Idiotic “outrage” of the day: The Brit Hume/Tiger Woods “controversy”

Posted by: ST on January 4, 2010 at 9:19 pm

As if there weren’t enough in the world to get the left’s undies in a bunch (oh wait – Bush is no longer President, so I thought all was supposed to be well?), their latest “outrage” comes from the fact that former Fox News Special Report anchor turned Fox News commentator/political analyst Brit Hume suggested in his commentary on the Tiger Woods affair scandal that Woods turn to Christianity in order to make a “total recovery.” Here’s the video:

Transcript of the “offending” remarks:

[...] Whether he can recover as a person depends on “his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, “Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

You can read multiple samplings of the left’s wailing and foot stomping here.

First things first: Since when did it become wrong to talk about the Christian faith in the public arena – especially when it’s a non-political figure doing the talking? It used to be, the left only targeted politicians (mostly on their own side) for allegedly mixing politics and religion; now, it’s pretty much anyone who doesn’t morally equate (or repudiate) Christianity with Islam, Hinduism, etc. Because, you see, in the left’s world, everything is relative – there is no right or wrong, no better or worse. There just “is.” Unless we’re talking about Christianity, then it’s open season on it’s rightness or wrongness, its bests and worsts.

Secondly, Hume made it clear after he retired from full-time work at Fox News what he wanted his focus to be on – Christianity:

I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I’m not claiming it’s impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died (by suicide in 1998), I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it’s a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you’re not really living it.

And when you want to pursue your faith “more ardently” as Hume does, you’re going to be open about it – just like A. Larry Ross – spokesman for the Rev.’s Billy Graham and Rick Warren – was in his column about Tiger Woods and redemption, a column which was published at … the Huffington Post. How many comments does that Dec. 14th column have as of this writing? Two.

Where was the outrage over that column?

Oh wait – it wasn’t a “Faux News” guy who wrote the column, so I guess it was ok.

Some (mostly) liberal bloggers are wondering why Hume “never” made these types of remarks about, say, disgraced SC Gov. Mark Sanford. For starters, I have no idea whether or not Hume commented on Sanford’s faith or not but even if he didn’t, who cares? Sanford himself has openly remarked how he was relying on his Christian faith to help him get through this, and has admitted that he has asked for forgiveness from God. Have any of the critics of Hume’s remarks about Woods’ thought about the fact that maybe Hume brought up the issue of redemption and forgiveness in his commentary about Woods specifically because Woods is admittedly not a Christian? Duh.

Another thing I’m not getting about all this “outrage” is the fact that, usually with a scandal concerning a right wing politico/public figure, the left goes on and on mocking and ridiculing Christianity and the fact that there are Christian public figures who are hypocrites because sometimes do not practice what they preach, yet on the other hand, a Christian like Brit Hume shouldn’t be allowed to talk about how, in his view, Tiger Woods can find the ultimate forgiveness and redemption through Christianity? The usual excuse here of “well, some public figures wear their faiths on their sleeves, and try to preach to others, so they are fair game” doesn’t work, because one of the few things Tiger Woods has been open about has been his belief in Buddhism (more here).

There are those who don’t believe in Jesus but who also don’t have any issues with a public discussion about Christianity because they understand that many of the tenets of the tradition Christian faith are parallel in nature to what used to be standard, widely held general beliefs about what the basics of right and wrong, good and bad – regardless of faith. Not only that, but they recognize that there is nothing wrong in believing in a calling bigger than ourselves. Those people I can respect. The people I have very little respect for are 1) non-believers who scream in outrage at the first criticism of Islam but who are the first ones in line to throw mud at Christians – and who are the first ones to falsely claim that Christians can be “just as bad – or worse” than the “tiny minority” of extremist Islamists who live in the world), 2) so-called “believers” who believe that the discussion of faith and religion should be limited to the church and the privacy of your home (did someone tell Jesus this?), and 3) “believers” who twist the word of God into something that it is not in order to justify their political beliefs (“Jesus was a liberal!”).

As usual, any time anyone utters the word “Christian” and “faith” in the same sentence – especially when it’s involved in a discussion where it’s being compared in what some would see in a negative way to another belief system, the left treats it as though someone has kicked a kitten, pushed an elderly lady in front of a transit bus, and/or burned the Constitution. It’s “outrageous,” it’s “worthy of contempt,” it has “no place in the public debate,” it’s “demeaning to other faiths,” etc etc. Yet, they have no problems themselves routinely condemning and smearing the Christian faith. In fact, if the left had their way, it wouldn’t just be government officials who were Christians who had to be politically correct when referring to different religions; commentators who favored Christianity over other religions would have to, too.

Why in the world does the left have to always twist something that was meant to be an innocent and heartfelt remark into something cheap and ugly?

(Some links via USA Today’s Faith and Reason blog)

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

16 Responses to “Idiotic “outrage” of the day: The Brit Hume/Tiger Woods “controversy””

Comments

  1. Actually, I think Brit would be so much happier and have much more peace of mind if he’d convert to Buddhism, like I did years ago.

  2. Anthony says:

    I’m a devout apatheist (Is that a contradiction in terms? ;) ), but I’ve little to no problem with the religious people I encounter in my life. In fact, that core of faith seems to give the genuinely religious (as opposed to the poseur) a strength of character that I find admirable, Sarah Palin being the most recent example that comes to mind.

    Back to Hume and Woods, as a non-religious person, I don’t find anything offensive in it at all. On the contrary, it comes across as a suggestion made out of a genuine desire to help. Had he made it to me, I’d be free to accept it or reject it, but I’d also be grateful he took the time to make it.

