We Can Discuss Tiger’s Sex Life, But Not His Religion?
Should Brit Hume be speaking to a celebrity’s mental and spiritual state and giving advice? Allahpundit of HotAir wrote on Twitter that Hume’s statement was “presumptuous.” The Anchoress said she felt that Brit chose the “wrong venue.” Jim Hoft saw the liberal backlash as a restriction on speech.
There was a time when discussing one’s Christian faith may have been less controversial, but I don’t know. Even fifty years ago, there would have been a presumption that people would view Tiger Woods’ actions as immoral and a sign that he had some sort of emptiness in his life. Back in the day, such wanton infidelity was simply not spoken of publicly. It would be too shameful. Now the media spreads every sort of salacious detail of a celebrity’s life, and everyone is free to comment. Why should there not be a comment on his faith, too? We know that Tiger likes rough sex and sex without condoms and sex with porn stars and has super-human, possibly steroid-enhanced endurance. Should his spiritual beliefs be off-limits while his sexual exploits are fair game?
Discussion about either seems unseemly. Tiger’s sex life should be personal, and his relationship with God is even more intimate than that. His own careless actions made his sex life public. Does that free people to speculate about his spiritual life? It seems a personal relationship with Tiger would give a friend some cause to talk with him about God. A calling out like Hume’s seems destined to fail.
As to Brit’s theological assertion that Buddhism would not offer Woods the sort of redemption that a relationship with God and Jesus would offer, Buddhists like Charles Martin admit that Buddhism won’t give redemption or a relationship. The emphasis is on karma — what goes around comes around — and how Tiger is reaping the rewards of it.
In Christianity, the karmic notion is nothing new. Galatians 6:7 makes clear that God is not mocked and that we reap what we sow. The Christian philosopher C.S. Lewis noted a “Tao” of belief that most great religions share, and how this is centered around some version of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do to you.
Charles implies that in Christianity, there is no attempt to “make amends,” while in Buddhism that is the core tenet. As for remedying faults, the Greek word metanoia — translated as “to repent” — means to change. It implies a before and after. A Christian demonstrates his change by actions. “By their fruits you shall know them.” (Matthew 7 is a good book to read about condemning and discernment and repentance.) It’s not repentance or forgiveness of sin. It’s both.
And all of this is rather moot. Tiger has his own path — one that only he must take. America is a place of new beginnings and do-overs. Redemption and renewal, core Christian tenets, are woven into the fabric of the American psyche like nothing else (think Rocky). Whatever Tiger chooses, it’s his business. His public life gives the illusion that what he does is our business. But in the big scheme of life, this story is about a man’s internal struggle.
His alone.
I agree. Discussing tiger’s religion is no more inane and pointless than discussing his sex life.
And one guy trying to tell another guy that they’d get a “better deal” by changing religion just cracks me up. Low caste hindus converting to buddhism being one possible exception.
I vote that we all just leave the woodses alone to sort out their mess. I’m sure there’s a lovely train wreck or car crash happening somewhere that we can all obsess about.
Redemption and renewal, core Christian tenets, are woven into the fabric of the American psyche like nothing else (think Rocky).
Or think the majority of Republican legislators, who are either secretly closeted gay, paying hookers for sex, or sleeping with their best friend’s lives. If I actually was of low enough moral caliber to want a religion to forgive me, rather than applying my own moral compass, I’d love Christianity too.
“But in the big scheme of life, this story is about a man’s internal struggle.
His alone.”
Oh give me a break. For someone who believes that these issues are “his alone,” you certainly have written too many articles about his sex life on your blog.
It would be one thing to have written nothing about him until now and been irate at the abundance of coverage…
However, given that you have capitalized on this scandal like those you criticized, you have no room to judge others.
It just goes to show how screwed up our society is when journalists can spend days on end discussing a man’s sex life (as if it’s not offensive), but then providing a 30 second suggestion regarding spiritual concerns is frowned upon. While we have free speech on the airwaves, your selective choice of what to be uncomfortable with is quite telling.
You are correct that there’s been a reversal on the acceptability of discussions of both religious faith and sexual conduct. (In opposite directions, of course.) Despite certain “outliers,” I expect the current situation to persist for a long time. But what concerns me is the degree of offense certain persons take to the mention of religious faith, or the relative merits of various creeds.
