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.
I wish FReepers read the whole article before rushing to condemn Gerson.
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.