No one will take on Obama, and the Washington establishment, like Newt Gingrich
Fantastic: Obama would like to replicate Detroit’s foibles elsewhere
New York Times scandalized as NYPD is trained on Muslim-perpetrated violence
Detroit boldly choosing to crackdown on the innocent
South Carolina stopped Romney. For now
Cartoon: Down and out
In which I praise Mitt (but explain why I won’t vote for him)
Bernero the gambler sells Main Street for a shot at the slots
The Emergency Financial Manager law is undemocratic, but opponents need an alternative to guard against local fiscal calamities
Memo to Snyder: Don’t stop the radical reforms now!What was Brit Hume supposed to say?
January 5th, 2010 | 
Author: 
Dan Calabrese
When you break it down, plain and simple, Brit Hume expressed an extremely pertinent opinion about the chosen topic of discussion.
Why were they discussing Tiger Woods’s private life on Fox News Sunday? Not because it’s relevant to matters of public policy, national security, economic conditions or anything of the sort. It isn’t even relevant to the game of golf, at least insofar as Woods’s indiscretions didn’t occur on the links.
If you didn't want to know . . .
They were talking about it because Americans are interested (or at least the media thinks Americans are interested) in the personal lives of celebrities. I’m not, but let’s stipulate for the sake of discussion that Americans by and large are.
Fine. So let’s talk about it.
What, wonder the pundits, does Tiger Woods do now?
Brit Hume has an opinion. Brit Hume has opinions on a lot of things, and it’s certainly not unusual for his opinions to be disliked by the American left. But he expresses them nonetheless, and for the most part, not even the most strident leftist would object to his expressing of these opinions.
But Brit Hume’s opinion about Tiger Woods is different, because he believes Tiger Woods needs to be redeemed by faith in Jesus Christ.
“Was this prosyletizing?” asked Bill O’Reilly when Hume appeared on his show the following night.
I have a better question: So what if it is?
The media and the culture can’t have it both ways. If they were to stick to straight hard news – public policy, business, economics, crime, national security, etc. – then discussion would be limited to opinions about those subjects. Brit Hume, being Brit Hume, would probably argue for lower taxes, less federal spending, tougher sentences and an assertive foreign policy. He might not argue for conversions to Christianity simply because it wouldn’t be relevant to the matter at hand.
A spiritual thriller by Dan Calabrese. Click the image learn more and to order a copy.
But the media doesn’t want to limit itself to straight hard news, not even Sunday morning shows that are supposedly devoted to politics. They, too, insist on delving in to the private lives of people who will never make our laws, never raise our taxes, never protect our streets and never meet us.
Fine. So. What’s Tiger Woods to do?
Hey, if Tiger Woods asked me what he should do, I would tell him the same thing Brit Hume said. He hasn’t asked me, and surely he won’t, but that’s what I would say. And you know what? There are many millions of other Americans who believe Tiger Woods should do the same thing that Brit Hume and I both believe he should do.
So if that, in Brit Hume’s opinion, is the answer to the question on the table, why should he say something other than that? Because it makes people uncomfortable when he says what he really thinks?
It’s a hell of a setup we have in our modern culture. We think it’s great sport to poke and prod at the private lives of people who don’t really matter a hill of beans to us. But we are required to keep the poking and prodding strictly at a surface level. If a celebrity’s life goes into a spiral, and we kick back and watch while munching popcorn, that’s acceptable. But if someone suggests an actual path to changing that person’s life – particularly a path that leads that person to God’s redemption – well then, mister, you’ve crossed the line.
Not only do we insist on discussing a stupid topic, but we insist on discussing it in the most stupid manner possible.
How can Tiger Woods fix his life? He can give it to Jesus Christ. That’s what I think. That’s what Brit Hume thinks, too. If you didn’t want to know, you shouldn’t have asked. Don’t agree? Hey, free country. I bet you didn’t agree with whatever Brit said last week about health care reform, either. But you didn’t have a conniption fit because he said it.
I guess some opinions touch a nerve in a way that others don’t.
Become Dan’s friend on Facebook.
Become a fan of The North Star National on Facebook.
To book Dan as a speaker, contact Lourdes Swarts at Speakers Access.
