Brit Hume playing the persecuted victim card
Brit Hume, the Fox News commentator, went on national TV this week and publicly criticized another person’s faith as inadequate.
Facing a backlash for those remarks, Hume is now casting himself as the victim of religious intolerance.
Got that? The victim of religious bigotry and intolerance is the man who publicly condemned another’s faith as inadequate.
To review briefly, here’s Hume’s original statement on Fox News Sunday:
“… the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal — the extent to which he can recover — seems to me to depend on his faith. He’s 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.’”
According to Hume and others, he has become the victim of anti-Christian bigotry for those remarks. “It is certainly true in secular America today that the most controversial two words you can ever utter in a public space are ‘Jesus Christ,’” Hume said in a later interview about the uproar.
That’s absurd. It’s not about Christianity. Among other things, it’s about poor manners. Like a lot of Americans, I was raised to respect religious belief, and I think it’s rude and crass to drag another person’s private faith into the public square for judgment and belittlement, as Hume did to Woods.
Reportedly, Hume’s longtime Christian faith deepened after the tragic suicide of his son 11 years ago. I get that and accept that, and I’m glad that Hume found solace at what must have been a very difficult time. If Hume had reached out privately to Woods to share that experience, I’d have no problem with it whatsoever, and I doubt many others would either.
In fact, if Hume had merely said on air that his own Christian faith had helped him through hard times and that Woods might benefit from it too, I’d find it hard to object much. (Such a statement would have seemed odd and out of place from a political commentator on a news show, but that’s another issue.)
However, that’s not what Hume did. He said Woods is a Buddhist and suggested that Buddhism is an inferior religion.
Thanks to an earlier post on this subject, I’m now among those being accused of being anti-Christian and intolerant. Well, let’s try a little experiment, shall we? Let’s imagine that a prominent newscaster had said the following about Hume at a difficult time in his life:
“Brit’s said to be a Christian — I don’t think that faith offers the kind of solace that is offered by the Buddhist faith — so my message to Brit would be, turn to the Buddhist faith and you can make a total recovery.”
Personally, I would find that just as objectionable as what Hume said about Woods. A person’s religion is not a topic for public judgment. But I guarantee that most of those who today rush to defend Hume’s comments in the name of tolerance would be singing quite a different tune. They would not be celebrating the airing of religious issues, they would be complaining about a lack of basic respect for faith.
And in that case, they’d be right.
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
394 comments Add your comment
RW-(the original)
January 7th, 2010
5:57 pm
Why so ungrateful Jay B? A blogger called you a blogger so you’ve arrived.
LA
January 7th, 2010
5:57 pm
Jay, please do us all a favor and write about things that matter.
1: Brit Hume doesn’t make policy.
2: It’s his opinion and last time I checked this was still a free country.
Bottom line: Enough with the Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Cheney, Palin and Bush bashing.
LA
January 7th, 2010
6:00 pm
“Let’s imagine that a prominent newscaster had said the following about Hume at a difficult time in his life:
“Brit’s said to be a Christian — I don’t think that faith offers the kind of solace that is offered by the Buddhist faith — so my message to Brit would be, turn to the Buddhist faith and you can make a total recovery.”
It’s called free speech, Jay. WHO CARES?????????????????
No one is accusing you of being anti-Christian and if they do, so what?
I scoop ;~] Uleak :>o
January 7th, 2010
6:01 pm
Brit Hume had a John Lennon moment?
Now I HAVE heard everything.
Matilda
January 7th, 2010
6:03 pm
I agree. Mr. Hume’s comments represented poor manners at best. That he’s now crying “victim” after insulting Mr. Woods’ faith suggests to me that he feels he deserves special treatment by flawed mortals in addition to enjoying the oh-so-special favored status of the Christ saved. Like, being washed in the blood of Jesus isn’t enough? He demands to be treated better than he treats others TOO? Hmmm…
Yo'momma Obama
January 7th, 2010
6:06 pm
I am totally offended that my belief in Satanism with its tenants of pedophilia, beastiality, homosexuality, and polygamy is not given equal treatment like Christianity…..yawn
I scoop ;~] Uleak :>o
January 7th, 2010
6:09 pm
HEY EVERYBODY: Trolls are stampeding over on Bob Barr’s blog. They’ll hit a 1000 comments easy as pie! WOW!
