The Right Rev. Brit Hume points the way to Tiger’s redemption
Kinda makes you wonder why God allowed that darned Buddhist to win so many golf tournaments over good Christian men. Then again, He also allowed a Muslim to be elected president of HIS country, the United States of Christian America.
But seriously, I do not understand and can’t begin to comprehend the arrogance it takes to publicly anoint yourself someone’s spiritual adviser, and to then lecture them about their faith and its alleged inadequacies. This was a prepared, considered remark by Hume, not some off-the-cuff aside.
A person’s faith is a private matter between that person and God, and is not a matter to be judged by some pompous TV anchor.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
422 comments Add your comment
LA
January 3rd, 2010
3:16 pm
“A person’s faith is a private matter between that person and God, and is not a matter to be judged by some pompous TV anchor.”
Please tell that to Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Rachel Maddow, Jon Stewart and every other liberal “journalist.”
LA
January 3rd, 2010
3:17 pm
Jay, you might also tell that to Cynthia Tucker who consistently rails and howls on people for their faith.
Nothing Is Free
January 3rd, 2010
3:20 pm
Jay
**A person’s faith is a private matter between that person and God.**
Man you need to tell that to most of your liberal friends. Maybe once your ilk stops attacking anyone who actually has a religious conviction, your attacking Brit Hume would have some credibility.
Jay
January 3rd, 2010
3:21 pm
Really, LA?
So Tucker and all those other people lecture individuals that their faith is the wrong faith?
Please document these instances. Since they are apparently so widespread, it should be quite easy to do so.
Nothing Is Free
January 3rd, 2010
3:22 pm
LA
I don’t think we have agreed on anything up to now. Is this just so completely obvious to anyone who isn’t completely indoctrinated?
Nothing Is Free
January 3rd, 2010
3:24 pm
Jay
Document members of the mainstream media going after Christians? You really need documentation of that?
Now that is rich.
Hi LA
January 3rd, 2010
3:29 pm
Hi LA,
I’m sure your right, but can you point me to all the times those journalists or entertainers looked into the camera and told someone to renounce their religion? I’m sure you’re right that they have, you seem to really be on top of this.
Obviously we both share a burning hatred of liberals, and a proclivity towards making nonsensical internet comments overflowing with bitter rage and bile (IHATE YOYOBAMA TOO!!), but seriously, you’re right, the only people who should be judging the religion of public figures are CONSERVATIVE talk show hosts, and maybe people in government once the republicans are in power again. Oh well, back to building my Obama/Rapture bunker. Laterz!
Jay
January 3rd, 2010
3:31 pm
Then go ahead and find it, Free.
Document cases in which Tucker and others condemned Christianity as an inadequate faith.
Because that’s an important distinction. Criticizing people for how they inject their faith into public debate is quite a different thing than condemning and insulting the faith itself.
So go ahead. We’ll wait.
Kamchak
January 3rd, 2010
3:35 pm
But seriously, I do not understand and can’t begin to comprehend the arrogance it takes to publicly anoint yourself someone’s spiritual adviser, and to then lecture them about their faith and its alleged inadequacies.
Geez Jay, talk-radio has been doing this for thirty years. It’s a learned arrogance.
stands for decibels
January 3rd, 2010
3:36 pm
I don’t really have to watch the video to know that Brit winds up making a horse’s ass of himself, do I?
Paul
January 3rd, 2010
3:37 pm
Jay
[[can’t begin to comprehend the arrogance it takes to publicly anoint yourself someone’s spiritual adviser]]
Wasn’t Mr. Hume responding to a question, as opposed to offering this unasked?
[[A person’s faith is a private matter between that person and God, and is not a matter to be judged by some pompous TV anchor.]]
Your piece reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my sons part way through his university studies after I’d made a less than flattering comment about some country’s heritage.
Son (sarcastically) “oh no, Dad, you can’t say one civilization is any better than any other.”
Me: “What if the Nazis had won WWII and finished their European extermination and turned Africa into a giant crematorium?”
Son: “Didn’t last long enough so it wasn’t a civilization.”
