Here is the latest clip from Hume, explaining his rationale behind suggesting that Tiger Woods’ should turn to Christ. I have a ton of thoughts that I wish to offer, but will simply redact myself in stating that Hume acknowledges that he was trying to be less offensive by initially referring to the “Christian faith” rather that the name “Jesus Christ”, and that it still invites the same reaction of hostility. Hume said that “all hell breaks loose” when one invokes the name of Christ. Knowing that Hume knows this and yet proceeded with such words suggests to me that Hume is willing to suffer reproach for his comments.
I also want to mention that it is far more freeing to me as a listener to hear political commentators, etc, publicly acknowledge their convictions. Even if I disagree with such convictions, I think there is much more credibility to commentary that is acknowledged within a system of some sorts.
There is a double-standard in the media that has long needed to be exposed for what it is. I have watched “news” where people have offered their convictions in opposition to driving SUV’s because it is contributing to global warming, opposition to wearing leather or eating meat because it causes the death of an animal, promotion of animal rights, etc. Why is it that when someone is critical of a religious conviction, they get grilled for it, but it is seemingly okay to attack people for eating animals. Rather than shutting both down, I want the megaphone to get louder and broader about matters of faith and action. I want PETA to explain why they decry Obama killing a fly, but are seemingly okay with puncturing an infant’s brain in the womb of the mother. And if there is a Buddhist who thinks that their faith offers redemption, I want them to explain it. If there is a hedonistic atheist who thinks that morals are relative and that Tiger is better off single and sleeping around with how many ever consenting women he wishes and that we should shut up about it, let them speak up and make their appeals.
Religion should not be off limits in the free market of ideas. Let it abound, let the masses listen, let the masses discuss, let them decide. And if they hate Brit Hume, then let them. I am not decrying so much the fact that people hate Hume mentioning Jesus, I expect that. What I hate is this awkward deference of religion as being personal and something that should remain private in the public sphere. We can disagree, get outraged, protest, whatever…but let us disagree with what people say while also reserving their right to say it. I guess if your opinion even extends to saying that “Hume shouldn’t have said…”, then there will not be agreement on the parameters of dialogue in the public sphere, however do acknowledge the inconsistency of decrying my eating of animals and yet ruling foul my comments about your philosophical/religious convictions.
We are seemingly moving closer to a society that would punish Hume for “hate speech” and pro-lifers for decrying the murdering of babies, but seemingly hold in high esteem the free speech of atheists who decry the Christian faith as the source of all evils and how things would be better if Christianity ceased to exist. Keith Olberman can scrutinize Christian “nut jobs”, but Brit Hume cseemingly can’t scrutinize Buddhism and suggest Christianity as a better alternative for redemption?