Hume was right and proper

capsfan77:
"PRESTO6668, it's you who is missing the point. Hume's role is NOT an objective newsman. His role now is to offer his viewpoint/opinions on the news, on newsmakers and on political events. That's what he does and it's what he did here."

Fair enough. In that case he should produce his credentials that allows him to state with authority that Christianity is in some way objectively better than Buddhism.

I wonder how being a Christian moderates Brit Humes's sex life. What kinds of sexual positions does he engage in? Are their any that he would like to explore, but knows he should not because he is a Christian? I wonder how many sex partners has he had in his life, and would he be willing to take a lie detector test while answering, so that I could better form an opinion and judgement of him. And has he ever committe adultery before? And even if he has not, has he ever been tempted to? and if so, what were the circumstances of this temptation? and I will be needing names, dates, and a lie detector test. I need all of this information so that I can make a better and more informed judgement about how Christianity is helping him.

Hi sonofliberty,
we atheists are not god-hating. Nobody can hate a non-entity.

Why is it so hard for theists to imagine that gods are simply inventions of the mind - projections of human desires onto the natural world? It's easy to see this with other people's gods (Zeus, Osiris, Vishnu), just not with your own (God of Abraham).

All gods are fictions. All of them. Arguing about what gods do, or don't do, shows a profound lack of imagination, and is a waste of time. The sooner we move beyond these enslaving relics of the past, the better our chances of survival on this planet.

The truth will set you free.

Why do Huckabee "Christians" think the media is unfair? They bring it on themselves: CNN) -- Pat Robertson, the evangelical Christian who once suggested God was punishing Americans with Hurricane Katrina, says a "pact to the devil" brought on the devastating earthquake in Haiti.

Mahatma Gandi said it best: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

fr the article:

>... I too think that the best way for Tiger to deal effectively with his current problems is to accept Christ as his Savior. Now, are people offended by that? After all, I am president of a very large evangelical seminary...

And his "point" is......So WHAT if he's "president of a very large evangelical seminary"? That only grants him a fat paycheck, not an automatic pass through the Pearly Gates.

Hume should have kept his mouth shut and ONLY comment on sports, as that is what he is hired to do.

"Yet I have no doubt that if I had articulated that, say, on Larry King, people would say --or at least think--the same kinds of thing about me as in their response to Brit Hume."
---------------------------------------------------------------
I tend to challenge you on that. The reason is that you are an evangelical theologian--and therefore people would expect you to call on others to become Christians. Likewise, for example, since Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) is a prominent convert to Islam, viewers would expect him to encourage conversion by others.

Secondly, your example of the Larry King show is a discussion program in which guests may discuss current headlines from a variety of viewpoints and express personal opinions and recommendations. Fox News Sunday, on the other hand, usually takes a "hard news" perspective, like the other Sunday morning news discussion programs.

These two facts--that Fox News Sunday is fundamentally a news discussion program and Mr. Hume is a news analyst--have given rise to much of the questioning that calling for a religious conversion was inappropriate in this setting.

America is becoming a FAILED STATE because the intolerant Huckabee "Christian" sect has united with Karl Rove's "Southern Strategy" politics of hatred, racism, division and intolerance.

Satan's brew of religion and politics in goosestep manifests itself through the likes of Hume, Mormon Elder, Beck, Palin and Huckabee demonizing gays, Buddhists, Muslims, Mexicans and anyone and everyone else who is not a lily white, GOP "person of faith"

A doctor diagnoses a serious disease in a patient. There is a possible cure. If the doctor tells the patient about the disease it will cause the patient much pain and discomfort to learn of the condition. But if the doctor says nothing, the patient will die. By telling the patient the cure can be applied.
ArchieAndrews

Archie, a doctor only gives a patient a diagnosis after the patient has come to the doctor wanting to know what is causing his symptoms. The doctor doesn't go grabbing random people off the street and doing lab workups on them. Tiger Woods didn't ask Brit Hume to "diagnose" the cause of his problem, or to propose a "cure" for it.
I feel the same way about the evangelists who come knocking on my door. The gargoyle by the front door, the sage bundle on the door frame, and the pentacle on the back of my car should give them a clue that I already have a religion. And yet they feel compelled to try to sell me theirs. If I wanted to be Christian, there are three Christian churches within walking distance of my house. If I'm not there, it's because I'm not interested.

If your only practicing a religion because it suits you, then your going about it totally wrong.
Posted by: summersgoblue

Why on earth wold anyone practice a religion that didn't suit them?