Me: “What if it had? What about the Roman civilization, built upon slavery and incalculable cruelty?”
Son: “Look, Dad, I tried all those arguments and found it was better to keep quiet, take the tests and tell the professor what he wanted to hear and walk away with a grade.”
It appears Mr. Hume has committed the great sin of making a moral judgment, of saying one thing is better than another. But in this case Mr. Hume did not say Christianity was better than Buddhism, he merely pointed out the belief system of one was more appropriate in one circumstance than the belief system of another religion.
RW-(the original)
January 3rd, 2010
3:38 pm
Is there a transcript around that provides some context here? It sure doesn’t sound to me like a prepared text and it seems to be in response to some kind of question about predictions.
Taxpayer
January 3rd, 2010
3:39 pm
Dang, Jay! Are you sure Brit is not The Corporal incognito. Or vice versa.
John Hume
January 3rd, 2010
3:43 pm
Brit Hume to Tiger Woods: If you only knew the power of the dark side!
getalife
January 3rd, 2010
3:44 pm
Did Jay just call out the private?
Hume was preaching to the choir.
Didn’t he retire?
BrettL
January 3rd, 2010
3:44 pm
Christianity does provide a wonderful path to redemption and forgiveness. Something that Mr. Woods certainly needs. This is precisely the most important issue and I appreciate Mr. Hume caring more about Tiger’s life and spirit than his golf game. For those of you who think faith is a waste of time, this comment will never make sense, but then again perhaps you aren’t looking to put your life back together after your family has been blown apart by your sin and selfishness.
Jay
January 3rd, 2010
3:46 pm
RW, as part of the pre-show briefing, they tell you in general terms what questions will be covered. In this instance, judging from Kristol’s response, they had been told to offer a prediction for the year ahead.
Nothing Is Free
January 3rd, 2010
3:47 pm
Jay
LOL!!
So only if I can find exact quotes from the people you listed will I be justified in saying that the mainstream media (and Hollywood) has been attacking Christianity. That’s hysterical.
You can stop waiting.
I’m not going to defend Hume’s opinion. And that’s what it was. It wasn’t woven in the story like this:
**Christians have been called “the American Taliban, with one reporter for a Florida newspaper, Bob Norman referring to “evangelical loonies,” and “way-out-there Christian wackos.” In the St. Petersburg Times columnist Robyn E. Blummer wrote that the “religious right” is trying in “Taliban-like ways to inject religion into public schools and the operations of government.**
or this:
the NPR reporter said: “Two of the anthrax letters were sent to Senator Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy, both Democrats. One group who had a gripe with Daschle and Leahy is the Traditional Values Coalition, which before the attacks had issued a press release criticizing the senators for trying to remove the phrase ‘so help me God’ from the oath.”
Kestenbaum then went on to say that TVC had not been contacted by the FBI without bothering to explain why they would have, clearly implying that they might be suspects in the attacks. It took NPR a full year to apologize for that slanderous report.
“No one told our reporter that the Traditional Values Coalition was a suspect in the anthrax mailing,” their apology stated, adding that “no facts were available then or since to suggest that the group has any role in the anthrax mailing.”
or this:
Wrote the Boston Globe’s columnist James Carroll: “Even a faithful repetition of the Gospel stories of the death of Jesus can do damage exactly because those sacred texts themselves carry the virus of Jew hatred.”
It’s an opinion. It isn’t part of a story presented as fact.
You are supposed to be a member of the Fourth Estate, Jay. Do you actually have a degree in Journalism? Do you honestly not know the difference between an opinion stated at a round table discussion and injecting dishonesty in the facts of a story?
Or maybe you just want everyone to say what you want them to say when they are giving their opinion. Considering who you work for, I would guess that this is the case.
LA
January 3rd, 2010
3:48 pm
February 18, 2008|By Cynthia Tucker
But don’t let the packaging fool you. Huckabee’s theocratic tendencies are dangerous, and he shouldn’t be on any ticket, even as vice president.
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution,” Huckabee said. “But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do – to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view.”
