Holy mackerel, what a tempest in a teapot Fox News commentator Brit Hume unleashed when he made a pro-Christian comment on national TV. Judging by the hysterical outcry from the left, you would think he had publicly advocated devil-worship.
Come to think of it, had Hume instead advocated giving Satan a chance I’m sure the reaction would have been far friendlier. He would have been hailed for his open-mindedness and applauded for being so non-judgmental.
In case you missed the beginning of this controversy, here’s how it started: Appearing on a panel on Fox News Sunday, Hume was asked what advice he would give the embattled Tiger Woods, in an effort to end the controversy that has besmirched the reputation (and flattened the bank account) of the superstar golfer.
Hume began by saying that, while Tiger’s golf game would eventually recover, if he wanted to overcome the guilt and shame of his repeated infidelities he should turn from Buddhism to Christianity.
Hume then observed, “The extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends on his faith. He is 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.’”
Needless to say, the loony left went absolutely ballistic over Hume’s pro-Christian comments. Keith Olbermann, MSNBC’s bile-filled poster boy for intolerance, berated Hume for trying to “threaten Tiger Woods into becoming a Christian.”
Really? I hope someone asks Olbermann by what stretch of imagination he could find a threat in Hume’s remarks. They sounded very conciliatory to me… perhaps even overly optimistic in the promise of “total recovery.”
But Olbermann wasn’t finished. He went on to compare Fox News to Islamic extremists, for allowing Hume to promote Christianity on national TV. He then invited Dan Savage, a homosexual extremist, on his show. Savage promptly lambasted Hume as a “lunatic” for his remarks. Olbermann nodded approvingly.
Jon Stewart, the smirking liberal who hosts The Daily Show, played clips of Hume’s comments to the amusement of his audience.
Tom Shales, the TV critic at The Washington Post, mocked the idea that Christians should “run around trying to drum up new business.” What Hume did was outrageous, Shales insisted—unless you were so backward as to believe that “every Christian by mandate must proselytize.”
Actually, as you no doubt know, many Christians believe exactly that. But I doubt if my more evangelical friends would give Brit Hume high marks for calling Tiger (or anyone else) to account. What he said was a long, long way from an altar call. But the blogosphere responded as though Hume’s remarks were the most glaring example of bigotry, bias and downright stupidity ever uttered outside The Jerry Springer Show.
David Shuster, Olbermann’s colleague on MSNBC, lambasted Hume for violating “the separation of church and television.” I think he confused that principle with another one that’s just as phony—the so-called “separation of church and state,” which is also nowhere in the Constitution.
One of the strangest criticisms of all came from Dan Savage, the homosexual activist I mentioned above. He roared indignantly that Hume was claiming Christianity “offers the best deal—it gives you the get-out-of-adultery free card that other religions just can’t.”
Excuse me, but isn’t that exactly what Christianity promises? As Ann Coulter put it, “God sent his only Son to get the crap beaten out of him, die for our sins and rise from the dead. If you believe that, you’re in. Your sins are washed away from you—sins even worse than adultery!—because of the cross.”
And then the acerbic columnist and commentator added the following: “Surely you remember the cross, liberals—the symbol banned by ACLU lawsuits from public property throughout the land?”
To my surprise, I found one of the most reasonable comments about the whole affair in a column in The New York Times, when Ross Douthat wrote, “This doesn’t mean that we need to welcome real bigotry into our public discourse. But what Hume said wasn’t bigoted: Indeed, his claim about the difference between Buddhism and Christianity was perfectly defensible. Christians believe in a personal God who forgives sin. Buddhists, as a rule, do not. And it’s at least plausible that Tiger Woods might welcome the possibility that there’s someone out there capable of forgiving him, even if Elin Nordegren and his corporate sponsors do not.”
Yes, as many observers have noted, Christianity is the best deal in the universe. There is no other faith of which I’m aware that promises your sins will be forgiven.
Of course to the intellectual elite, there is no such thing as “sin.” We are supposed to tolerate anything and everything, from serial infidelities to the most blatant perversions.
In the land of the free and the home of the brave, no one can be persecuted for his or her beliefs anymore. Unless, of course, they are so old-fashioned and intolerant as to believe that sin exists… that sinners will be punished… and that redemption can only be found at the foot of the Cross.
Brit, I’m sure glad you no longer get your paycheck from one of our so-called “fair-minded” networks. Because if you did, I have no doubt they’d require you to grovel an abject apology—right before they threw you out the door.
Until next time, keep some powder dry.