Us-conscience,

Further I am insulted that Christians, in their utter ignorance and narrow sightedness, presume my way cannot serve me well, and cannot bring me to the level of forgiveness and redemption that they believe their way can.

Most of them, probably to a man, has no idea what kind of relationship I may have with God. It does not matter to them, even if they had the foggiest. And the foggiest is not required.

Ignorance speaking in conditioned tongues. The definition of arrogance.

Hello Us-conscience,

"God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble."

It is a common tactic of one side to vilify the other, and find justification for that vilification. So for you, all you may see is 'the prejudice of the unbelievers'. Liberals are the proud, good conservatives are the humble. How quaint, and supportive as well to your world view.

Yet the very basis of Christianity, and so therefore the believing Christian, is tribal. Exclusive, non-Inclusive, Arrogant, Better Than. Proud...

Not perhaps the original Teaching of it, but what it became.

I am not offended, or in any way hateful, to Jesus. I am insulted, and offended by, Christians that degrade my beliefs and way of coming to know God, simply because it does not follow the rules they follow.

I hate arrogant people, and elitism is built into Christianity, and so therefore arrogance.

What is offensive is the arrogrance and lack of humiltiy that Jesus preached against.

"Suppose, on the other hand, that Oprah had publicly recommended that Tiger join a New Age group in order to achieve an inner harmony that would restore his relationships. I doubt that there would have been an outcry. Nor would there be if, say, Yusuf Islam, formerly known as Cat Stevens, would urge Tiger to follow him in turning to the Muslim faith--or if Madonna recommended that Tiger turn to Kabbalah mysticism."
___________________________

But they didn't so how would you prepose to know what the reaction would be? But let's say I recommend to Ted Haggard that he convert to Lutheran where he would not have to mask his homosexuality. I'm sure you would be all for that kind of proselytizing, right?

"If God is truly an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient Christian entity, why do so many Christians feel the urge to go on the defensive as soon as earthly critical disagreement ensues?"

What does one have to do with the other? If I shower hate on an atheist for his beliefs, is he not allowed to protest? Would you accuse a black person who was offended by being called a foul name "defensive"?

Justify the left's hate speech all you want, but don't expect the targets of this bigotry to buy your intellectually dishonest spin for a second.

Instead of sneering at Christians, how about admonishing your fellow "tolerant" liberals to demonstrate some confidence in THEIR values and not be so offended when somebody recommends Christianity to somebody else. Of course, doing so would require intellectual consistency, and that is not part of the makeup of the extreme left.

Mr. Mouw: If God is truly an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient Christian entity, why do so many Christians feel the urge to go on the defensive as soon as earthly critical disagreement ensues? If one's belief and faith in Him is solid, why react as if He is impotent, fragile and needs protection? Why should God be threatened by perceived bias on the part of mere mortals?

Or, is it possible that the reaction to criticism is an example of a professed faith that is not as rock solid as it appears?

I appreciate your comment that the reaction to Britt Hume's pronouncements should ignite open discussion, but how would you react if the result is that Tiger Woods chooses a path other than Christianity?

By the way, I consider Wood's self-inflicted predicament to be, in the end, a personal one, despite the fact that he is a public figure. Nor do I consider athletes heroes by virtue of that public exposure.

Finally, his wife and children do not need an invasive, national discussion of which religion or new age psychological therapy are appropriate for his "redemption" as a husband and father.

Let's hope that Tiger Woods seeks the kind of counseling that works for him and his family, and not assume that some of us presume to know what is best in this situation.

"But can we all think differently about God and all be right?"
- Archie Andrews
-----
Yes, as a matter of fact, we can. If you think otherwise, tell me: do you think that a higher being is constrained by your puny understanding; or do you have such hubris as to believe that you, in your insignificance, can wholly understand such an entity?

Nice paragraph, kenzoan13,

"But let's cut the victim-hood, here. You really think there's a bias against Christianity in this country, as opposed to, say, Islam? In general, evangelicals like to claim that this is a Christian nation, yet they maintain there's a bias against them. Keep your own house in order, folks."

I would also add that Christians often quote polls suggesting that most Americans consider themselves Christian and believe in the Christian God.

So, is this like self-immolation? Self-flagellation?

Self-agrandization?

It is more than obvious, just by reading the comments on this very post, that the answer to the question " Is there widespread media bias against Christianity? " is overwelmingly YES.

But not to be surprised, Jesus said they have hated me and if you follow me, they will hate you.

No one likes to have their sinful lifestyle put under the lights of examination and people who are proud and selfrighteous cant stand the thought of anyone except themselves being judge over them.

