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.
sw
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!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.