Brit Hume’s Tiger Woods Remarks Shine Light On True Intolerance
I have to say, I was able to catch Brit Hume on the Factor and was in awe of his statement and his reason for making the statement. It threw me off because I had never heard Hume speak in regards to Christ before and it was heartwarming. I was stunned in a good way. Its not often you hear a journalist evoke the name of Christ in a positive way, and this truly was a man standing up and showing fortitude in his faith.
“Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose hope is the Lord. He is like a tree planted beside the waters that stretches out its roots to the stream. It fears not the heat when it comes, its leaves stay green; In the year of draught it shows no distress, but still bears fruit.” Jeremiah 17:7-8
After urging Tiger Woods to accept the “forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith” — and comparing Buddhism unfavorably to that hope — journalist Brit Hume insisted he was not proselytizing. In this, he is wrong. His words exemplify proselytization.
For this, Hume has been savaged. Post media critic Tom Shales put him in the category of a “sanctimonious busybody” engaged in “telling people what religious beliefs they ought to have.” Blogger Andrew Sullivan criticized Hume’s “pure sectarianism,” which helps abolish “the distinction between secular and religious discourse.” MSNBC’s David Shuster called Hume’s religious advice “truly embarrassing.”
The assumption of these criticisms is that proselytization is the antonym of tolerance. Asserting the superiority of one’s religious beliefs, in this view, is not merely bad manners; it involves a kind of divisive, offensive judgmentalism.
But the American idea of religious liberty does not forbid proselytization; it presupposes it. Free, autonomous individuals not only have the right to hold whatever beliefs they wish, they also have the right to change those beliefs and to persuade others to change as well. Just as there is no political liberty without the right to change one’s convictions and publicly argue for them, there is no religious liberty without the possibility of conversion and persuasion.
ad_icon
Proselytization, admittedly, is fraught with complications. We object to the practice when an unequal power relationship is involved — a boss pressuring an employee. We are offended by brainwashing. Coercion and trickery violate the whole idea of free religious choice based on open discussion.
But none of this was present in Hume’s appeal to Woods. A semi-retired broadcaster holds no unfair advantage over a multimillionaire athlete. Hume was engaged in persuasion.
“Persuasion, by contrast,” argues political and social ethics professor Jean Bethke Elshtain, “begins with the presupposition that you are a moral agent, a being whose dignity no one is permitted to deny or to strip from you, and, from that stance of mutual respect, one offers arguments, or invites your participation, your sharing, in a community.”
The root of the anger against Hume is his religious exclusivity — the belief, in Shuster’s words, that “my faith is the right one.” For this reason, according to Shales, Hume has “dissed about half a billion Buddhists on the planet.”
But this supposed defense of other religious traditions betrays an unfamiliarity with religion itself. Religious faiths — Christian, Buddhist, Zoroastrian — generally make claims about the nature of reality that conflict with the claims of other faiths. Attacking Christian religious exclusivity is to attack nearly every vital religious tradition. It is not a scandal to believers that others hold differing beliefs. It is only a scandal to those offended by all belief. Though I am not a Buddhist or a Muslim, I am not “dissed” when a Muslim or a Buddhist advocates his views in public.
Hume’s critics hold a strange view of pluralism. For religion to be tolerated, it must be privatized — not, apparently, just in governmental settings but also on television networks. We must have not only a secular state but also a secular public discourse. And so tolerance, conveniently, is defined as shutting up people with whom secularists disagree. Many commentators have been offering Woods advice in his travails. But religious advice, apparently and uniquely, should be forbidden. In a discussion of sex, morality and betrayed vows, wouldn’t religious issues naturally arise? How is our public discourse improved by narrowing it — removing references to the most essential element in countless lives?
True tolerance consists in engaging deep disagreements respectfully — through persuasion — not in banning certain categories of argument and belief from public debate.
In this controversy, we are presented with two models of discourse. Hume, in an angry sea of loss and tragedy — his son’s death in 1998 — found a life preserver in faith. He offered that life preserver to another drowning man. Whatever your view of Hume’s beliefs, he could have no motive other than concern for Woods himself.
The other model has come from critics such as Shales, in a spittle-flinging rage at the mention of religion in public, comparing Hume to “Mary Poppins on the joys of a tidy room, or Ron Popeil on the glories of some amazing potato peeler.” Shales, of course, is engaged in proselytism of his own — for a secular fundamentalism that trivializes and banishes all other faiths. He distributes the sacrament of the sneer.
Who in this picture is more intolerant?
steven joseph rotolo Says:
One question, does Christianity bestow on the follower a license to offend? Furthermore, why would anyone think that Christianity is superior to Buddhism? Has Brit Hume forgotten about Jim Baker, Ted Haggard, Robert Tilton, Jimmy Swaggart, and… well the list of adulterous Christian leaders is endless?