In earlier eras, when the consensus was the reverse of today’s, you would shock people by describing any aspect of your sex life in a public setting. You might even suffer exclusion from some social stratum. But you wouldn’t be condemned as some sort of dictator, which is the not-infrequent response to a public mention of faith today.
Perhaps it’s because one’s own sexual practices, however luridly described, have no normative implications, whereas every significant religious creed both prescribes and proscribes. But whatever the reason, that which is purely self-indulgent has been made a principal topic of discussion, while that which most of us routinely celebrate in large groups on Sunday morning has been forced into the shadows.
For my part, I’d rather hear people speak more openly of their faiths, and hear less talk about Tiger’s deployment of his “publics.”
This is the most interesting thing I’ve read about the Tiger saga. Thanks.
Very well put Dr. Clothier. It is good to see someone write about Christianity who actually has some knowlege beyond the “judge not lest ye be judged,”
I’m a constant Fox News viewer who is absolutely appalled at Hume’s proclamation that Tiger should change his faith to Hume’s faith! What kind of work environment is Hume living in…that he would think he would not be laughed off the panel with that proclamation????? Then O’Reilly (who prides himself on being direct and allowing No-Spin), interviewed Hume and was given the same attitude from Hume. Though not openly supportive, O’Reilly showed no disfavor with Hume!!!!
No wonder people are calling Fox News the Catholic/evangelical network!
I’m embarrassed to be a previously faithful viewer.
My oh my, but that’s quite a litany of straw men you’ve thrown out there for us to wonder at. Of course Brit can comment all he wants on tiger’s all too public sex life. And of course Brit can throw his goofy theology in to the mix as advice to Tiger. And of course we can call Brit, in this instance, boorish and obnoxious for doing so.
I like and respect Brit a great deal. I admire him a little less, however, after this episode.
A man of the highest integrity, and class, expressing his opinion, in a civil manner. The problem the MSM has with this is,………it’s a lost language. Few voices left, in a world of Mahar, Stewart, Behar, Olberman, etc.
Love Bret Baier, miss Brit.
Hume was right that Tiger needs grounding in Faith. I know very little about Buddhism but, if Tiger is Buddhist, he needs to embrace it which he has obviously not done during his adult years.
Brit was basically right, a criticism of Buddhism was not.
To all you pundits, don’t be so upset that a Christian actually believes in his Faith and knows it could be a path to atonement and redemption. Obviously, Tiger has failed his existing faith.
Brit wasn’t addressing Tiger, he was addressing us.
“Celebrities” exist to instruct the rest of us what to do or not to do. They are templates, they are cardboard. If they all too willingly sell their souls for their fame and fortune, too bad for them.
Brit commentary on Woods’ behaviors from his own perspective was 100% correct if a society is to have the capacity to judge what’s effective or destructive.
From a european pov, what strikes us over here is how sensitive americans are to sex. So he screwed around and had an incredibly bad taste in women. So what? He is still the worlds greatest golfer.Its not like he was a preacher or a religious politican, is it?
“And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, ‘All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.’” Matthew 28:18-20 (NASB). This is Christ’s “great commission” to his followers that they are to go into all of the world and tell them about Him. It is not an option. All Christians are to do so. Britt Hume did so the other night. Good for him.
The message of Jesus Christ is, by its very nature, divisive and offensive. Jesus said so: “Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five {members} in one household will be divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.” Luke 12:51-53 (NASB)
Christians need to understand the backlash and hate the message of Jesus Christ will elicit (Jesus said, “They will hate you because they hated Me first.” John 15:18). And they must gird themselves for this response.
As far as whether Christians should worry about whether the Gospel of Jesus Christ is divisive or offensive, that should be of no matter (it is). For as Peter said, “We must obey God rather than men!” Acts 5:29.
@Msmensa (#4):
Be embarrassed by your readiness to buy into the notion that matters of faith are somehow less discussible than the sex romps of celebrities. It speaks poorly of both your intellect and your character.
Time was, we applauded constructive moral counsel and deplored blatant public display and discussion of dissolute behavior. Perhaps those times are behind us, but the moral order of the universe has not changed — and neither has what is inherently decent.
Since when is Tiger’s faith news? It was a news show. If Hume wants to opine on the matter, let him do it at the Crystal Cathedral, not on a “fair and balanced” news show.
As a pagan, I think I know why atheists and other religions hate Christians. They are afraid of the pronouncement of “their is no way to the father but through me.” They hope that by suppressing this faith they can make the possibility that it might be true, disappear.