Posted in Dan Calabrese
17 Responses to “What was Brit Hume supposed to say?”
Leave a Reply
- Listen to compelling 911 tape of 2-year-old trying to help authorities save her great-grandmother's life (AUDIO)
- 'Simpsons' joke about Sharia threat in Dearborn
- Fire Marshal: Too soon to say whether fatal fire at 230 Myrtle in Muskegon is arson; investigation continues
- Electrical problems likely cause of Strong Avenue fire in Muskegon; Investigation ongoing
- WXYZ asks a blogger with no law enforcement experience to weigh in on escort murders
- By the numbers: Detroit has spent $20 million demolishing homes since 2009
- 'Simpsons' joke about Sharia threat in Dearborn
- Age-shy Warren Mayor Jim is officially 69, two years older than he claimed, so let's all move on
Very well said, Dan. We are so concerned about being politically correct in our society today, it seems when someone gives an opinion that isn’t popular, the coverage (driven by today’s out-of-control, gone off the road media) is so over-rated and overstated.
Yes, bigotry has that effect on people. Mr. Hume was not merely suggesting that Tiger Woods find a path to ‘redemption’ – he explicitly put down Wood’s own religion as being incapable of helping him as much as Christianity (and by omission of any other religion, Hume suggests that ONLY Christianity can help Tiger Woods).
Your entire column centers on outrage (or perceived outrage – you didn’t cite a single real example) over Hume stating his opinion, but you never once consider that opinions can be immoral, such as the one Hume expressed.
One of the problems that Dave and others have is that they believe that being true to your faith is a bad thing. This can only be true if there is no “true” faith. If we are all wrong, as the athiests and humanists would want us to believe, then, yes, suggesting that one give their life to Christ is immoral.
But if you are a Christian, you are enjoined to share that faith. In fact, it is evil to deny another person the opportunity to live a better life in the belief that God gave his Son to save us. The attacks on Hume are really not attacks on him. They are attacks on Christianity. We must not be ashamed of Christ and must testify of his power to heal and save all persons.
What I’m also hearing is that Tiger Woods, known adulterer, would fare better in Christianity because he would be forgiven (BTW, Buddhism also allows for forgiveness so Hume and followers are wrong). So Buddhism frowns more upon adultery than Christianity does? I guess that explains why so many known adulterers and sinners are Christian, like Mark Sanford, Bill Clinton, Ted Haggard, et all. The religion condones bad behavior! Does forgiveness excuse bad behavior? Isn’t Hume missing the point, and instead, just alienating everyone not Christian?
It’s insulting because Brit asserted what many Christians do, which is that they are somehow more moral being than those from another belief system. John Ensign, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, and Mark Sanford were all Christians. DEVOUT Christians. And yet, they cheated on their wives. If Brit Hume wishes to be a Christian, fine. But don’t sit there and pretend that Christianity is the the only way to lead a moral life. Remember, Brit Hume divorced his first wife. Not a good indicator of moral strength.
The problem is not that Brit Hume is compelled by his faith, and (I am assuming) that he is seeking to help someone in a difficult position with a solution that has made a difference in his life. It was the complete dismissal of the Buddhist faith as inadequate in being able to provide a foundation and guidance for a person in their personal spiritual journey. No, Buddhism is not a dominent faith in the US, but millions of people do find spiritual comfort and enlightenment via its teachings. It was Mr. Hume’s certainty that Buddhism is inadequate, and Christianity is the single solution that was so offensive.
He should have suggested Tiger turn to his faith, and then explain how his Christian faith has guided him. He could still then testify to his faith and his belief in Jesus Christ, and express his opinion without completely dismissing a very valid, age-old faith. Must prothelizing involve the disrespect of others? Is that a Christian value? Or should ti focus on the joy and blessings of Christ?
If the shoe was on the other foot, and Christianity had been dismissed in the way that Mr. Hume had dismissed Buddhism, I think many would feel differently.
Another nice, upbeat, and accurate article, like the way you have used your words here. Thanks Dan.