God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble.

"...the fact that Christians are not silent is out of love for others. Consider this somewhat silly comparison:
A doctor diagnoses a serious disease in a patient. There is a possible cure. If the doctor tells the patient about the disease it will cause the patient much pain and discomfort to learn of the condition. But if the doctor says nothing, the patient will die. By telling the patient the cure can be applied."
- ArchieAndrews
-----
This is the one evangelical argument that is guaranteed to tick me off, and I've heard it before; an evangelical friend once told me that he was trying to convert me because my disbelief was like cancer and Christianity was the cure. Can there possibly be a more vile, arrogant and belittling statement? "You clearly don't know what's best for you, but *I* do." Evangelical Christians need to get it through their incomparably thick skulls that other people come by their beliefs through long years of thought, reflection and contemplation. If that didn't bring me to Christ, then your condescending attempts at proselytization are only going to make me think less of both you *and* your religion.

Jefferson's statement in the Declaration that men were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." is consistent with natural, not revealed religion. In fact, his declaration of unalienable rights flew in the face of the doctrines of established religion by reserving rights of citizens from arbitrary usurpation by a monarch claiming divine rights with the sanction of the church. Scripture does not enumerate man's rights, rather, it deals with man's obligations and duties. Endowing men with "unalienable rights" would impose restrictions on Christianity's all powerful, omniscient personal God. Jefferson was not alluding to the God of scripture, but to Thomas Paine's concept in the "Age of Reason" of natural religion, which was consistent with Jefferson's deistic tendencies and expressed Unitarianism, i.e., God created a design and laws for the natural world and then withdrew from its unfolding. If God did this then man would have whatever rights the design entailed in the design as unalienable, but man would have no such rights with the Christian God who personally and continuously unfolds creation. Such a God would not be subject to restrictions on His power over creation. The only restriction implied in scripture (there is disagreement among the sects) is man's free will to accept or reject God's dominion. This is not the Creator to Whom Jefferson was referring. The Founding Fathers did not expressly or by implication establish a Christian nation.

Of course we can't say there is a "Christian" bias against Buddhists or anyone else different.

That would be Huckabee blasphemy.

Would you think it was "right and proper" if I say the Huckabee "Christian" sect is not adequate in the tolerance and respect of other?

Religious fanatics are everywhere, I am tired of hearing everyone preach. You dont see atheist making their point to try and unconvert these religious fools. The world is based on science, and the world is not 5000 years old or 2010 years old, is billions of years old. You want to believe in whatever than do so, just dont shove your beliefs and everyones throat. They are no better than those islamic fanatics who kill in the name of religion. They are one step away from being like david koresh and wayne bent, they may as well move to strong city and start sleeping with children and other's wifes. These backward religions have women as property and not like equal humans. Some of these people still belive the earth is flat and the sun rotates around earth. As people learn they always become free from the religious grip. Travel the world, read books and you will find that there is a lot more to life than waiting for the judgment day. The apocalypse is not coming and everyone should live their life to the fullest. And if You want to practice your religion by all means do so, but please dont shove your beliefs in others throat, we are all human and we all decide what is best for us...

I don't believe there is absolute proof that all or any of the founding fathers were Christians. This is a classic example of circular logic, the kind that people who seek to prove itthe bible to be true true cite the bible as proof that the bible is true. In fact there is no logic in any of the Christian manifesto. Christ died for MY sins? How are the 2 connected? His dying and my sinning. God procreated? begot? a son to come to earth in order to be murdered for the good of all Christians. When you read it like this it is utterly ridiculous, which is OK but do not try to force me into the same line of thought. And by the way, Jesus was the greatest person to walk the face of this planet. Nothing else need be said or assumed about him. He was great on his own merits.

There is a problem with the question itself: Is there widespread media bias against Christianity?

The answer I think is "no." There is widespread public response to stories that show the failures of Christians to live up to the religion they espouse. The media is giving the public news that it responds to. Or stories that show the conflict between civic life free from as "established religion" and the exercise of religion. In either case, it really is news and something the public needs to know.

There should be news about public figures who choose to make their faith part of their public life. Epecially if they insist there is a right to use the public position they hold as a lever to promote their faith, or claim some higher moral right to hold the positions they have because they are Christian (for example, Palin's "God's plan").

So, we want to see - and have a right to see - if their faith makes them better stewards to the public, better people, more inclined to promote the social welfare over personal gain, better newsmen, better CEO's of corporation.

It is very upsetting when we find that the Christian politician is no more moral in public office than the non-Christian, or at least the ones who don't make a show of their religion.