12. Fnord: The “sensitivity” that surprises you is most likely the quaint custom we have that expects a person’s word (promise) to mean something. Such as in a wedding vow to be faithful to one’s mate, or some such. It’s probably just an old holdover habit from our frontier days.
But we are slowly becoming enlightened and “Euroized” to the point where our promises are becoming as empty as many of our politicians’ minds. See “Missiles for Poland”, for instance.
Back in frontier American a fellow could be the best bronc rider in the world but if he didn’t keep his promises he was just a dirty dog. Thankfully, that’s all changed now. The greatest golfer in the world obviously can lie and cheat all he wants, now, and he will still be adored by his minions. See, we ARE making progress. Only five more decades and we’ll be almost like youse guys.
Buddhism is a respectable faith, but it is fundamentally incomplete. It can’t deal with human nature in a transformative way, but instead suppresses human passion. True life only comes from being liberated of wickedness while retaining freedom to love. This is how Christians should reach out to Buddhists- teach them that what Buddha taught was mostly good, but incomplete.
Dave M.
Well said.
12. Fnord: The “sensitivity” that surprises you is most likely the quaint custom we have that expects a person’s word (promise) to mean something. Such as in a wedding vow to be faithful to one’s mate, or some such. It’s probably just an old holdover habit from our frontier days.
But we are slowly becoming enlightened and “Euroized” to the point where our promises are becoming as empty as many of our politicians’ minds. See “Missiles for Poland”, for instance.
Back in frontier American a fellow could be the best bronc rider in the world but if he didn’t keep his promises he was just a dirty dog. Thankfully, that’s all changed now. The greatest golfer in the world obviously can lie and cheat all he wants, now, and he will still be adored by his minions. See, we ARE making progress. Only five more decades and we’ll be almost as good as youse guys.
Re #14 Francis W Porretto, I wasn’t clear in my original comments (#4).
I have no problem with Hume discussing his religion. Had he said, “…When I experienced a personal tragedy, I received great comfort from my Christian faith. I suggest that Tiger call upon his personal faith for strength.”
But no, Hume told Tiger to CHANGE HIS FAITH to Hume’s faith!!!!!
Big Difference!!!!
If matters of faith are of any consequence in our lives, to expect a person of that faith to ‘keep it to themselves’ while freely arguing for everything from football teams to political parties is nonsense. And if a faith system is so irrelevant that it can’t be advised openly the way one would say, ‘Try putting your family first,’ or ‘Think of what you’re doing to your career,’ then it’s not really important.
Faith has been twisted into a private little secret that no one thinks important enough to shout from the rooftops because we are so selfish that we don’t want someone invading our little domain of thought. And all the while we erect new religions of secular humanism, Darwinian evolution and global warming, and freely proclaim them to all who will listen.
Kudos to Brit Hume: his faith is obviously worth proclaiming, and those who were offended by his daring to suggest it to help Tiger (when faith, in a freer society, was openly touted and debated) are hypocrites who will debate anything except the most important.
21. Msmensa:
But no, Hume told Tiger to CHANGE HIS FAITH to Hume’s faith!!!!!
Hume has no faith.
Most Americans are familiar with the basis of Christianity, if not the fine doctrinal points. And we know something about Judaism thanks to the Old Testament. And thanks to people like Robert Spencer we are getting a handle on Islam. But Buddhism is seldom in the news and is only familiar to those who have studied and practiced it. It’s been said many times that it is more an art of living than a religion. No texts are sacred, no traditions are beyond objective criticism based on observation and experience. I’m sure Brit Hume is sincere in wanting to spread The Good News to Tiger, but he is foolish to make ignorant comments about something he knows so little.
Mr. Martin says: “You tell me which is more productive: being Forgiven of Sin, or making amends and remedying your faults?”
Showing that Mr. Martin does not know that an ordinary Catholic after confession concludes his act of contrition with I firmly resolve with the help of thy grace to confess my sins, do penance and amend my life. It is the last that is the evidence of true contrition.
Beyond that, Americans–being Christian–believe in redemption and are willing to offer it. There is a reason why “A Christian Carol” is one of the favorite stories of Americans, and why so many Hollywood films have redemption as a theme.
I read Hume’s statement differently. Of course, it’s up to him to explain his intent. I took it as tongue in cheek. Many people of religion do have a sense of humor and can take potshots at it. Many others of religion have thin skins and any attempt at hilarity about it, is unacceptable.
