Any religious expression, it seems. A commentator can’t say anything remotely religious without getting lambasted by the Left. (And, no doubt, with exclamations like "Jesus Christ!" thrown in for good measure.) While commenting on the Tiger Woods situation, former Fox News anchor Brit Hume dared dig deeper into the story and commented on one of the underlying issues.
Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person, I think, is a very open question… the extent to which he can recover, it seems to me, depends 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.’
This has led folks like Keith Olbermann to compare Hume to a "jihadist" and his guest Dan Savage to consider him a "lunatic". Later, Olbermann said that Hume was attempting to "force" or "threaten" Woods into conversion. From my local paper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Jay Bookman called Hume arrogant and pompous. Steve Benen at the Washington Monthly trashes Hume and seems to think that if adherents of a particular religion aren’t perfect then it’s perhaps hypocritical to suggest turning to that religion. His multitude of commenters seem to agree.
But as LaShawn Barber notes, this was all inevitable. The Secularists, those trying to essentially make religion a taboo in the public square and who overwhelmingly live on the Left, simply will not tolerate any mention of religion. (How tolerant.) And certainly not comparatively. If you dare insist that belief in Jesus is any better than venerating a toaster, you’ll get shouted down.
On top of that, LaShawn links to Christian apologist and author James White who points out that, indeed, Brit Hume is right.
The secularists are, of course, howling in protest, but if you read what they are saying, one obvious underlying theme comes to the fore. No one is offering reasoned, objective criticism of the substance of Hume’s comments, because, quite simply, he is right. Buddhism does not, in fact, provide for redemption and forgiveness, but instead directs one to look inward for enlightenment and eventual freedom from suffering (via freedom from desire). But redemption? Not in this life, for in its classical expression, this would involve a long process of moving toward enlightenment through many lifetimes. In any case, secularists do not care about the objective truth contained in Hume’s words, but instead they are enraged that he would actually dare to express his thoughts in public—the realm over which they now claim absolute authority and control.
(Emphasis his.)
If we are not allowed to speak of religion in public, it may be time to hold a wake for the First Amendment, something the Left claims to uphold.
Loading ...
4 users commented in " Religious Expression Considered Harmful "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackThanks for writing about this. I watched Brit Sunday and there was nothng pompous or even close to arrogance in his message. I cannot stomach to watch Olberman but I read some of the transcript of what he said and to me he is the full blown lunatic. I dont thnk the left loonies care if you talk about religion they just dont want you to talk about the only one that matters.Drives em crazy.
Indeed, the reaction was just so over-the-top.
Doug:
If there was not the slightest possible chance Mr. Hume had idea about what truth is, those like Mr. Olbermann would not care. Albert Einstein once said that “Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.”
So they are confronted with the possibility that there could be truth which is absolute and this falls outside of their relativistic views. And potentially begs the question “Is there absolute truth to which we must conform. Could we be wrong?” Ah salvation comes for the non-conformist “relativity”.
The fact that there will always be those of mediocre minds, just like Jesus said ” The poor you have with you always.” The Pareto principle (also known as the 80-20 rule) most likely applies here…Eighty percent have far less of idea what is really going on then the smaller twenty percent.
This stated it is of much higher probability that Mr. Olbermann falls into that eighty percentile of the ignorant ones…”Father for give them they know not what they do!”
[...] 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 [...]
Leave A Reply