I echo the point that others have made that where Mr. Hume crossed the line is when he dismissed Buddhism by saying “I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith” Maybe he should have done more research into Buddhism. So I really want to ask Dan, Spike and others to please look inside and answer how you would feel if Tiger was a Chrisitan and a prominent news anchor said “I don’t think that Christianity offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Buddhist faith”, or if a Jewish news anchor said “I don’t think that Christianity offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Jewish faith”, or if a Muslim news anchor said “I don’t think that Christianity offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Muslim faith”, and in each case they encouraged Tiger to leave Christianity and join theirs because in their opinion it has a greater path to forgiveness and with their faith he can make a total recovery and be an example to the world. If you would not feel insulted then I understand your position that Mr. Hume was not insulting either.
Peter, I would disagree but I would not consider it a scandal that it had been said. People say things all the time that I don’t agree with. Hell, I publish a lot of them on this site.
I once published a column saying that evangelical Christians are “dominionists” who are secretly plotting to control the country.
How come I can handle that but so many people are having a cow over what Brit Hume said?
Fair enough Dan. I appreciate the honest response. I also agree that this is certainly not a scandal, and everybody has the right to express their opinion especially on a panel of commentators. I just feel he would have not come off sounding ignorant and insulting had he not dismissed Buddhism. One word could have changed the whole context – “If”, as in “if buddhism does not offer the path to forgiveness…”. Anyhow, one thing I think we do agree on is that I do not tune in to Fox News Sunday to hear about Tiger Woods, I can pick up the National Enquirer for that.
Had an anchor from CBS or NBC, on a primetime news broadcast, stated that Christians lack moral fibre and stability due to their beliefs, that anchor would have been fired. However, Brit Hume can assert that Buddhism is without morality or guidance when compared to Christianity, and he is allowed to keep his job. Now, I am not advocating him being fired for his comments, but you cannot deny the double standard at work here. You ask, “what was Brit Hume supposed to say?” My question would have been, “Why did Brit Hume feel he needed to say it?” It wasn’t out of concern for Woods. It was a subversive way to denounce Eastern belief systems while lauding Christianity (an institution with a history of church sanctioned murder, rape, child molestation, war, and bigotry).
You either believe the same as Brit Hume – that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the light and that no one comes to the Father but through Him…and Tiger needs to ask forgiveness for his sins to receive Christ’s forgiveness and love – or you believe there are other ways to do this. Forget whether or not Hume should’ve shared the advice at that time, on that program, or in his role. You either believe what he said is correct or wrong. Read more about it with “Politics and Religion: Knowing Little But Never Being Wrong” – http://richardtgarner.blogspot.com/2010/01/politics-and-religion-knowing-little.html
I truly enjoy studying on this site, it has got wonderful posts .
Hi,thanks for your post and luckly to comment in your site!Clip on sunglaGHD Hair Straightener can be found in all kinds of colours. Nobody loves their designer sunglasses more than celebrities, and in general most teenagers want to look like their favorite movie star or pop idol. Recently, apparent Ray ban sunglasses in copycat variations have turn into genuinely popular, instead belonging in the direction of formerly standard eye-hiding dim shades. If you are looking for low cost sunglasses that are replicas of famous brands, you might find something of interest to you in iVision Canada. UK clip on sunglasses directory – Offering UK products from United Kingdom manufacturers, suppliers, wholesalers & distributors at TradeKey. If your frame of sunglasses at low cost is plastic, keep reading to see if it contains a metal bar. Any explanatio Chanel sunglasses n, JiYunSheng tsukihime move can don”t want to hear it, no matter what happens.
cheap ugg boots uk with regard to women and men all over the world provides. You can state how the Milan runway with regard to viewers within Sydney, uggs boot informal turn to supply broadly wellliked. Informal wool enables atmosphere in order to move not just in a position to remain dried out feets however watermark free of charge. These types of boot are supplied along with thermostatic sheepskin, all over the world provides boot with regard to women and men keepiUggs. Ugg informal consumers ought to appear expert in addition to providing you with the actual as soon as wellknown with regard to putting on their own items. You can state which Milan runway with regard to viewers within Sydney, offers broadly wellliked informal boot uggs appear. Informal atmosphere as the wool in order to dried out feets liberated to transmit not just enables the actual watermark.
I’m a teenage boy and I couldn’t figure out a way to make money. Some people said by blogging you can make money but they weren’t specidic about it. Please help me out and please tell me some ways to make money..
Many thanks for taking time to write this post. It’s been really valuable. It couldn’t have arrive at a far better time for me!