How many people do we know or have observed, who always seemed less than pious, who upon getting into trouble, bring out the bible or other religiously related comments/objects?
Remeber OJ? Or how about Bill Clinton? And many celebrities and prison imnates, who get religion when it serves their purpose and usually, if not always, it’s the Christian religion. Spoof or not, that’s how I understand Hume’s statement.
I can’t appreciate the religious ambience between Christians and Buddhism, that the Koran is probably the Bible without a New Testament, that Jesus rode a cross, a Roman execution device, while Mohammed rode a horse, the Abram’s Tank of the time, but it seems to me that much of the dither over Hume is by people who tacitly assume all politics is personal in the Age of Aquarius. While most rational people can agree on matters of fact, matters of value are all together different, as another Hume and long dead European once observed.
Its amusing to see the outrage, the fury, that Hume’s comments provoked. Christianity is the taboo subject. Hume is a man of integrity and has a right to express his opinion. I doubt seriously if he is very concerned about the so-called “outcry” that has accompanied his comments. There are many things that are discussed on tv that are much more objectionable than what Hume said.
Yes Tiger is one of the greatest golfers of all time. Yes he strayed from his vows to his wife. However the only people who need be concerned with his sex life are his family. At least he had better taste in women than Bill Clinton. But wait now let us add to the circus with a new angle, my god is better than your god, although strictly speaking Buddhism dose not have a deity. As the country is slowly (well maybe not so slowly as of late)socialist abyss let’s watch the tiger circus instead. Perhaps people should concern themselves more with just tacking care of their own families
Suggesting that Tiger get a sex-change operation would get less flak.
Brit Hume performed a public service by showing that one needs not being paralyzed by political correctness. Why should faith not be discussed in public and why should faiths not be compared? What’s wrong with being opened about what you believe if (God forbids!) you believe in something?
Politeness and consideration are authentic and useful values, but political correctness is not, unless we agree to repudiate free speech, which is one of the most precious values in the western culture (and definitely not under Islam). Faith is more than a personal experience, it is also a cultural foundation. Why should we not discuss such matters? The Muslims are not afraid to say that Islam is the only true religion and every other religions should either repudiate itself or become subservient to Islam.
Let’s not get mired into a dissertations on Buddhism, which does not threaten us. We cannot appreciate how precious (and vulnerable) our Judeo-Christian inheritance really is if we remain ignorant about Islam, and I’m not talking about “religion of peace” and other platitudes, for one really needs to dig deeper. Do yourself a favor, study Islam for just a few hours, which is far more useful than studying Buddhism for years.
Just Google folks like Raymond Ibrahim, Robert Spencer, Wafa Sultan, Brigitte Gabriel, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Chesler and the other scholars their websites link to, and find out the essence of what’s between the covers of the Quran.
Of course you can discuss Tiger’s sex life and his religion. In both cases, all you demonstrate is rather poor taste. His private life includes his sexual relationships and his religious persuasion. Certainly one can find entertainment in discussing either – but Brit Hume actually went beyond discussion to proffering advice on a matter which he had no basis to weigh in on.
Brit’s decision to voice his own opinion on the matter of religious absolution is not wrong, but it does reflect poorly on him, on the network he works for, and on the religion he claims to adhere to. If he were familiar with the tenets of his own faith, he would not be so quick to rush to judgement.
It’s just another example of religious fanaticism. One could just as easily suggest that Tiger should convert to Satanism, which would require little or no adjustment in his sex life, and provide valuable guidance toward reaching fulfillment of his spiritual needs. The only possible justification for such a comment would be that it was made in jest – but in Brit’s case that doesn’t seem likely.
Seriously – impugning a person’s faith is bad form, especially when done from a position of abject ignorance.
Peace.
DS
“If I actually was of low enough moral caliber to want a religion to forgive me, rather than applying my own moral compass, I’d love Christianity too.”
When applying one’s own moral compass, is it really that difficult to circumvent being termed “of low enough moral caliber”?
But then the irony and complexity: “Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the truth, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.’” Matthew 21:32
However, good point made–perhaps values friendly politicians are in short supply. See http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/06/25/sex-scandals-through-the-years-both-parties-even.aspx and http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5329380.shtml and http://reason.com/blog/2009/11/19/maybe-what-we-need-is-more-tax.
