 2010 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

I'm gonna go out on a limb to predict that Tiger will not win the Masters when he comes back for the simple fact that Bill Kristol predicted he would. The man is wrong about everything.

Posted by: Phil on January 6, 2010 at 2:17 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