You either believe the same as Brit Hume - that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the light and that no one comes to the Father but through Him...and Tiger needs to ask forgiveness for his sins to receive Christ's forgiveness and love - or you believe there are other ways to do this. Forget whether or not Hume should've shared the advice at that time, on that program, or in his role. You either believe what he said is correct or wrong. Read more about it in "Politics and Religion: Knowing Little But Never Being Wrong" - http://richardtgarner.blogspot.com/2010/01/politics-and-religion-knowing-little.html

Mr. Hirschfield, every time I read one of your articles, I'm impressed. Excellent article. Thanks for writing it.

Brit's comments were offensive no matter that "he meant well". When people make the following comments they mean well "inter-racial couples shouldn't have children because the children will suffer"; "homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to..."; etc. The comments are still offensive and from narrow minded and sometimes bigoted people.

Christians may pray for anybody in need of their spiritual support including Pope Benedict XVI who needs it worse than Elin and Tiger Woods. However prosetelyzing is a nono. Presumambly Brit Hume meant well, but any old pro should know TV protocol better. If memory serves me statistics indicate that merely Mormons are less divorce prone than Baptists, Catholics, etc. Probably in this country aren't enough Buddhists to break them out.
More importantly Tiger apologized publicly to his wife and promised to mend his ways. Rarely philandering celebrities show any remorse that swiftly. Readers remembering athletes fleeing a scorned wife attacking them with a 9 iron rather than defending themselves are invited to refresh my mwmory. Christians frequently fight back.
New York Times played that Accenture drops Tiger who used to appear in 83 % of their ads like a big deal. Women's Wear Daily reported that the luxury knitwear giant St. John replaced Angelina Jolie as her fame "overshadowed the brand". Candidly Germany's 700.000-circulation-Magazine Brigitte blames the recession for using instead of highpriced models attractive free-lancers the market better relates to.
According to APA Jack Nicklaus sees a big Year in Wood's Puursuit of Record. So what? Assuming Elin and Tiger kiss and make up on Valentine's Day every birdie may encourage young lovers wherever they are not only to be faithful and true but forgive and forget regrettable straying if the sinner honestly repents. Do potential role models for good marriage deserve your prayers? Thanks for listening.

Maybe Woods could learn from the examples set by Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggert or Cardinal Law or even Newt Gingrich about Christian morals.

What motivates Rabbi Hirschfield to apologize for and defend right-wing hate pundits like Hume? Could it be their mutual allegiance to defend Israel at all costs or their mutual love of bashing Obama?

Don't worry Brad, not everyone was offended.

I was as amused by what Brit said, as I usually am by what you write.

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

Judgmental Huckabee "Christians" offering their own special kind of "forgiveness"

AndreainNY:

I guess it will remain my problem. I'm not suggesting a law should be passed forbidding people from making idiotic statements like Hume's on Fox News. I won't watch it, but I wasn't watch it anyway.

I would hope that other people who do watch Hume would insist that he refrain from stating his opinions on issues that cannot possibly be based on fact, i.e. his speech which boils down to "my god is better than your god".

Hello ANDREAINNY

"It's time to find that line, beyond which you don't have the right to demand anything. I believe you have crossed that line (and may not even realize it exists)."

Yes, exactly. And that line was leapt across by Brit Hume when he suggested, TO Tiger Woods and on national TV, that he should leave his religion and convert to Humes' religion.

This is from a man that has had affairs and multiple marriages, right, and had his affairs WHILE he was a practicing Christian? How appropriate. To Christian behavior.

Hello HAWAIIAN_GECKO

It was KJOHNSON3 that said: "This is the kind of comment that will always cause outrage,.."

You said: "That's really not the problem. The problem is people wound so tightly that it causes outrage."

Perhaps just different viewing points of the same thing, but the fact remains that these kinds of comments DO cause outrage, because they are at their core insulting to the beliefs of those the comments are directed at, and many like you and I, that become part of the dialogue.

Brit Hume's comment was designed as an insult, and as a flag waving to his audience. It was created from arrogance and intended as an insult to Tiger Woods , Buddhism, and believers in religions other than Christianity.

The comment lacked the compassion and caring that SHOULD BE the hallmark of any religious and spiritually minded individual.

Also, Hume may indeed have meant well, as Hirschfield claims. But the larger issue beyond religion is that unsought help for others often causes more harm than no help at all. True respect for Woods' personal boundaries would involve Hume offering to help Woods in private, where Woods could have made his own decision whether to accept the offer. Hume shouldn't have made this a public issue at all.

"Because I know that he meant well and because faith matters to people and it should not be banished from public conversation."

Hirschfield is wrong in trying to make the issue with Hume about the role of faith in public life. No one is calling for banishing faith that way. Hume can say whatever he wants about any religion. The objection here is to Hume's targeting a specific individual in public for an attempt at conversion. What should be banished from public conversation is any individual's choices about religion or about other deeply personal matters. It's not Hume's place or anyone else's to say whether a specific person should change his religion.