It is more disappointing to find the Christian politician who had an affair, sold out to lobbyists, used profane language, lied, outed CIA agents, of any number of other misdeeds committed by those who chose to make their faith part of their public persona.

Christians have become very involved in politics in the US as Christians. They use their faith to try to influence legislation, encourage their members to vote in block for politicians who support their positions, encourage specific legislation because they are the "moral majority" or want to promote "social issues."

The media is not biased in reporting this news when the Christian community made itself a political community.

One more point to Mr. Mouw. If you were to espouse conversion to Christianity as a solution to sin and a promise of a heaven to come, I would not be surprised and would listen to what you have to say. You do not put yourself forward as an impartial newsman or commentator.

Want to know why so many people HATE religion? Because those of us who think it is an utter waste of time are constantly having to hear sanctimonious drivel from windbags like Mouw and Brit Hume.

I wonder how Mr. Mouw would feel if people sat around on a national television show and discussed how much better his life would be if he accepted make believe Deity X.

"I wish that Brit Hume's comment had been welcomed as a way of opening up that kind of conversation!"

But Hume wasn't interested in opening a conversation. He offered his own uniformed misunderstanding of Buddhism as a straw man to be flattened his own unquestionable beliefs. That's not conversation; that's rhetorical bullying.

In truth, if Tiger were a Buddhist he would have realized that his desires were going to lead to suffering.

But many people claim to believe in a religion which they do not really follow. Hume is a good example. For example, as a remarried divorcee, Hume is, according to the words of Jesus Christ, an adulterer. (Sorry, Brit, it's in the Bible.)

Meanwhile, he goes on TV to point out the splinter in Tiger Woods' eye while he has a huge chunk of timber sticking out of his own.

A "newsman" spreading misinformation about a respected religion while professing a religion that he doesn't really follow in order to boost his ratings should be offensive to everyone--Christians and nonChristians alike.

Sarah Palin and Brit Hume' s worldview are consistent with the view of our founding fathers and Susan Jacoby and the rest of the God haters in both parties are not (mainly the progressive left). Thomas Jefferson wrote in our founding document the Declaration of Independence the following,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

This means that all the people who are fighting to remove any reference to God from the public square have a view that is conflict with those of the founders. Their view of Separation of Church and State was that the state couldn’t establish religion. That does not mean that elected officials, teachers, etc. cannot mention God.

The big problem is not that people in public life refer to God but to the contrary that people have abandoned the foundation on which our nation was built. That foundation was the Judeo Christian worldview rooted in the protestant reformation in Western Europe.

Western Europe has now left that foundation and has been taken over by humanistic socialism. Now Islam is seeking to fill the vacuum left by the radical left's hatred and abandonment of faith in the Christian God. Sadly, we usually follow Europe's lead and sure enough it seems we are following that treacherous path now.

The liberal elites always think they know best. In the name of tolerance and equality they sneak in and take over. In the end they set up a new set of rules (political correctness) in place of God's rules. They place government in the place of individual freedom and accountability to God. In other words they place themselves in the place of God and loathe anyone who suggests that there is a higher standard (God's standard) to which they must bow. Therefore they will not tolerate anyone who disagrees with them. So they seek to destroy all enemies by demonizing them any way they can.

The liberal elite of this country includes at least 80% of our current press corp. They have become propagandists for the radical God hating progressives. That is why Fox News is number 1. They do not ridicule and belittle Christians the way the so-called educated elite media does.

listen everyone... this country was built by our founding fathers. they were christians! This country has been built by christian men and women for its entire existence. so iff you are offended by people saying merry christmas instead of happy holidays, TOUGH. Sure we will let you say/think what you want even if we strongly disagree. but return the favor! By the way... how is it offensive to say that bhuddism isnt adequate? Thats his opinion! If your only practicing a religion because it suits you, then your going about it totally wrong.

If I want to hear anything about religion,I'll go to church....what humes done was not proper and it was not right....he had no buisness what so ever telling Tiger woods what he should do or what he shouldn't do...especially on national tv....if he thought he did,then he should have met with him and told him in private....I keep waiting to see if Tiger will tell humes what he can do...but he's probably a lot smarter that that..

"It's inappropriate for a supposedly objective newsman."

PRESTO6668, it's you who is missing the point. Hume's role is NOT an objective newsman. His role now is to offer his viewpoint/opinions on the news, on newsmakers and on political events. That's what he does and it's what he did here.