The last thing we need is another president or vice president who believes he can interpret God’s standards.
He is even scarier than Vice President Dick Cheney.
AND TO TOP THAT OFF, MSSSSSSS. TUCKER’S FAV PRES EVER IS A FAKE ONE ON TV.
My favorite president ever, Josiah Bartlett of the television show “The West Wing,” expressed his support for his well-qualified vice president – despite their rocky relationship – with the simple phrase: “Because I could die.” Any presidential candidate ought to carefully consider that fundamental truth.
As for Huckabee, he’d make a fine addition to the roster of high-profile theocrats on the political scene – James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Pat Robertson, to name a few. At least Huckabee can play Lynyrd Skynyrd.
RW-(the original)
January 3rd, 2010
3:49 pm
Jay B,
I just don’t think this rises to the outrageous outrage level you’ve tried to make it into, but it’s nice to get out of that thread below. Brit also isn’t an anchor anymore.
Paul
January 3rd, 2010
3:49 pm
Hmmmm. I wonder if Reverend Jeremiah Wright ever told his congregation that the needed to turn to the Christian faith. That other things they worshipped were wrong and would not lead to redemption.
I think we have a president who listened to those messages. Isn’t it time someone quizzed him and asked him if his spiritual advisor ever advised him along those lines? Then ask the Pres if he accepted the arrogant message from someone who thought he knew better than Obama did how to have a fulfilling life?
getalife
January 3rd, 2010
3:50 pm
Um, I thought I invented “American taliban”.
Did the private’s head just explode?
AF
January 3rd, 2010
3:53 pm
Can anyone imagine a newsman like Walter Cronkite doing something like this?
I am so old I even think it is bad manners.
LA
January 3rd, 2010
3:53 pm
Bookman, care to discuss how your colleague is a blatant racist?
CHRIS MATTHEWS: Put 100 of these people in a room. Strap them into gurneys. Inject them with sodium pentathol. How many of them would say “I don’t like the idea of having a black president”? What percentage?
CYNTHIA TUCKER: Oh, I’m just guessing. This is just off the cuff. I think 45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.
Jay
January 3rd, 2010
3:55 pm
Paul, I think such comments would be entirely correct, appropriate and necessary from a religious leader to his congregation.
This was not that setting; Hume was not that speaker.
Nothing Is Free
January 3rd, 2010
3:56 pm
Getaclue
**Um, I thought I invented “American taliban”.**
“I thought”
See? That’s where things started going wrong.
Taxpayer
January 3rd, 2010
3:56 pm
That NIF from above sounded more like mike than The Corporal.
LA
January 3rd, 2010
3:56 pm
Is Tucker unfamiliar with such Bible passages? She herself provides us with an answer in one of her recent columns:
For many religious conservatives, the issue is simple enough: Leviticus condemns homosexuality as an “abomination.” But the guiding legal document of a pluralistic nation has no business recognizing one religious view over any other. Some denominations — including my own, the United Church of Christ — have no prohibition against same-sex marriages. (A literal reading of the Bible, by the way, poses many a conundrum. Leviticus also orders capital punishment for homosexuals and adulterers.)
That clears it up a little. Tucker, who implies she’s a Christian, appears not to know that the New Testament also condemns homosexuality. For her edification, she should also read Romans 1:18-31, 1 Corinthians 6:9, 1 Timothy 1: 10; and 2 Timothy 3:3. I’d also recommend Galatians, where the Apostle Paul clears up confusion about the Mosaic law and grace through Jesus Christ:
What purpose then does the law serve? It was added because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was appointed through angels by the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one. Is the law then against the promises of God? Certainly not!
For if there had been a law given which could have given life, truly righteousness would have been by the law. But the Scripture has confined all under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept under guard by the law, kept for the faith which would afterward be revealed. Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor. Galatians 3:19-25
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
January 3rd, 2010
3:57 pm
I point to this blog topic as proof that left wingers hate on Christians as standard operating procedure.
~~~~~
2:57 left and maybe the jinx will lay off me, Cutler, no interceptions!
It CAN be done!