What about George Tiller who killed an abortionist in the name of the Christian God and showed no remorse? Really, there is a long list of Christians who have murdered and bombed abortion clinics in the name of God and who not only did not show remorse but seemed to be in rapturous ecstasy about it. When was the last time you heard of Kamikaze Buddhists or murdering in the name of Buddha?
And why does Brit Hume think that Tiger Woods needs redemption and forgiveness? Those are not to be found in the Buddhist doctrine, and as such Tiger Woods needs to fix his problems himself and find the correct path to Nirvana himself and not rely in anyone outside himself. That is the Buddhist doctrine, an ethical path to bliss unencumbered by the fanatism that so often accompanies Christianity and as exemplified by the zealot Brit Hume.
I am Catholic and I do believe in the good news of Jesus Christ, but I also firmly believe that God speaks to different people in different ways, and whether you follow Buddha, Christ, Nature, Mohammed, Zoroaster, or any of the many Hindu deities, it is God who is behind them all and he will guide you to salvation using whatever flavor suits you best.
Brit Hume, go ahead and spread the good news if you must, but do so respectfully of all other religions.
Posted on January 11th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Howie Says:
Steven being Christian does not give anyone a license to offend, that is the 1st Amendment; remember that little thing called the Constitution? The First Amendment to the Constitution says that Brit has the right to speak his mind, it however does not give him the right to be heard, or give you the right not to be offended.
The greatest thing about America is that you have the “Right” to be as stupid as you want to be within the bounds of the law as long as you are not violating someone else’s “Rights”.
The KKK are a bunch of bigots, but God bless them; as long as they are not breaking the law or violating someone else’s rights they have the right to be as stupid as they want to be.
Louis Farakan and his group are a bunch of bigots too, but God bless them; as long as they too are not violating someone else’s rights or violating the law they have the right to be as stupid as they want to be.
To your argument that Brit should not have made the argument in the first place because of the human evangilists who have sinned or the terrorists who kill abortion doctors is like me saying that there are gangbangers named Steven who kill people and sell drugs so maybe you should be avoided at all costs because people named Steven are just evil; they generally sell drugs and murder people.
I am not Brit Hume so I cannot answer your question about why Brit thinks that Tiger Woods needs redemption and forgiveness, but by that same question why do you think that your opinion is better than Brit’s? What makes you think that you can come and comment on what Brit said and your opinion is absolutely correct?
This is still America and you are free to do as you please, and say what you think. But it doesn’t mean that I have to sign on to your agenda.
Posted on January 11th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Peg Says:
Steve – I am also Catholic and do not take Brits words as offensive to anyone. Catholics believe exactly as they believe and a Buddihst as they believe but that does not mean we believe the same thing…
What we as Catholics and all Christians ARE to do is spread the word of the Gospels of Or Lord Jesus Christ. Why is when we take that upon ourselves to do that task, a task Christ Himself asked us to do, WE as Catholics and all Christians are alienated for doing so? Even by your own words, you say its not right to spread the good news.
I am afraid to say most Christians and Catholics are in your shoes. In the past 40 years, we have been slowly but surly the victim of Religious Oppression in this nation. We are made to believe by the secularist that it is NOT tolerant for Christians to speak in public about their faith and have resorted to hiding in the closet out of fear as to what one might say or think about our faith.
It seems to me the only ones that were offended by Brits remarks are the Secularists and Christians afraid to speak on behalf of our own Lord & Savior.
“Not everyone who says Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but rather he who does the will of my Father” (Matthew 7:21)
Posted on January 12th, 2010 at 9:40 am
Norris Hall Says:
The problem with Humes statement is that he , like many Christians, has his facts wrong.
Being Born again doesn’t make it less likely that you’ll be able to hold your marriage together.
In fact Born again Christians have about the same rate of divorce as non believers!!!
33%
Asians, on the other hand, who are mostly Buddhist have lower divorce rates …20%
Barna Research Group, which does religious polling in the US came out with a controversial and eye popping study that challenged the often assumed notion that born again Christians are more loyal to their mates than others.
You can read the poll results here
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marriageplusonline.com%2FNew%2520Marriage%2520and%2520Divorce%2520Statistics%2520Released%2520-%2520Barna.pdf&ei=mCZNS_e8I4ikswPV-tSKAQ&usg=AFQjCNFWO90henPVgSEUnD_xjvxCEG1y6w&sig2=q6nQtQhbhfxkSjAU6mSySw
Posted on January 12th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
Peg Says:
Your right – Being born again, or having a conversion of heart is no guarantee for any amount of success in this world – but having Christ with you, the struggles & suffering you face, become less burdensome. If life was not about suffering, Christ would not have had to die on the cross.
Posted on January 13th, 2010 at 8:09 am