How absurd! Brit Hume makes a POSITIVE suggestion and half the world hears it as an unthinkable NEGATIVE! Brit Hume offers his opinion, nothing more, that Tiger consider the (clinically and scientifically proven by the way)option of faith in Christ.
It seems the only topic that is out of bounds today (by design) is Christianity. The attack on Christian thought and Christian theology has devolved into the lowest common denominator among hysterical fruits and nuts everywhere (guns are a close second). Guns kill, Jesus kills, guns, Jesus, Jesus, guns, we want MORE abortion AHHHHHHHH! It’s comical but mostly sad.
So here is a small sample of what my Bible says for the previously mentioned fruits and nuts out there to consider; Galatians 5:22-23 The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patients, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self-control. And of course, “fruits and nuts” is merely a loving and gentle observation from a fruit inspector saved by grace. As Brit suggested, Tiger just might benefit from this short list of behaviors from a faith in ACTION (his wife and kids will benefit too)!
I have a very spoecial friend who is (or technically was) a high caste Hindu. Braminism is almost the same as Buddhism in that the Bramins do not beieve in the gods as real entities but as ideas. So when she tells me that sexual behaviour withing a relationship is a matter of self respect and respect for the partner I don’t doubt her.
Both Buddhism and Braminism are about self control and curbing the imulse to gratify desires.
Clearly then Tiger did not take his Buddhism very seriously but many Western adherents (and a lot from the East) interpret the absence of a creed for a licence to indulge appetites.
Perhaps in his break from golf Tiger should head for an Ashram in Tibet.
I read this and the Charlie Martin piece, together with the comment sections, and only get chuckles.
Christians always assert my god is better (bigger, smarter, more powerful, offer better deals, etc.) than yours. So certain, are we.
Western thinking and Oriental philosophy. To a Buddhist, he will agree with you to avoid arguments, and continue practice his own way of living.
Seems like much of the uproar is because Xtians don’t want to face the fact that there are only superficial differences between Xtianity and the other “My god can beat up your god” religion of “peace”, Islam.
Ignorance in action is terrifying to watch. Learn a little something about both creeds. Christianity promulgates two Great Commandments, upon which all others depend:
…whereas Islam promugates an ethic of perpetual war against all other faiths:
Alone among all faiths, Christianity preaches tolerance of others and universal salvation. Islam preaches predestined damnation for those who don’t accept Muhammad’s bloodthirsty, adulterous agenda.
If that’s “only superficial differences,” I’m an astronaut.
(P.S.: I’m not an astronaut.)
When it comes to security of our great nation,we had best do what it takes.Quit worrying about someone’s faith The Christian faith doesn’t try to destroy our country.
“obama is destroying the country. christianity is superior to buddhism. you need gold in your portfolio.” there’s a lot of defilement going on here and I don’t think it is just tiger woods.
My, my, my. Such anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance. Where to start?
Alice – “applying my own moral compass”. Congratulations! That puts you in great company. Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot are all people who applied their own moral compass and didn’t answer to any silly notion of a higher power or God. You go girl!
Msmensa – “I’m a constant Fox News viewer who is absolutely appalled at Hume’s proclamation…..blah, blah, blah.” Yeah. I bet you during the last election you continually posted statements like “I am a lifelong Republican, but I am voting for Obama because McCain is too right-wing….ad infinitum, ad nauseum.” You reek of concern troll.
Mjbrutus – “And of course Brit can throw his goofy theology in to the mix….” Goofy. Yeah, goofy in that it is the standard Christian doctrine of all major denominations and has 2000 years of practice. Congrats on showing everyone here that your knowledge of the Christian religion is on par with a dimwitted teenager.
Fnord – thanks for emphasizing European decay and weakness. Enjoy your future under sharia law, dhimmi.
David S – “Seriously – impugning a person’s faith is bad form, especially when done from a position of abject ignorance.” Pot, meet kettle. You do realize that you just did the same thing you accuse Brit of?
“Alone among all faiths, Christianity preaches tolerance of others and universal salvation.”
Yes, literally, lol.