LA
January 3rd, 2010
3:58 pm
Hey Jay, at least conservative commentators don’t make up fake documents to sink a presidency.
Dan Rather much, Jay?
Nothing Is Free
January 3rd, 2010
3:58 pm
Jay
**I think such comments would be entirely correct, appropriate and necessary from a religious leader to his congregation.**
LOL!!
So now only ministers in front of congregations can give opinions about religion.
is there any part of anyone’s life that liberals do not want to control?
LA
January 3rd, 2010
3:59 pm
Jay, what about AmVet calling people “talibaptists?”
Oh wait, AmVet is not a professional anything.
TennVol
January 3rd, 2010
3:59 pm
Free and LA – You seem to be avoiding the core issue. In my hearing, Hume said one faith was inferior to another and that his advice for Tiger Woods was to change to the superior faith. No one asked Mike Huckabee to change or implied that his faith was worse than another. Just that basing the governance of the country on the Word of God (as one specific faith sees it) seems horribly inapporpriate and somewhat conflicting with the separation of Church and State that the United States was founded on.
So I think Jay’s question remains unanswered (and will likely stay that way) — Can you document cases in which Tucker and others condemned Christianity as an inadequate faith?
If not, you should repudiate your own comments
getalife
January 3rd, 2010
4:01 pm
“At least Huckabee can play Lynyrd Skynyrd.”
Classic.
LA
January 3rd, 2010
4:02 pm
TennVol, no I answered his question just fine.
Funny how two new bloggers have suddenly appeared in Jay’s defense. Funny indeed.
Kamchak
January 3rd, 2010
4:02 pm
Hmmmm. I wonder if Reverend Jeremiah Wright ever told his congregation that the needed to turn to the Christian faith. That other things they worshipped were wrong and would not lead to redemption.
I think we have a president who listened to those messages.
But, but, but…Obama is a Muslim–he studied at a madrassa.
…If anything, I mean — I mean, they kept using it as a selling point that Obama would throw Islamic radicals on their hind legs when they look up and they see someone who studies with [sic: studied at] madrassas and they see the “Great Satan” has a president with a brown face and the world is going to love us. [...]
And like I say, Obama can be doing more than Bush. He is specially situated that way, as having gone to madrassas as a child, not being a white male
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
January 3rd, 2010
4:02 pm
NIF can’t be mike, not after scoring one on taxxie’s teeth last night.
That was brutal.
LA
January 3rd, 2010
4:04 pm
TennVol, Tucker rails on white conservatives on an almost weekly basis. She ignores racists like Jesse, Al, Revvvvvvvvvv Joseph Lowry and Jeremiah Wright but she wastes no time in pointing out any white person who happens to be conservative.
LA
January 3rd, 2010
4:06 pm
AJC’s Cynthia Tucker Embraces Factually Inaccurate Newspaper Content
By Mithridate Ombud (Bio | Archive)
August 6, 2007
Editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution was asked why letters that are “factually inaccurate” are allowed into the newspaper. I had long assumed it was the same reason stories that are factually inaccurate are used in the newspaper, but not-so says Tucker: “We live in such a politically polarized age that not everybody agrees on the facts. My letters policy tends to be a bit looser than those of some other editorial page editors.”
This includes “Readers who still believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that they were taking to Syria are allowed to express that view even though it is clearly not true.” As you may recall, I addressed this “inaccuracy” once before for ACLU president turned journalist, Robyn Blumner.
But Cynthia does have a standard that even she won’t breach: “If a letter is so distorted it needs an editor’s note, Tucker won’t run it. She worries that adding an editor’s note would embarrass the writer.” Cynthia, consider this my editor’s note to you.
getalife
January 3rd, 2010
4:07 pm
“NIF can’t be mike, not after scoring one on taxxie’s teeth last night.”
“See? That’s where things started going wrong.”
