Tweet

EMAIL

PRINT

Comments (12)

Related articles and links |  1 of 3

On Sunday, Brit Hume of Fox News made headlines by saying that Tiger Woods needed the redemption found in Christianity.

"The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith. He is said to be a Buddhist. I don't think that faith offers the kind of redemption and forgiveness offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger is, 'Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world,'" said Hume.

On Wednesday, Hume defended his statements in an interview with Christianity Today. "I don't want to practice a faith that I'm afraid to proclaim," he said. "I'm not going to stand on the street with a megaphone. My principal responsibility at Fox News isn't to proselytize. But occasionally a mention of faith seems to me to be appropriate. When those occasions come, I'll do it."

Political advocacy groups jumped to Hume's defense.

Connie McKay of Family Research Council Action said that "the self-anointed 'smarter than you are class'" was shocked at Hume's statements but would have supported him if he had spoken against Christianity or in favor of the free speech rights of child pornographers.

"No wonder the oncoming political tsunami is about to land this year," said McKay. "The Obama media has so misjudged the American public and their value system that they will soon have to report the demise of their own 'smarter than you are' political water carriers. November cannot come soon enough."

On the Tuesday edition of the 700 Club, Pat Robertson called Hume's remarks "a bold statement." Robertson said, "In politically correct terms, you can't say anything about your faith without somebody jumping down your throat."

For most groups, the issue was the place of faith in the public square.

Peter Wehner, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, wrote at National Review Online that "most of us spend an inordinate amount of time on shallow discussions about largely inconsequential and evanescent issues; talking honestly about matters of faith and meaning shouldn't be off-limits. In fact, we should welcome such conversations more often."

Tasha Easterling of the American Family Association said that there was a double standard at play. Hume could have used profanity with impunity, but took fire for giving an opinion about his faith, Easterling said.

"As a Christian, I would not be offended if Hume had told Tiger to become a Muslim, and it doesn't offend me when Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins appear on television and declare that Christianity is a crock and everyone should be an atheist. Why? Because that is their opinion. I may not share their beliefs, but they still have a right to … express them," said Easterling.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council also supported Hume's right to share his faith. Sprigg said "Tiger Woods, of course, has an equal right to tell Brit Hume to go jump in a lake. Everyone else should lay off. But Woods would do better to listen to Hume's counsel, and heed it."

The chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, Louis Sheldon, said, "Brit Hume has made atheists and liberals angry, because he told the truth." Sheldon supported both the expression of religious views and Hume's statement that Woods needed Christ.

"The fact is a religious opinion has just as much weight as other opinions and any time is a good time to hear the good news about the love, mercy and justice of Jesus Christ," Sheldon said. "There is hope for Tiger Woods and for all who accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior."

next page... |  1 of 3

January (Web-Only) 2010, Vol. 54

Displaying 1–5 of 12 comments

See all comments