Because evangelicals present faith as FACTS. They aren't. They are opinions as is all religion. If not there wouldn't be 4200+ known religions and counting...

"Suppose, on the other hand, that Oprah had publicly recommended that Tiger join a New Age group in order to achieve an inner harmony that would restore his relationships. I doubt that there would have been an outcry."

The difference is that Oprah is not on a news program and Hume (theoretically) is.

You're entirely missing the point. People are not upset about Hume's advocacy of Christianity. They're upset about the *context in which it was given*. It's inappropriate for a supposedly objective newsman to give opinions on religion It's not the time or the place for that kind of thing.

It would be like me walking into your church and giving my opinions on Keynesian economics in the middle of a sermon.

Given Elliot Spitzer's peccadillos maybe Hume will advise him to convert from Judaism to Christianity. But what will he advise Clinton, Vitter and Ensign to do?

...I would assert that non-Christians are in fact less tolerant of Christians because they feel so offended by a one way to God view - even though they themselves hold equally strong views that there are many ways to God or that there is no God . Tolerance shouldn't be based on conformity to our personal views.
Posted by: ArchieAndrews
---
1) I do not feel offended by the concept that there's one path to God. You could be right about it. It's just that your particular one-path view seems to yield a very unfair God. If He's going to punish Gandhi for not holding a particular belief while rewarding a serial murderer for a death bed confession, I'm not sure I want to spend eternity with Him.

2) I don't hold a strong belief that there are many paths or no God either. Your assertion about non-Christians was a generalization based on your intuition, not based on any relevant facts.

3) Your analogy to a doctor was interesting, but supposes that you have more knowledge about the topic than the me, the patient. Considering the two significant flaws found in only your last paragraph, I'd say the more appropriate analogy is my receiving advice about governmental monitoring from the guy on the street corner. He could be right, but I don't really trust his thought processes.

Hume took it a step further than Mouw does here. He didn't just tout his own religion, but really dissed another religion. Plus, Brit Hume is - supposedly - a journalist - and while he's entitle to espouse his opinion, it's our right to say we disagree with his opinion and his method of expressing it.

But let's cut the victim-hood, here. You really think there's a bias against Christianity in this country, as opposed to, say, Islam? In general, evangelicals like to claim that this is a Christian nation, yet they maintain there's a bias against them. Keep your own house in order, folks.

Never stand between a Christian and his sense of persecution.

And P.S., if you want to see a bias against a religion, just listen to what many Americans have to say about Islam these days.

Would the Christian community be upset if a Buddhist suggested that Christian holy men such as Jimmy Swaggert, Jim Baker, the dozens of pedophile Catholic priests, etc. should become Buddhists and follow the Eight Fold path as apparently their purported belief in Christ was insincere or worthless? At the bottom line the basic message of fundamentalist Christians is that you can be as much of a scum bag as you want and, yet, achieve salvation. This may be spiritually relevant, but corporally irresponsible. Buddhism encourages its adherents to live a blameless life while Christianity holds out rewards for those who act criminally. The heinous acts of the supposed shepherds of the Christian flock serve as a demonstration that the religion, as was claimed by the pagan Romans, can lead to socially irresponsible and criminal behavior, i.e., finding Jesus excuses all actions. Buddhists take personal responsibility for their behavior while many Christians blame the devil or evil influences. Buddha taught that there will always be evil, and salvation comes from avoiding its temptations, i.e., “Life means suffering, the cause of suffering is desire, and release from suffering comes with cessation of desire.” Rather than Hume suggesting Tiger ask for forgiveness for his sins, he should urge him to stop sinning. The past is gone and is what it was while the future is unfolding and will be defined by actions yet to come. Tiger needs to stop his narcissistic behavior and become aware of the consequences of his actions and demonstrate compassion towards his family and community. Being encouraged to abjectly plead for forgiveness only focuses himself on his desires and concerns, perpetuating his narcissism; he shouldn’t be advised to snivel. He needs to think about others and lose his ego, which is the message of Buddha.

Let's turn this question around. If Brit Hume had said Tiger Woods should convert to Judaism, would there be an outcry?

You bet. Because we are a nation that embraces equality. One man's religion is as good an another's. Right?

The outcry against Hume was not because Christians are vilified in the media but because he violated our code that we don't use media or state-sponsored groups to push a specific religion.

As to the "new age groups" Mr. Mouw refers too. Just which groups would that be? He could be a bit more specific. There are lots of new age groups that are not religious. Chances are, anyone referring to a new age group would say something like, "Tiger could learn how to control his tomcatting if joined Dahn Yoga" not "I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by Dahn Yoga."

