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

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)

Comments are closed.