It’s amazing the furor one such as Brit Hume creates when he, out loud and in public, takes a Biblically Christian point of view. “For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us [sinners] who are being saved it is the power of God.” That was written two-thousand years ago by the Apostle Paul. He also wrote that “Christ died for our sins according the the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose from the dead.” Those statements from the Bible, and many others, presume that all of us are sinners under God’s judgement and need to be saved. The Bible also says a loving God took action to save those under judgement by sending Jesus to take the judgement. Those who believe Him about that are being saved. Many are offended by that but the Bible says what it says and it is either objectively true or objectively false. It isn’t a matter of opinion. Either believe it or not but don’t get so angry with those who do believe.
Oh I’m sorry I thought this was old news, religion that is. After JFK and the savaging the Catholic Church took in the early 60′s I was surprised (somewhat-well not really) at the abuse, derision and down right lies peddled about Gov. Romney.
Who was the most vocal, the most virulent, the worst offender? NBC, ABC,CNN, no it would be former Baptist Minister turned TV conservative (cough, cough) Mike Huckabee. I would be the first one to say that a persons religious beliefs have an impact on what they do and the decisions they make, so it’s a good idea to know what those beliefs are. Not what someone else who isn’t an adherent to the faith says, but someone who actually practices what they preach.
After all you wouldn’t go to a Chevy dealer to learn about a Ford F150, or go to the Optometrist to have your gall bladder removed. Why ask a Lutheran what a Buddhist believes. Of course once you know what they believe it is possible to wonder how a persons actions mesh with what they are supposed to believe. That I’m afraid is only human.
@ “christian liberal”
Your misnomer is sad. There’s no such thing as a liberal christian. To be a Christian you can’t worship Caesar, and that’s all the liberal really believes in–that and the proud theft called taxes, but for unconstitutional purposes.
No, we don’t assert that God is bigger, smarter, more powerful. We assert there is but one God and one God alone, and for a time was manifested in flesh and went by the name Jesus. And yes, we are certain. Of that, you can be sure.
44. What exactly did Huckabee say against Romney that was false? By contrast, Romney falsely accused Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul and Sam Brownback of having divorced their wives.
#1: Are you the same Matthew that I always disagree with? If so, this breaks the streak because I agree completely.
#2 Alice: Why just Republican legislators – haven’t you noticed the contribution of Democrats in these areas? But interesting to see how you drag the Dems vs GOP issue into all your posts – regardless of the issue at hand. Also, you go on to assert your own moral superiority – is this the democrat thing again?
BTW, I am neither Democrat nor Republican and I am inclined to Agnosticism – but they do not have enough Holidays.
At first I was shocked at his frank and unabashed statement on that panel. Then, I was proud of him for having the backbone to make such a statement and not be ashamed of it at all. Brit is the first out there to offer any sane and lasting solace to the Woods family. Even if they never consider his advice, Brit wasn’t wrong. And, he doesn’t need to be vindicated by Tiger taking his advice. It was simply the best and most helpful advice – whether it is heeded or not. At least he was man enough to say what no one is brave enough to offer in person. While the Tiger posse is aiding and abetting, a journalist has the courage to spoon out the hard medicine. Bravo Brit Hume. I salute you.
Major G #41, you’ve attacked me by stating,
I bet you during the last election you continually posted statements like “I am a lifelong Republican, but I am voting for Obama because McCain is too right-wing.”
You couldn’t be more wrong! I could no more vote for Obama than I could vote for Howdy Doody! I worked for Reagan in ’76 and have worked for every Republican presidential candidate since then. But I’m seeing a troublesome change: An attitude of religious intolerance.
As a Protestant and a daughter of a frequently uprooted US Army general, I remember snickering at the narrow proclamations of childhood Catholic friends who insisted, “The Catholic religion is the only TRUE religion!” Such statements didn’t ANGER me because they always came from Catholic School children who rarely went more than 50 miles away from their narrow environments.
But now I’m hearing much religious intolerance from ADULTS. Do you realize that evangelicals believe that Catholics aren’t Christians? Ditto Mormons.
I’ve discovered that “Christian” means totally different things to different people. The intolerance of the Southern Baptist Convention (evangelicals…not to be confused with the Baptist religion) movement is just plain scary and will destroy the Republican party…the party of FISCAL conservatism…not religious intolerance!
As a Jew, I was not offended by Mr. Hume’s comments because his opinion was heartfelt and sincere in his desire that Mr. Woods embrace something with a solid core of belief in something greater than himself as his current faith seems to do. Liberals and atheists espouse, and loudly, their lack of faith. So why does Mr. Hume’s genuine concern for the emptiness he believes is at the root of Mr. Woods’ wandering provoke such an outcry? Our culture is worshipful of the “do whatever you want” philosophy, but not of those who believe that religious teachings on morality and honor have value. No wonder there is so much of the former and so little of the latter.