The argument Mr. Mouw gives is beneath a man of education.

Obama recommending that Tiger join a new age group and there wouldn't be an outcry? There would be firestorm! Mouw, are you kidding?

"Yet I have no doubt that if I had articulated that, say, on Larry King, people would say --or at least think--the same kinds of thing about me as in their response to Brit Hume. "

You completely misunderstand the objection to Hume's comment. If a person of ANY religion had claimed that the only way for Woods to gain redemption and forgiveness was to convert to their particular religion and away from Woods' own, they would have been criticised. Chalking up the criticism of Hume to an anti-Christianity sentiment is absurd.

In my mind, Britt Hume can proselytize all day on Fox if he wants to, so long as he directs his remarks to sinners in general. Cable has tons of religious channels that preach Jesus all day.

However, when Hume presumes to give spiritual advice to Tiger Woods or any other private individual without that person's permission, he crosses a red line. What Hume did was intrusive, condescending, and thoughtless.

I keep hearing people defending Hume and ask the hypothetical question "What if Person X told Tiger to follow their religion? There would not have been this backlash!"

Well guess what? Nobody else did. Only holier than thou Christians have the audacity to do that.

What do they say to the countless Christians who themselves have done wrong?

I wish religion would go away and real spirituality would become the pervasive norm.

It does not seem a stretch to me that some of the anti-Christian venom expressed here is also shared many members of the media.

The Gospel IS offensive to those who don't see themselves as sinners in need of a Savior. While I know this may seem ridiculous to some, Christians tell others about salvation that comes through Jesus out of love.

I can't defend the actions of every Christian (of course there are hypocrites out there and folks who make painful mistakes - count me in this group), but I would hope you wouldn't try to defend all the actions of all atheists or members of other religions either.

The idea that Jesus is the only way to God the Father IS offensive in our relativistic society. But can we all think differently about God and all be right? It seems more intellectually honest to admit that we all hold our own view (hopefully very well considered and debated) and consider all others to be in error.

Again, the fact that Christians are not silent is out of love for others. Consider this somewhat silly comparison:

A doctor diagnoses a serious disease in a patient. There is a possible cure. If the doctor tells the patient about the disease it will cause the patient much pain and discomfort to learn of the condition. But if the doctor says nothing, the patient will die. By telling the patient the cure can be applied.

Just an illustration, but Christians (and I mean folks that seek to obey and serve God not just folks who say they are Christians because their parents were and they have been to Church a few times) do care about others. Tolerance does not mean we don't speak about our faith or even that there there is not a singular truth about God. But it should mean that we interact with others in a loving way.

By the same token, tolerance of Christians by non-Christians should also exist. I am sure many will disagree (likely vehemently so), but I would assert that non-Christians are in fact less tolerant of Christians because they feel so offended by a one way to God view - even though they themselves hold equally strong views that there are many ways to God or that there is no God . Tolerance shouldn't be based on conformity to our personal views.

Let's see. Why would people be concerned that Brit Hume would suggest to a practicing Buddhist to embrace Christianity? HMMM, could it be that the Spanish suggested practicing Jews embrace Christianity before they started the Inquisition. Could it be that the Conquistadors suggested they Incas and Aztecs embrace Christianity befiore they slaughtered them? It seems that right after people suggest other people to embrace Christianity something awful happens. You think this might have something to do with it?

"I can test the bias here by endorsing his recommendation in this way: I too think that the best way for Tiger to deal effectively with his current problems is to accept Christ as his Savior. Now, are people offended by that?"
---
That's your idea of a reasonable, balanced test? Stating something and using the comments of the tiny minority who care enough about your statement to extrapolate broad social trends? Bias isn't about receiving a few angry emails, and it's not even about the majority disagreeing with you. I suppose you'll just dismiss my pointing out this flaw as anti-Christian.

After that great display of persuasion and logic, I'm supposed to believe your crystal-ball predictions of the results of other religions proselytizing to Americans? I guess it didn't cross your mind that the fact that you had to *invent* examples proves that American Christianity isn't quite as besieged as you'd like to believe.