You’ve got to read the tone of the comments! What the hell could have happened? He must have PO’d somebody with a lot of idle friends, or a spam machine.
@@
January 7th, 2010
6:09 pm
I’m not even gonna read this fluff piece. MY GAWD, jay…Brit Hume is a network commentator. Does he really deserve this much attention?
Jay
January 7th, 2010
6:11 pm
Scooper, Drudge linked to it.
Charles Absher
January 7th, 2010
6:14 pm
Well said!!
Taxpayer
January 7th, 2010
6:14 pm
Well, Jay, on the brighter side, I think this news blows a gaping hole in the notion made by some bloggers here that no one outside your very own small following even knows you exist. Well, there’s also those times that you mentioned FairTax™ as further proof but those don’t count since you no longer talk about that topic.
Jay
January 7th, 2010
6:15 pm
@@, when I write that I was raised to treat religious belief with a great deal of respect, I really meant it. It’s a foundational belief for me, and I do find this kind of thing honestly offensive.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
January 7th, 2010
6:16 pm
I think your fixation with finding something other than obozo to talk about has taken a new turn, downward.
Jay
January 7th, 2010
6:16 pm
FairTax?
What’s a FairTax?
RW-(the original)
January 7th, 2010
6:19 pm
Scooper, Drudge linked to it.
Ouch! And you only got Newsbusters. Now I understand.
N-GA
January 7th, 2010
6:20 pm
Brit Hume was once a competent journalist, then he went to work for Fox and ended up as a political comentator. As such, he routinely gets to express his opinions (guaranteed by the US Constitution). And as such, he should expect (and welcome) the criticisms directed his way when he puts his foot in his mouth.
I find it amusing to read the remarks of his apologists…..there are numerous “Christian” politicians, ministers, and talking heads whose sexual escapades have made the news. At least enough to make Hume’s remarks about Tiger Woods pathetically gratuitous as well as arrogant.
N-GA
January 7th, 2010
6:21 pm
….commentator…..
getalife
January 7th, 2010
6:22 pm
brit creates news by playing the Christian card.
Silly distraction.
FinnMcCool
January 7th, 2010
6:26 pm
Brit just wants his country back.
Pitiful
md
January 7th, 2010
6:30 pm
Accountablity – he needs to raise his hand and move on.
FinnMcCool
January 7th, 2010
6:31 pm
Did Shirley Franklin even consider running for governor?
Sunshine and Thunder
January 7th, 2010
6:31 pm
“In fact, if Hume had merely said on air that his own Christian faith had helped him through hard times and that Woods might benefit from it too, I’d find it hard to object much.”
No, but you’d still object, right?
“But I guarantee that most of those who today rush to defend Hume’s comments in the name of tolerance would be singing quite a different tune.”
Christians have to be tolerant of other religioins because they see theirs bashed constantly and prohibited in schools. The latter may not be so bad except that the religion of left wing ideology is taught blatently in our schools.
Jay
January 7th, 2010
6:35 pm
I’d think it was unprofessional, Sunshine, but that would be the extent of the complaint.
moonbat betty
January 7th, 2010
6:38 pm
Maybe owebama should have brit, tiger and the dalai lama over for brewskis?
Paul
January 7th, 2010
6:42 pm
Jay
At first I thought you were being a bit hypersensitive on that, so I appreciate your remark of “I was raised to treat religious belief with a great deal of respect, I really meant it. It’s a foundational belief for me, and I do find this kind of thing honestly offensive.” I had the same kind of upbringing, but it was one in which differences between faiths, as well as religions were openly examined (we have more than a few represented in our family). Examining differences and the implications of those differences was not considered a matter of labeling one as superior or one as inferior. They were just different. They appealed to different needs. In many ways, they resulted in different attitudes and outlooks on life. Different. Not ‘better.’ Different.
From a different perspective, I saw Mr. Hume’s remarks (remember, he began by speaking of his admiration for Mr. Woods and his hope he would have a good life) as given out of genuine concern and a desire to help. Your suggestion that it could have been worded better if it had been based upon Mr. Hume’s experience has merit, but he didn’t do that. But I think the message would have been the same.
Forgiveness and redemption are basics of many 12-step programs, which do have their basis in Christian philosophy. Those programs speak of forgiving one’s self, accepting the unconditional love of a higher power and turning to new thoughts and behaviors (redemption). I do not know if the Buddhist faith offers that, or not. Possibly it offers other beliefs that Mr. Woods finds helpful. But if it doesn’t, Mr. Hume was pointing out something that might work for him.
