Media should provide forum for all, not favor for some

DANIELANDTHELIONS:

You asked, "Why should Brit Hume get away with behavior that we would not allow in a Kindergarten class?"

Prabably because 5 year-olds aren't equipped emotionally nor intellectually to handle subjects that might trample on their feelings or require the wisdom to think things through.

Hopefully, you've progressed beyond that point.

When a Christian says "I am right; I have the truth; everyone else is wrong," then they have opened up the discussion for others to reply, "No you are wrong; I am right; I have the truth; you do not."

That seems to be the hardest thing in the world for intolerant people to understand.

Tolerance and toleration does not mean that many paths lead to the summit of the mountain and it does not mean that you are obligated by some PC rule to accept other belief systems which you do not believe.

In fact, toleration is not a religious principle at all, but more of a philosophical doctrine that might be attached to the public way in which a person seeks to present his religion to others.

Why should Brit Hume get away with behavior that we would not allow in a Kindergarten class?

Sally,

I just noticed that no comments have been posted to Eboo Patel's column for the past three days.

Evidently everyone who tried to post to Eboo got the message that their post was being "held by the blog owner."

This has happened before to Eboo's column.

Something's seriously and systematically awry. How abut fixing it and keeping it from happening again?

Thank you.

Sally,

This a post that was "held by the blog owner" per my post of a minute or two ago:

POST TO EBOO PATEL:

"Hollywood has reach and glamor, Harvard has intellectual muscle, but both are tainted by charges (some true, some unfair) of elitism."

In my first year of college I took an English (really it was semantics) course and learned that many words have no operational definition or meaning.

Without an objective, operational meaning, what a word means depends on the subjective, private, and internal thoughts of a person.

"100 degrees Celsius" can be defined by describing the process of heating water until it boils. That's an operational definition/meaning. Words without that kind of definition are meaningless phantoms.

"Elite" is one of those words that lack operational definition and is therefore essentially meaningless. Lacking an oprational definition, you can't describe how something becomes "elite"
or what an "elite" something can do that "non-elite" somethings can't.

As a practical matter today, calling someone or something "elite" is merely hurling an insult or negative epithet to avoid the difficulties and tedium that accompany thought.

Here endeth the reading for Eboo Patel.

Sally,

Since you're in charge of running this show I have a question.

Posts to Eboo Patel's columns are frequently not posted but are being "held by the blog owner", which means that they've fallen into a black hole and are held there forever, never to see the light of day again.

This has been the fate of posts that are completgely innocuous and inoffensive.

So what gives?

Dear Sally Quinn,

You ask *Who's to say one religion(cult) is better than another*
Answer is simple.History.Yes,history will say what is Good and what is not.

Anglo-Saxon Protestant Groups came to America and created a World Giant(US) from Land of Apaches within 200 years.Anglo-Saxon Protestants went to Australia and built High-Level Civilization from barren land.

On the other hand,*Christ was a muslim* followers came to West India(Pakistan).What did they create except Poorness,Backwardness and Terror ?
*Two women equals One man* followers went to Egypt where was the Richest Country 2000 years ago and where the most empowered woman(Cleopatra) in all times lived,what did they build and what did they do women ?
*Unlettered Man took Read revelation* believers came to Indonesia,what did they establish ?

History has already said indeed.Human History will say,Human History.

SALLY QUINN:

You said, "There are billions of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews and people of other religions who believe that their faith is what will carry them through the most difficult times. Who's to say one religion is better than another? I can't imagine any of the major Christians evangelical pastors like Rick Warren, T.D. Jakes or Bill Hybels saying something like that."

I offer two sets of verses and if those evangelical pastors whom you mentioned wouldn't back these up, then I say they need to get themselves into another line of work.

John 14:6 "Jesus saith unto him, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'"

Galatians 1:7-9 "Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

Brit Hume was right on target when he said that Tiger Woods needed to turn to Christianity in order to turn his life around.

John 8:34-36 "Jesus answered them, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.'"

There is no individual that owns God or the interpretation of God, or any religion. Christians idiots are single out in the media and often Humanism is the new religion. Unfortunately, Humanism is mostly about being fortunate enough to be well-educated and have much control over life's adversity.

The Christian question has far more to do with economics than righteousness. I think this point is lost in most discussion. Christians do not expect this life to be sane or provide fulfillment. They feel obligated to continue on a moral agenda under stress; against adversity, hatred and almost certain failure. While it is no difference than what non-Christians behavior; they do maintain an open invitation for fellowship and a broad effort to treats all members as equals.

What we fail to analyze regardless of our approach to life, is the cost of cultural difference. Wholesome fellowship, community, and growing the skills of handling life is what we hope to achieve. Focusing on greed and idiots makes us loose that.

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

I don't think there is media bias against Christians. The media reports what the public wants and needs to hear.

If Christians complain of negative press they need to notice that the news doesn't report the normal, the everyday. They report what is new, unusual, exceptional.

Christians who have made their faith part of their public persona have also made their faith part of the public discussion. There are those who disagree with them and that disagreement includes their faith. If personal faith is kept out of the public persona, I would consider it off-limits.

Politicians who have made their faith part of their political life have placed their religion in the mud pit. They should not then complain when the mud slung at them also hits their religion.

For example, there are people who are offended when a politician claims his/her public position is "God's plan", as if the opponents position is not God's plan, or, worse, the opponent's success is the Devil's triumph. Given the obtuseness of the politician concerned here, no one should be surprised. It isn't media bias to report that she claims such divine recognition and it is not media bias to report the response of those who are offended.

But most of all, the Christian churches have chosen to enter the political life of this country very overtly. There are churches that advocate a particular politician or a particular party to their members. They advocate particular positions on legislation before state and federal government representatives. There is the "moral majority", "social issues", the 700 Club, Focus on the Family, all stepping into the public discussion of political issues and attempting to sway the public.

These days, politics is not practiced with kid gloves on. It is practiced with brass knuckles, and the Christians are wearing them, too. In the fervor to knock off the opposition, anything goes.

It is not personal. It is just politics and public life. Christians don't get any breaks because they are Christians, but they don't get any more guff than they opened themselves up to.

As for Mr. Hume, if it is bashing to comment negatively about a Christian's faith it is also bashing for a Christian to comment negatively about another's faith or lack of faith.