"I do have a problem with Brit Hume proselytizing on what is ostensibly a news show."

**********

Well, it will have to remain your problem. There is nothing preventing Mr. Hume from speaking about religion on any show, news or otherwise.

It's time to find that line, beyond which you don't have the right to demand anything. I believe you have crossed that line (and may not even realize it exists).

It's all about the ratings and the money that follows. Hume was just playing to his Huckabee audience. What is outrageous is that Fox calls itself "fair and balanced"

"This is the kind of comment that will always cause outrage." Was posted by someone.

That's really not the problem. The problem is people wound so tightly that it causes outrage.

Did I miss some kind of constitution amendment requiring nothing but news on Sunday morning talk shows?

What about George Snuffalufagus asking his round table of pundits about their New Years resolutions?

Where's the outrage?

Personally, I thought it was strange when I watched it, but so what? Most everything that comes out of Chris Matthews' mouth is strange, especially that tingly feeling he gets in his lower body region whenever he hears Obama speak. Yet, I don't complain about it.

I think Mr. Hirschfield has missed the point. I don't care if Brit Hume tells Tiger to convert to Christianity on The 700 Club, on a blog, in person or most other places. I do have a problem with Brit Hume proselytizing on what is ostensibly a news show. How is that news? Whether you think Fox News is fair and balanced or not, it's hard to make an argument that reporting the redemptive qualities of Christianity is news.

Bill: Bill Tammeus Blog, Faith Matters.
.."this is a good day to ponder the phenomenon of apotheosis, a lovely word that means turning someone into a god."

Humans make all these Earth Gods like Jehovah, Buddha, Jesus, Allah, Elvis, Frank Sinatra, Clark Gable, Tiger Woods, etc.

How did the teachings of Jesus: for the Males to be Celibate, and for All Humans to Share the Earth's resources Equally, end up 300 years later. Jesus left Earth Alive, in 33 CE, and became a Man-Made Religion as a Trinity God?

How did a One God of the Jews, become a Trinity God of Christians? Human Apotheosis? Was the Human Father of Life on Earth in Genesis, the One God/Us in our Human Image, a Group of Persons? Jesus was a Person, and a Spirit Person in Human Form, became a Man-Made God in Three Persons? Why?

Not enough Man-Made Gods on Earth? Or was Communications lacking, with only a few men traveling around spreading the Good News about a New Trinity God in Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit different from the Local Trinity Gods of Father, Mother and Son? Was the One God Teachings, a Spirit 'Being'?

Who turned the One God, into a New God in Three Persons? Humans in 300? How? by Man-Made Creeds? Why? Earth already had many Man-Made Trinity Gods. By Humans.

Which Man-Made Earth God or Gods in our Human Image, are the Literal GOD, not a Human, that made the LIFE Elements, the Universes, and Life as we Know it on Planets?

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Gods+on+Earth&FORM=SOLTDF&pc=SOLTDF&src=IE-SearchBox

Out of all the Man-Made Gods on Earth, Who is the One True GOD of LIFE of Visible and Invisible Elements, and Physical Life as we Know it on Planets and in Spaceships?

Does any Human Know?

Hello Vince33X,

"Holy Cow! One of the idiots posting a comment is comparing Brit Hume to Hitler & Stalin. Those comments are the result of the Anti-Christain attitudes inculcated by the pop culture..."

I am sure that you will recall that it was Christian principles that drove most of the darkest sides of European actions through the ages. Whether it be the Inquisition, (where a torture induced 'admission of guilt' was a gift the torturer gave the victim of torture to allow their black souls admission into heaven!), or Manifest Destiny of the Christian justifying the extermination of Native Americans on the march westward, (and purifying the hands of the murderers, no doubt, in their imaginations).

It is not the liberals that brought us to war in Iraq, or for that matter Afghanistan. It was neo-christian crusaders, under the guise of peace and democratic expansion, and any other useful herring.

You may find pleasure in vilifying NPR and PBS or the ACLU, but without a counterbalancing effect of a more liberal, (and moral!), perspective, Fox News and such hate and fear and shock and awe talking heads would take this country fully into the Dark.

Indeed, they already have. It is not PBS that has the majority audience, Vince, but mega corporations like Fox and Murdoch holdings that hold sway over public opinion. The "liberal media bias" is a lie, Vince, designed to sway weak minds into believing that lie. Conservative rhetorical crap is what fills the airwaves and news outlets.

I am assured that if I turn on Fox I will get full throated and high volume lies and bias bent into the illusion of valid news. It is not. NPR still gives the most unbiased news. A clear mind will see that in two to three seconds, not much more.

Hey, Vince, go back to Rush and get another hit of crap. Not me, thanks loads...

"[T]his should not be such a big deal."

Let's turn the situation around.

Let's say that Brit Hume's comment was this:

"He is said to be a Christian. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Buddhist faith."

Would there be howls of outrage from the Christian right? You bet. Would Rabbi Hirschfield dismiss the outrage as ridiculous? Don't know.