I wrote the other day about an Ann Landers letter wherein a woman was concerned because her boyfriend, who was raised to respect women, held the door open for a woman who immediately castigated him for all the negative things his action implied to her. Not for how he meant it. This strikes me as the same.
As far as his other assertion, that people seem to ‘launch’ on Christianity while cutting slack to other religions: that’s another issue. But I think you’ll find a lot of people have experienced workplace and education situations where nonChristian observances are permitted while Christian observances are discouraged. Something as simple as reading a a religion’s version of scripture on a lunch break. Not that it doesn’t happen to all religions or faiths, but some seem to think it tilts a bit heavier against one than against others.
Kamchak
January 7th, 2010
6:42 pm
The latter may not be so bad except that the religion of left wing ideology is taught blatently[sic] in our schools.
As exemplified by an extensive campaign to plaster text books with stickers.
josef nix
January 7th, 2010
6:44 pm
JAY
My hat’s off to you once again in matters of respect for people of faith. Hume deserves all the criticism levied at him, but he deserves it, as you succinctly put it. There is no need to chastise Christians. This is a matter of bad manners and lack of professionalism. Thank you.
Taxpayer
January 7th, 2010
6:44 pm
What’s a FairTax?
Many a better person than I have tried, in vain, to answer that question.
LA
January 7th, 2010
6:48 pm
“Christians have to be tolerant of other religioins because they see theirs bashed constantly and prohibited in schools. The latter may not be so bad except that the religion of left wing ideology is taught blatently in our schools.”
Bingo.
Taxpayer
January 7th, 2010
6:50 pm
I have noticed that sometimes there is quite a heavy toll to be paid for one’s increased notoriety. For example, Erick Erickson’s little foray on the Colbert Report seems to have extracted a little skin, at least from my vantage point. Perhaps Erick carries spare peroxide and bandaids for just such emergencies.
LA
January 7th, 2010
6:51 pm
Jay, can you name any other religion other than Christianity that offers redemption?
Brit Hume voiced his opinion. Just like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens and other professed atheist do on a weekly basis.
Bosch
January 7th, 2010
6:51 pm
The worst of the left wing ideology has more actual religion than the worst of pretend fundamentalist politicians…look up C street.
@@
January 7th, 2010
6:52 pm
@@, when I write that I was raised to treat religious belief with a great deal of respect, I really meant it. It’s a foundational belief for me, and I do find this kind of thing honestly offensive.
So was I, jay, and yet some of your commenters use my faith as a foundation for their attacks.
Personally, I wouldn’t have been offended had some other commentator SUGGESTED an alternative religion. If you recall when you first posted Hume’s comment, I said it was out of character for him, and that he was right about ONE thing. There is no individual redemption in Buddhism.
I don’t even think Tiger is a practicing Buddhist. If he were, meditation would take up the better part of his day. He might have time for a little golf, but not enough time for golf and “puttering around”.
Sick&Tired
January 7th, 2010
6:53 pm
Many people claim to be of the Christian faith, but don’t understand the basic principals that are represented by Jesus. When I read Hume’s statement it reminded me of Mathew 7:3 – ” Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” I would suggest that Brit Hume retake Christianity 101. We all have to go back and re-educate ourselves more often, than not. It’s a good thing that our God is a forgiving God.
RW-(the original)
January 7th, 2010
6:56 pm
josef,
Are you saying Brit deserves to be chastised because of what he actually said or the way it’s being presented as him claiming the Buddhism was inferior?
Paul
January 7th, 2010
6:57 pm
Sick&Tired
By that line of reasoning, no Christian would ever serve on a jury where the would be required to pass judgment.
N-GA
January 7th, 2010
6:57 pm
Paul,
If Brit Hume wants to go to work on one of the religious channels or appear on 700 Club (or similar programs), then he should be free to couch his remarks in any way he chooses. But as a paid political commentator for Fox, he needs to have sufficient professionalism to edit his remarks. I can only imagine what Huntley, Brinkley, or Cronkite would say about this.
DoggoneGA
January 7th, 2010
7:00 pm
Sick&Tired – it made me think of Matthew 6:1 “Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.”