So you make an assertion, that Brit Hume’s words were misguided yet your evidence seems to support the opposite conclusion.
Americans need to hear about religion and how the lack of it leads to moral depravity! And humans do best with specific examples given in context, not (and especially in this modern age) with abstract principles.
It seems to me you are falling prey to the very phenomenon you’re denouncing…that Truth takes a second seat to other people thinking you’re very open minded, multicultural and accepting (in a word, secular).
God bless Brit Hume for having the hutzpah to stand up and say it even when he knew all the bitter, insecure media types who are engaging in all the behavior he’s condemning would obviously try to shut him up and make him out to be a religious nut…that way they can keep up with underage call girls and putting other people in jail.
What’s most shocking to me is that we’re still surprised when people who are obsessed with the sex culture denounce those who would hope to end it and move our focus to something much more noble.
I mean seriously would it shock the hell out of you to find that an alcoholic was angry at the family members and friends who showed up to an intervention?
Would it blow your mind when he or she started screaming things like “WELL YOU’RE NOT PERFECT YA HYPOCRITE, YA UPTIGHT LOSER YOU’RE JUST MAD YOU’RE NOT OUT PARTYING LIKE ME…ILL DRINK ALL I WANT!”???
(You would be smart enough to know that all the anger and name calling was merely a product of the alcoholic’s fear of being denied alcohol, wouldn’t you?)
I thank Brit Hume for setting off these discussions on religion at PJM, one of the better forums around. My superior perception tells me that the Buddha Dharma is the supreme dharma. Those who disagree need violent fatwas on their headless corpses. Or maybe they could do a ten day meditation course. Try it you might like it. Don’t tell anybody, but Buddhist countries have gone off the rails at times. Imperial Japan was supposedly a Buddhist country, I guess the martial tradition of Shinto trumped the Dharma. Beat poet and Zen student, Gary Snyder pointed that out long ago. Still, I don’t like it when people trash Christianity. That’s my ancestral tradition after all. I like to do the job myself. But only when someone tries to shove it down my throat. Otherwise, I’m quite happy for Christians to practice freely. I want to see a manger scene on the courthouse lawn and I want to hear the joyous songs of Christmas on public radio. American culture rules, the world drools.
Brit Hume is the class act of the Journalism/broadcasting occupation. What he offered was perfect for anyone who needs redirection. Wood is a human in need of a friend to tell him the truth. After getting lawyered up and P.R.-upped, he was missing a golden opportunity to fix himself and maybe even save his family. God bless Brit Hume.
People like MJBrutus don’t see the problem with calling Hume “boorish and obnoxious” while labelling Hume’s faith “goofy.”
That’s because they unironically regard themselves as so much better than those condescending, self righteous religious types.
Mike G:
“Are you the same Matthew that I always disagree with?”
Hard to say. I don’t think I’ve seen many other plain old “Matthew”s posting, so I’m probably that one.
“If so, this breaks the streak because I agree completely.”
Don’t worry. It’ll pass.
Brit Hume’s assertion that Christianity is a better religion that than Buddhism was an exhibition of pure arrogance. As a Christian, I believe that we should “do to others as we would have them do to us”, Mathew 7:12. Thus, as strongly as we hold our faith, we should acknowledge and respect that others may feel the same way about their faith. We should therefore be polite, unassuming and humble when speaking to others about faith and we should most certainly not tout Christianity as a superior faith. When speaking about the faith of another person, we should not to judge their faith as though it does not offer the benefits of Christianity nor should we compare one faith to another. Brit’s comment is typical of those who just don’t get it. Christianity is not about numbers nor is it about superiority. Its about getting along with everyone else God put on this earth and getting along means Christians should exhibit tolerance, respect, acceptance and humility. As soon as you express that you or your beliefs are better than someone else’s – you have done nothing more than confirm that you and your beliefs are anything but.
Awwww, you don’t like my assessment of Brit’s theology as goofy. Well that’s my take on all theology, including that practiced before Christianity was born, let alone the meager 2000 years since. Funny, how you decry the thin skin of those who find Brit’s remarks to be tacky but work yourself in to a lather when it’s your faith that is criticized.