Now how about if Hume's comment had been this:

"He is said to be a Jew. I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith."

Would there be howls of outrage from the Jewish community? You bet. Would Rabbi Hirschfield dismiss the outrage as ridiculous? Again, don't know.

But what's important here is that, in each scenario, a celebrity journalist is using his position in the media to claim that his belief system is superior to that of another.

This is the kind of comment that will always cause outrage, so there is no defensible reason why any intelligent and sensitive adult should ever utter such words. And this is especially true for those who have access to a wide audience by virtue of their celebrity as journalists.

It is always offensive when the mass media become a religious or political pulpit, and I can't begin to fathom why Rabbi Hirschfield doesn't understand this. Hitler understood the value of control over the mass media to influence and indoctrinate citizens, and it gained him unprecedented support for his vile agenda.

Holy Cow! One of the idiots posting a comment is comparing Brit Hume to Hitler & Stalin. Those comments are the result of the Anti-Christain attitudes inculcated by the pop culture - spearheaded by the Anti-Christian Liberals Union (ACLU) that holds such a revered place in our government-controlled schools, government-controlled media (NPR & PBS, ever notice how your held to be so smart if you listen or watch those government propaganda entities. Are you listening Mr. Goebbels?), mainstream media, Hollywood and union halls.
It is nearly impossible to insulate one's self from the Liberal hatred of Christianity that is so omnipotent in today's culture. Do you think the NEA would give a grant if I wished to drop a STAR of DAVID in a jar full of urine? Not bloody likely! But Elephant dung on a visage of the Virgin Mary - now that's art! And Brit Hume is Adolph Hitler! The Left is so infantile inits idiocy!

Tiger Woods doesn't need to change his religion, he just needs to keep his zipper up.

Tiger is a king and as such deserves thirty wives/mistresses akin to the Muslim King of Saudi Arabia i.e. Tiger, get thyself to a mosque!!!!

"So why welcome his comments? Because I know that he meant well..."

Hitler, Stalin, and the torturers of the Inquisition also meant well.

Brad Hirschfield

Seems as if a lot of people are in for quite a surprise when they find out that Christianity really is about a relationship and not a religion, actually a couple of relationships.

Some have this "relationship" thru religion while others have just the religion.

Some have this "relationship" and don't believe in God.

Some have this "relationship" and believe in something other than the True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God.

As I have said, God looks at the person, not the "label".

And as you pointed out, some of those that profess to have such an "open mind" don't even realize that they are sometimes just "mirror-images" of those that they bad-mouth so.

If a person can't speak about "religion and politics" and many can't, does this reflect on "religion and politics" or on the person?

I have met God and there is a difference between knowing God thru an encounter and knowing God's Name.

When I "believed" in God, I did not "know" that God really Is, now I do.

There are many that "believe" in God and even know some about God and yet go way beyond what they know in speaking about God.

It is sad that so many that "believe" in God try to make God so small, as the saying goes: God made us in His Image and we have been trying to return the favor ever since.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Brit Hume, did Christianity keep all the GOP Congressmen from cheating on their wives? Heck no. Larry Craig, John Ensign are just a couple examples on a LONG list.

Hume, in your own narrow way, you are just like the Islamists, who are trying to cram their religion on everyone else. Get out of the news business if you are going to preach.

Is it an overreaction on the part of Buddhists to Brit Hume's proselytizing for Christianity against Buddhism? Here's a simple sniff test: Replace Jesus with Allah. Or Satan. Or Darwin. Does that offend you? If so, then join the club. Fish smells, regardless of whether it's tuna, halibut or cod.

You have reacted, and so has everyone else that felt the need.

What other reaction can you expect from liberals and other thinking people after 8 years of a Bush theocracy that was fueled by his incessant lies which Fox News Corp endorsed incessantly?

How dare Fox News scold anyone about turning to "Christianity" when they have represented everything that is anti-Christ?

"The old adage about not discussing religion or politics was lousy advice based on our inability to remain civil when we disagreed in the midst of conversations about the most important issues in the world. So instead of developing an ethic of conversation that allowed us to discuss these things, we buried them. Playing ostrich is never a good idea, often not even for the ostrich!"

I agree, but only if we can maintain that civility. A casual glance at the comments on this story by Rev. Gaddy should let you know that seems to be impossible. Perhaps that old rule came about because it always impossible. I think the problem arises because people find it hard to be objective about their most deeply-held beliefs. In general, they don't even want to try. And more than a few regard distance and objectivity as at best a sign of lukewarm belief and at worst hypocrisy. The general feeling seems to be "If you're not shouting, you don't mean it."

A good conversation on individual beliefs is a fine thing, but screaming "liberal, godless hater" or "knuckle-dragging, fanatical hater" does not qualify. How would you suggest we raise the tone?

An aside, when did fairly reactionary conservative politics become merged with Christianity? I must have dozed off for that one. I know many fairly progressive Christians, who regard their feelings on care for the poor, sick and disadvantaged as firmly rooted in Christianity. I'm sure they feel they still count as Christians.