I'm sure the author is aware, that Mr. Hume's comment was inappropriate, not because of what he said, rather the FORUM he used to say it. Mr. Hume is a political NEWS commentator. He is not being attacked because of religion, rather his poor choice of forum. He's trying now to play the part of christian martyr, as is the author.
Posted by: jaycee31 | January 12, 2010 1:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
No it was totally wrong on all accounts wow the christians just do not get it sad very sad if Jesus was around he would be so dissappointed in "his people"

Hume was absolutely wrong who is he to tell whom what religion to go too. The proper answer or comment would have been Tiger should turn towards his faith and his clergy for help and advice. But no it had to be Christianity, what Hume did was pompous, disgusting, and hurtful to many including all the Christians. This is a prime example of why alot of different people have or feel disgust with christianity they are disgusted by the way it is practiced or by the people who practice it with their total lack of tolerance. People are no at odds with Christianity get it straight.

I'm sure the author is aware, that Mr. Hume's comment was inappropriate, not because of what he said, rather the FORUM he used to say it. Mr. Hume is a political NEWS commentator. He is not being attacked because of religion, rather his poor choice of forum. He's trying now to play the part of christian martyr, as is the author.

Christians, keep your dang religion to yourself. Go away and learn a little humility for a change. Quit trying to force your religion on others. That's what Hume was doing, and thats what causes suspicion and hostility towards evangelical "Christians". Playing the victim game in a country where some 85% of the population claims to belong to one or another Christian sect is dishonest and unChristian.

We would not have any issues like this is people who keep their religious beliefs to themselves. But religious people always feel the need to tell people either overtly or subtly that their religious is "correct" or "better" than anothers. Christions in this country beling "victims" is an absolute joke. Atheists do not have whole TV and Radio CHANNELS devoted to telliing people not to believe in god. neither does Islam, Buddism, Judaism or any other religion and it is about time we call religions what they are, a business. And in this country, the Christian business is booming. How else can you get money or power from fools better by promising salvation or saying "Help! I'm being repressed!!" Christians, I have a message for you, STOP WHINING and shut up already with your religion. Hume was another moron who got caught speaking his "so called" mind and he is in the media to spread his non-sense. Anyone who says what he said no matter which relgion they belong to should be called out for their stupidity.

There are a few things here. One is on the question of media bias against Christianity. Yes, sometimes and in some media outlets. However, the contrary is also true, as may be evidenced by Fox itself, one of the largest and most influential media outlets in the world. To them, there is a clear bias towards and for Christianity, at the expense of all other religions. Most Fox commentators demonstrate this bias, and are often hateful and deeply prejudiced against Islam in particular.

So if one were to look at it from percentages, I doubt that there is any overt bias against Christianity at all. Christians however, and the conservative spinners, love to claim this lie. For the most part though, in America, Christianity enjoys the greatest amount of popular support among the people. Is this not true? If it is true, how do we seriously entertain that Christians are prejudiced against?

"Isn't it pretty obvious that being an evangelical Christian means wanting other people to make the same commitment to Jesus that we have made?"

It is obvious only in that evangelicals are constantly in your, with spiritually elite and self-righteous arrogance, their witnessing their belief in the superiority of their own religion. This is the point. And the one that Hume demonstrated on public broadcast. And then, limp dicked, whines about how Christians are biased against.

If Oprah suggested a New Age path to someone, so what? That does not insult like Christianity does. For the New Ager is not saying they are the only true way, better than all other choices. The Christian says that, and Islam after it. Perhaps Judaism thinks that, but does not broadcast it. (Broadcasting has not worked in the past well!) Buddhism does not advertise it's own greatness, and they are not driven of demanded to "spread the faith for the sake of the Lord".

Thank God for some sanity in some of these religions!

If Christianity got off of the spiritual arrogance addiction and just lived like Jesus lives in them, their experience of being disliked by the 'unbelievers' would subside. But I do not think they have enough spiritual maturity for that assignment.

How many times have you just sat down to dinner and the doorbell rings? What are the chances its a Buddhist?

Interesting that Richard starts off with the premise that Hume is right about there being a bias against Christianity. Wasn't it Rev. Hume who instigated the hit and run attack against Buddhism? Essentially saying that Christianity Uber Alles?

Funny how he thinks reaction to such tripe, is a bias.

Thanks for the new definition of the word. LOL!

Buddhism is about people gaining superior control over their own minds. Evangelicalism is about 2-bit preachers gaining control the minds, pocketbooks and votes of others.

It is Oprah's job to offer advice she is unqualified to offer. That is what her audience wants. It is Hume's job to commentate on the news. If he wants to be a spiritual advisor and butt into other people's private affairs, he should get a morning talk show or a religion show.

The Tiger Woods scandal is a very public event, where many have experienced disillusionment with someone who had been a hero.
------------------------------------------
Peeping Toms often view from public places. I do feel sorry for the 57 year old golf enthusiast that experienced disillusionment- nice call on that one.