Jenifer
January 7th, 2010
7:01 pm
Did Hume comment that Ensign, Craig, Vitter and Sanford should also become Christians? No wait, they already are, supposedly. Calling out republicant hypocrisy is becoming the world’s most boring sport.
josef nix
January 7th, 2010
7:05 pm
RW–
He should be chastised for saying what he did in the forum he did. It was not mannerly in that in a public forum such as the one at his disposal the promotion of one’s own faith as having answers that another does not is not good manners, faith being perhaps the most personal of all issues. So, yes, he should be chastised for what he actually said where and when he said it. Just as Jay, as the moderator, the one with the public forum at his command, does not promote his own faith, or lack thereof (I do not know) Hume should not have used his forum toward that end since, to the best of my knowledge, theology was not the topic/theme. That he did, in my opinion, was a viloation of the ethics of the profession.
FinnMcCool
January 7th, 2010
7:06 pm
Blessed are the cheese makers.
F. Sinkwich
January 7th, 2010
7:09 pm
A terrorist nearly blows up a plane on Christmas potentially killing hundreds of Americans. Then our fearless leader, Chairman O (Bookman’s hero), reads him his Miranda rights and has him “lawyer-up,” thus preventing the good guys (the US, that’s us lefties) from gaining valuable intelligence about jihadist activities in Yemen. An outraged Bookman dumps on Brit Hume.
This idiot we have as POTUS is going to get people killed. And all Jay can get concerned about is a Christian.
Two terrorist attacks in just a few weeks, and this bozo (Chairman O) gets a pass. Can you imagine the outrage if GWB was still president?
Didn’t think so.
matte white
January 7th, 2010
7:10 pm
Jay,
Could you please point out exactly where, in that linked CNS article, Hume cast himself as a victim?
I don’t think you can.
{I also don’t imagine David Shuster has any friends whatsoever, much less Christian friends.}
Taxpayer
January 7th, 2010
7:11 pm
Does this mean that everyone is once again OK with maintaining a separation of church and state and that we can quit lambasting Obama, for example, for not selecting a voter subset-approved sermon for he and his family — not that it is any of our business if he even goes at all, correct!
jt
January 7th, 2010
7:12 pm
Let’s imagine that the HEAD OF THE IRS just got busted, via paper trail, of the biggest swindle in U.S. History.
Oh wait,……………………
we don’t have to.
Bosch
January 7th, 2010
7:12 pm
Paul,
Isn’t there some kind of little football game coming on?
moonbat betty
January 7th, 2010
7:13 pm
Maybe owebama should have had the working class folks of Pennsylvania over for brewskis?
@@
January 7th, 2010
7:15 pm
New Jersey Senate defeats Gay Marriage Bill.
Civil unions, josef. I’ve heard they’re all the rage among the majority.
Gays make up 2%…3%? of the population. Even those numbers can’t be corroborated.
Hate to say it, but the bi-sexuals and transgendered need to form their own coalition. They complicate your cause.
Civil Unions, last call.
Paul
January 7th, 2010
7:18 pm
Good Evening, N-GA
I guess I don’t understand the ‘off limits’ sign that applies to religion because it’s something ‘personal’ and applies to ‘beliefs.’ Consider a person with no religious adherence. They may embrace many of the same principles – how they view their fellow man, what they consider moral action to be, how they view their relationship to others, how they think we should care for the Earth – through a political group. These views can be the very core of how they define themselves. Yet people have no inhibitions when it comes to challenging those beliefs, telling people how they are wrong and another way is better. Happens all the time.
Seems to be another hangup on a noun (religion) that justifies or prohibits how one should speak to others.
Personally, I don’t much care for someone else’s judgment. But I cut them some slack if I detect in them an earnest desire to be of help. Then good manners on my part come into play. Not condemning them. Just saying “thank you. I shall consider that.”
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 7th, 2010
7:18 pm
Well, I’m just disgusted Bookman would rake one of my Heros over the coals.
Brit Hume is dead Right. There ain’t no good religion but the Christian religion. And they won’t even let teachers make kids pray in the schools. Anyhow, I’m with all the other good Conservatives on this blog. Let Brit Hume alone. He tells the Truth.
This would be alot better country if we had a Preacher in the White House. And make all the members of Congress be Christian too. About 70% of us in this country are Christian, and if any other faiths don’t like it, let them have a whole bunch of kids and maybe in a few hundred years they can be the majority.
Shame on you, Bookman.