The fact is that religious faiths are personal opinions, based on nothing more than an individuals desire to believe them. That is why you won’t convince me that your religion is “true” and I won’t convince you that your religion is fantasy. It is the purely subjective nature of religious belief that makes it bad form to proselytize. Religious arguments can never be anything more than an exchange of unsupportable assertions leading to insults bandied back and forth. Brit would have done better to remember that he was speaking to a broader audience than just Christians and that many of us don’t give a bucket of warm spit about his goofy theology.
The media covers Mr. Woods’ personal life because celebrity sex scandals increase advertising revenue. The coverage is pure and simple voyeurism, and an invasion of Woods’ privacy. If people turned off the coverage it wouldn’t be there. Fox has to pay the bills same as everyone else, so in cases like this the marketplace demands the public must be allowed to define its own interest. But the starting point here is not real journalism, and covering it can diminish the journalists involved.
Brit Hume’s transition to his new role as commentator at Fox News has been an awkward one. Looking into the camera Eric Sevareid style just isn’t working for some reason. It lacks the humorous twinkle in the eye, and the deadpan delivery he sometimes used as anchor. His scripted language is far less dynamic than his concise delivery of news stories, or his visible annoyance when shooting down some ridiculous Juan Williams statement. I think Hume misses being a daily anchor, knows his solo segments are busting up the momentum of the shows, and now perhaps this desire to say something meaningful a chief commentator is affecting his judgement as a panelist.
Or perhaps he just heard a particularly motivating sermon that Sunday.
Whatever the reason, this moment wasn’t the Brit Hume we’ve known and admired for years. Fox News isn’t a religious broadcaster. Religious evangelization isn’t news, and it doesn’t have a place in news commentary.
A clip like this one will help the secular Left fortify its dubious generalizations attacking the news culture at Fox. Here is the one journalist with major network credentials, who even Bill Clinton cited for his fairness as a White House correspondent, and now he’s using his position to evangelize religion to a celebrity? Very disappointing, Mr. Hume.
Tiger, Tiger Burning Out
“Tyger! Tyger! burning bright,/ In the forests of the night,
What immortal hand or eye/ Could frame thy fearful symmetry?”
That first stanza of the famous poem, “Tyger, Tyger, Burning Bright” by the eighteenth century English poet William Blake is disproven by this Vanity Fair photo of fallen hero, Tiger Woods.
Snapped by noted photog Annie Liebowitz some years ago, it graced the most recent cover of the mag for various reasons including America’s very own Tyger Woods’ November run-in with his mailbox, a hedge, a tree, and Mrs. Woods–and because the near-bankrupt Liebowitz needed some $$$.
Tiger Wood’s “fearful symmetry” has been well framed.
The first billionaire athlete, Eldrick Tont “Tiger” Woods, reached the pinnacle of an amazing career and here is depicted as a sullen street thug glaring into the camera with all the malevolence of an Attica inmate: . . .
(Read more and see the pic at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=1411)
“His alone”.
Well, yes, and no. While it is clear that both Brit and Charles are right about Buddhism, it is also clear that far too many people are still missing the bigger point about our behaviors, collectively speaking.
To settle the C/B split, I will simply say that we all know, usually without being told, that sin does indeed exist. Far too many of us convince ourselves otherwise, like a good Buddhist who suggests that penance/personal redemption is even possible (Tell me please, just how does Tiger accomplish that?).
As for Brit’s arrogance; get over yourselves. I quite realize that many see no value in religion; that’s fine, as far as that goes; such folks are in a vast minority in human history. Most people realize and accept that they are flawed, and need help to be better. Brit should be commended for actually speaking his own mind.
And there’s the rub. Religion is most decidedly NOT simply a private thing between a person and their “Other”. The entire point of religion is the improvement of character, that which we exhibit of ourselves in private AND public. President Clinton made a show of going to church with Hillary, in public. I will suggest it was just that, a show.
A man’s public face is the expression of his private life with God. The ugliness of the latter indicates the lack of the former.
Tiger does not need the Buddha to tell him to keep it zipped (Doesn’t much seem like it helped anyway). But ultimately the Buddha also offers him no way (Because Tiger’s Bhuddism is addressing Tiger’s suffering) to fix what he’s thrown away, Elin.
The admonition Brit gave is the most loving and compassionate response to Tiger Woods that I’ve seen in any media outlet. He simply extended to Woods the same invitation Jesus Christ extends to everyone. “Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.”