Richard Mouw

Instead of using supposed what-if scenerios as a contrast to what Brit Hume said, why don't you cite real events in the real world, that really happened, to prove your point?

Because there aren't any?

It's gonna take me a while to stop laughing at the statement that if Yusuf Islam had urged Tiger to find salvation by becoming a Muslim, the Christian evangelicals wouldn't be foaming at the mouth.

Only an ivory tower seminarian who never reads internet blogs (e.g. the WaPo comment sections) could possibly utter such an ill-informed opinion.

Christian fundamentalists need to remember that tolerance begins with each of us.

I don't find Brit Hume's comments offensive at all. Christianity is about love and forgiveness.

What I find offensive as a Christian is the negativity and hypocrisy of the conservative pundits who claim to be Christians yet reflect unChristian behavior.

We all like our own religions the best, that's natural. What I find offensive about Hume's remarks is that he gives unsolicited advice in the form of telling a man to drop his faith and pick up Brit's. And then Hume and the Christian Right play the persecution card when Hume's comments are criticized. Is Brit in jail? Are the 80% or so people in this country who identify themselves as Christians being rounded up in the dead of night and taken away? Of course not. These whiners have no idea what religious persecution is or they would nver claim to be victimized.

"I think Brit Hume is obviously correct about the bias against Christianity. Indeed, I can test the bias here by endorsing his recommendation in this way: I too think that the best way for Tiger to deal effectively with his current problems is to accept Christ as his Savior. Now, are people offended by that?"

Offended by it? No. It is a free country and you are entitled to your beliefs, as I am entitled to mine.

Find Hume's (and now yours, since you agree with him) ridiculous? There are no words.

You are implying that Christians never have problems or make mistakes. The Bible says we are ALL sinners, and sin literally means "mistake". Christians never cheat or have martial problems-- why don't you ask Jim Bakker and Jimmy Swaggert about that.

It is also very arrogant to believe that Buddhism, or any other faith for that matter (I include Christianity in this), is without merit, or unable to provide moral and spiritual guidance for an individual; Christianity is the only way that one can be moral or achieve a happy afterlife, should you believe in such a thing. How would you feel if someone of another faith proselytized to you, that your faith was wrong and the root of all your trials and tribulations?

It is also hypocritical, not to mentioned awfully thin-skinned of both, Hume and Palin to cry and act surprised that their extreme beliefs are experiencing some static. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen. When you make such public proclamations of rather controversial views, be prepared to face criticism and to debate/support your arguments. But it really isn't about their upset over being oppressed, per se, it's stirring the pot of emotions of their religious followers. And judging from history, as well as current events, this tactic obviously works, or they wouldn't do it.

Tiger is responsible for his actions. Not Buddha, not Jesus. His religion, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. Now please let him deal with his problems in his own way.

Mouw, like many conservatives, misses (or willfully ignores) the role that power and politics play in such exchanges about faith. Their invitations to Christianity may seem like personal and spiritual overtures--but that does not absolve them from understanding such overtures also represent a veiled insult to the beliefs of that individual, and to the religious of that faith as a whole. The insults are particularly heightened when one religion, such as Christianity in America, enjoys such a dominant position in society. I would be similarly offended if, as a practicing Christian in a Muslim country, my compatriots tried to convert me to Islam. It would be within their rights, but I would be rightly ticked off.

Lepidopteryx got it exactly right. Brit Hume is entitled to advocate for his religious beliefs, but to use a public television program to offer unsolicited religious advice to a named individual is an abuse of power. If you are going to evangelize specific individuals, then do it in private. I don't have a problem with the public advocacy of religion, but it should not be targeted at named individuals.

To me Brit Hume's comments put Christianity in a bad light. He basically said that Christianity is the only religion that allows you to get away with bad behavior. In other words, if you want to cheat on your wife and sleep around with multiple women, you should come over to Christianity, because we will forgive you. Since when is religion supposed to be about the abilty to get a "Get our jail free" card? Perhaps this is why so many "Christians" behave badly!

What was offensive to me was not that he likes his own religion best. We all feel that way about our respective faith paths, or we wouldn't follow them.

What I found offensive was that Hume took it upon himself to evaluate the effectiveness of another person's faith to meet that person's needs, a stranger to boot, and decide that that person's faith was insufficient for that person's needs, and then make a sales pitch for his own religion, not TO that person, but AT that person, using the nedia to do so. If Hume is intereested in saving Tiger's soul, let him call the man up, meet with him personally, and evangelize him.

The offensive thing he said was that Bhuddism is not adequate.