    (Sanctimonious twits who feel they have to save my soul while I’m trying to enjoy my lunch hour are another thing altogether…)

    Regarding Buddhism, it’s been a long time since I studied it, but, if I recall right, Hume’s statement isn’t so much wrong as it is that the two faiths operate on different paradigms. Rather than seek forgiveness and a state of grace, a Buddhist seeks to detach himself from the illusory things of the material world (in Woods’ case, getting his freak on at every opportunity), eventually gaining release from the cycle of rebirth. It’s clear that Woods hasn’t been practicing his faith; maybe actually doing so can provide him with a way out of the mess he’s in. If so, or if he finds this way via Christianity, Baha’ism, or even Greek philosophy, then more power to him. He clearly needs to make some change in his life.

    (Buddhists reading this are welcome to correct me, if I’ve screwed something up, btw.)

    As for the Left, this is just another example of the immaturity that seems to be their defining quality. [-(

  3. SteveP says:

    Why in the world does the left have to always twist something that was meant to be an innocent and heartfelt remark into something cheap and ugly?

    Because leftist ideology is cheap and ugly.

  4. samue23 says:

    To repent is to admit one’s mistake. Everyone of us, from the past until the present, have committed countless wrong and evil deeds. We have left behind the karma that brings us sufferings and obstructs our progress towards enlightenment and freedom. In order to reduce and get rid of this karma that is obstructing and bringing suffering to us, we should repent in front of the Buddha or the Sangha and admit our mistakes, so that the past evil karma can be reduced. There are methods of repentance in Buddhism and these are equivalent to the confession’ in Christianity.

  5. Carlos says:

    My goodness, there are certainly a lot of people willing to blather on and on about something they no little or nothing about.

    And, way to go, Brit!

  6. Dave B says:

    Anthony: thank you for making sense. I am a Catholic but I appreciate your remarks and your common sense and decency on the matter. Whether you realize it or not, you exhibit a spirit in your remarks that I appreciate and respect. Your kindness and tolerance did not go unnoticed and if your “apatheist” nature allows you to be that way then all the more power to you. It seems to me that ALL religions should promote common decency,tolerance, acceptance, and love of other human beings and it appears you already have that.

  7. Kate says:

    I have a fondness for the Buddhists who have no clue as to why they are trying so hard to achieve something that is humanly impossible…that said, true peace comes from above, the Creator GOD who cannot abide sin (and we all have to admit we are not perfect) so He gave us a way to attain a righteous status before Him and relationship with Him. That’s a free gift, too. So I am pleased that Brit had a caring heart and felt that Tiger might be searching for a significant way to put right that which he had messed up. Kudos to Brit, but the real reward will come when He meets God face-to-face, that’s where his eternal inheritance lies.

    And that said, this messages is a stumbling block for those who do not believe and I do not expect kind remarks for pointing these things out. Rejections was a prophecy made by Christ…daily rejection by family members and people at large. So get used to it!

  8. Neo says:

    The point lost on so many was that it appears that Tiger Woods could use some “forgiveness and redemption”. Hume suggested Christianity, but if he could get it elsewhere .. fine.

    Of course, the huffy misogynists on the Left would rather claim something else, rendering them on par with the “birthers.”

  9. PE says:

    I offer you concrete evidence that the Howling Lefties are insincere on this issue. Not one; not a single one has set his hair on fire as a demonstration of outrage.

  10. LC Gregory says:

    Agree with Neo – it’s not as though Brit thundered that Tiger MUST convert and repent NOW NOW NOW!!!! while slamming his fist on the table, although you wouldn’t know that from the response.

    The Left has to twist this into something cheap and ugly because, try as they might, the Law and the Holy Spirit never quite go away. It’s the same thing as “gay marriage” – the gays want as much legal and public recognition as they can get because they think it will silence their consciences over something that from all religious and biological evidence is just completely wrong.

    Boy, THAT risks stirring up a hornet’s nest! ;) Happy New Year, all!

  11. Tom TB says:

    So maybe Eldrick Tont “Tiger” Woods should go off as the character did in the novel “Siddhartha” by Herman Hesse, sickened by the lack of satisfaction of material things in this illusory, temporal world, and become a true Buddhist?

  12. I’m not religious myself, but I don’t find Hume’s statements in the least bit objectionable. Had he made that remark to me, I’d politely thank him for his concern and that would be the end of it.

    I don’t know why we should particularly care about Tiger Woods’ divorce in the first place; given that we do, I think the best way to support a beloved celebrity is to give the divorcing couple some space to work out the necessary issues (child custody being the big one in this case) for themselves.

  13. Lorica says:

    “I like Buddhism because it’s a whole way of being and living,” Tiger says. “It’s based on discipline and respect and personal responsibility. I like Asian culture better than ours because of that.

    This is exactly why I like Christianity. But when I do make the mistakes I make daily, I have the Holy Spirit to check me, and I have Jesus to sanctify me. It’s not all about me, it’s all about Him. Jesus said it best. “He who is forgiven much, loves much.” It is my prayer that Tiger can find forgiveness and that him and Elin can be reconciled. Brit is absolutely right, and it is a compassionate piece of advice for him to give. – Lorica

  14. Bill says:

    Liberals abhor Brit Hume’s Christianity comments because they, like their Communist/Socialist counterparts in the rest of the world, abhor religion in general. And the reason they abhor religion is because most religion teaches one to depend upon God, or a god, or anything other than the government.

    When one doesn’t depend on the government, then one cannot be controlled by the government.

  15. Great post, Sister. I posted on this also and quoted some of your remarks. You said it well.