Skip to comments.Brit Hume's Tiger Woods Remarks Shine Light On True intolerance
Posted on 01/08/2010 5:40:45 PM PST by Steelfish
Brit Hume's Tiger Woods Remarks Shine Light On True intolerance
By Michael Gerson January 8, 2010
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It does indeed. Intolerant people like Michael Gerson are popping out from under rocks everywhere to show their hatred for Christians.
I am convinced that 99.999999% of liberals in this country are unbelievers and will roast in hell (the Lake of Fire) forever after being judged at the Great White Throne Judgement. They will be cast into hell, screaming & cursing, receiving their just rewards throughout eternity.
Gerson is an idiot.....
What a loser.
Actually, if you read the whole article it’s a a strong and spirited defense of Brit Hume.
Hell will spit them out, fearful of the competition.
If you would bother to read what Gearson actually wrote prior to commenting on it, you would know that he was defending Hume. The intolerance he decries is that of Hume’s critics.
Gerson sums up his beliefs in one sentence. He believes in the Great Nothing.
Are you hard of reading?
Why yes I am. And yes I saw the other posts and realized I posted without reading the WHOLE article.
Freepers are intolerant of the Washington Post, causing knee-jerk reaction.
I disagree with the "drowning man" part. Brit was speaking from his heart..offering a life preserver from a father to a son.
Up is down and down is up; black is white and white is black; right is wrong and wrong is right.
I feel sorry for him.
How did the Compost editors let this one slip by?
I take it you didn’t read the column ? Try reading it before attacking Gerson, might help.
But I have it, anyway!
Did you read the article?
Here is Gerson's conclusion:
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?
It is stunning to read this in the Washington Post.
It equally stunning to see how many FR posters failed to read and/or comprehend this remarkable article before posting about it.
Gerson is not summing his beliefs. Rather, he posits this as the belief of Hume’s critics and then continues to dissect and assail them.
Brit knows what he is talking about. He lost an adult son some years ago under circumstances that I do not recall. He knows where to seek peace and solace.
I wish FReepers read the whole article before rushing to condemn Gerson.
Those who scream the loudest demanding “tolerance” are usually the most intolerant of them all. Hypocrites.
I, too, almost commented before reading the entire article. I think the headline may have thrown us.
That is what I gleamed as well..
LOL, you’re in good company - I believe it was the esteemed, long-time Freeper, Lazmataz, whose tagline for many years was “proudly posting without reading since 1998”
yep, that’s what Isaiah said about the culture of his day almost three thousand years ago. Read it. Sounds just like today.
What is Brit's background?
And it's not hard to understand why. You can't, at once, be a libertine and believe in a God whose creation includes standards of behavior.
Brit was raised Episcopalian. The “old” Episcopalian church
Quite right. Apologies for helping to mess up the discussion on this thread. I read the first couple of paragraphs carelessly and jumped to the wrong conclusion.
He’s actually saying pretty much what I was saying, so I was wrong to accuse him of belonging to the intolerant group.
Kind of a surprise to read this in the WaPost.
Seems insightful to me. Did we just read the same article?
I would love to read a version of this article by Walter Williams. He is the best editorial writer alive, packing more true thought into a few short sentences than most can put in a novel.
Egg on my face too.
"But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.
Mathew 18:28 (NIV)
Thanks for the ping.
Yes, this article is a powerful indictment of the anti-christian mindset, and a powerful defense of religious freedom.
I am surprised that it was published in the Washington Post, but I am no longer surprised that many Freepers posted their replies without reading the article.
We are a Christian nation and should act like one in helping our fellow man when he stumbles. For those who criticize this action by Britt should look to themselves and ask the following question?
What advice would I give Woods that could potentially have the a positive impact on his life. The talking heads offered no advice to Woods but were more interested in attacking Hume for having the gall to offer Woods a potential solution to a better chance at changing and regaining his family and true happiness.