Paul
January 3rd, 2010
4:08 pm
Jay
I agree. The point I was getting at, though, was the idea that someone – spiritual advisor or not – would think they have some ability or duty to advise another person on what’s best for their life. In many Christian traditions it is not normal to evangelize. It’s true of the church I attend. Others, though, have it as a duty for the members. Kind of follows Jesus’s instruction of “go ye into all the world, testifying…etc” So if Hume’s among that group, I can see him doing this in a matter where someone’s life has hit the skids and saying “this is a way to a happy life.”
Hume did have a valid point about the differences in belief and effect on life of one faith as opposed to another faith. I just look at it as “hey, for some, this works. Consider it.” Doesn’t strike me as arrogant at all.
It’s interesting. This is a blog where people try to convince one another of the superiority of their political/social/economic/what have you belief systems and of the better effect it has on one’s life and the lives of others. Or the life of the planet. Oh, and to condemn those who don’t share their beliefs.
But, boy oh boy, use the noujn ‘religion’ (let alone “Christianity”) as a basis and get ready for the accusations of arrogance.
Nothing Is Free
January 3rd, 2010
4:08 pm
TennVol
The core issue was that a commentator gave his opinion during a round table discussion and because that opinion did not jive with the liberal mantra that has been forced on the country for the past 30 years, Jay had to attack Hume for his opinion.
So please explain why I would need to supply opinions of others doing the same thing in order to defend a person’s right to their own opinion? Call me crazy, but this used to be a free country. if it had been woven into a story, I could see the outrage. Conservatives experience that outrage almost on a daily basis, so i could feel his pain. But this was an opinion of how Tiger Woods could solve one of his many problems given by a person, not representing anyone or anything but himself.
So no. I will not be retracting anything I have said. To my last breath, I will be defending the right for Brit Hume, Jimmy Carter or Al Gore to give their opinions.
Taxpayer
January 3rd, 2010
4:09 pm
NIF can’t be mike, not after scoring one on taxxie’s teeth last night.
That was brutal.
I see what you define as winning. Not that I really needed any more confirmation.
LA
January 3rd, 2010
4:10 pm
Jay writes:
So Tucker and all those other people lecture individuals that their faith is the wrong faith?
I never said that, Jay. Read my comment again. Oh wait, I guess it’s too hard for you.
What I really wrote: Jay, you might also tell that to Cynthia Tucker who consistently rails and howls on people for their faith.
Again, where in that line did I write anything about Cynthia Tucker railing on people for the WRONG FAITH?
Answer: Nowhere
Bottom line: Read a comment before throwing out a question.
Paul
January 3rd, 2010
4:11 pm
Kamchak
[[But, but, but…Obama is a Muslim–he studied at a madrassa.]]
But the Pres just said we’re at war with those Muslim fanatics…. there’s an identity crisis brewing…. at war with one’s self… Quick!! He needs to appoint a psychiatrist czar!!!!!!
TennVol
January 3rd, 2010
4:13 pm
LA – Does Tucker ever say that her faith (whatever it is) is better than theirs and that they should convert? Christians (of which I am one) have a bit of an unfortunate history when it comes to forced conversions.
I have no issue if she selectively calls out conservatives for criticism, just like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity call out liberals on a daily basis – each side has their devotees. However, saying one faith is superior to others is just wrong (whether it is mine or not).
What would you think if Tiger was a Christian and Brit said that he should become a Muslim to really achieve redemption? Would that be okay?
getalife
January 3rd, 2010
4:13 pm
Bad decade for the Christians.
Perhaps return to tolerance is the answer this decade.
I must be high.
LA
January 3rd, 2010
4:16 pm
TennVol,
A: I don’t care what religion Tiger Wood’s belongs to.
B: I have no idea if Cynthia Tucker says that her faith is better. I never wrote anything about that.
Bottom line: Read before you write.
Taxpayer
January 3rd, 2010
4:17 pm
Muslim fanatics
Of course, if those particular fanatics had been using Christianity as their publicized basis for their assaults on others , then he would have more appropriately used a different adjective, dontcha know. After all, fanatics do tend to come in all stripes.
George Foreman 3:16
January 3rd, 2010
4:17 pm
Ye all powerful omnipotent God, nice work droppin’ a bullet in a little boy’s head at Church….