« Oldskool New Atheism | Main | Yemen Bomber Response »

Not Mormonism?

Brit Hume and O'Reilly continued the discussion about how Christianity offers Tiger Woods the forgiveness he clearly needs. Maybe I am missing something but if Tiger can simply choose the most convenient religion to solve his current PR problem shouldn't he choose one that allows him to Marry all his women folk? The whole discussion is pretty silly and insulting, but what more can you expect from Faux News.



O'Reilly: "Is that proselytizing?" Hume: "I don't think so." Then he goes on to blatantly proselytize for the entire interview, at one point saying so in explicit terms: "... I was really meaning to say more about Christianity than anything else." Does he even know what "proselytize" means?

Obviously they don't know anything about Buddhism. There is no concept of sin in Buddhism, so why would TW want/need to convert for forgiveness?
And yes, the "explosive" reaction to the utterance of JC's name is because non-christians can't handle the power of his name. Not because we think the news should focus on the news. That couldn't be it.

I assumed that at some point he would issue some sort of apology. But amzingly he's sticking to what he initially said. weird.

You see, Jesus already forgave him. So he can just skip that step.

On the other hand, Buddha is Freaking pissed!

Can I try to give Brit Hume his best, most charitable reading, and then see what is left over to ask? Agreed, he's a maroon, but let's see what turns up. "Look," he might say, "Christianity as I (Brit Hume) understand it and believe it, offers true forgiveness of sins. I'm not suggesting that you, Tiger, do what's expedient, but that you do what is RIGHT, according to the view I accept and believe. Of course this is proselytizing--"you should believe x for reasons y" is what proselytizing is, sorry abou the confusion in my earlier answer. And dammit, Christianity, I believe, offers real forgiveness, in a way that none of the others do. (Again, that's what I, Brit Hume, deeply believe.) And, Tiger, by doing this, you will come to know the peace of Jesus, and here's one more thing--you will change the world for the good. YOur example will serve as such a powerful witness, to the world, that great good can and will come of this. Think about it, Tiger. Everyone wins. You transform your life and become a family man in the Christian way. Your family stays together. You witness to the world. Believe this and do this, not because it is good for you, which it is, but because it is true and transformative.

By the way, I, Brit Hume, don't believe that the other religions offer anything like what Christianity does. I'm not going to go into a discourse on compartative religion here, but that's my belief. So be it."

Now, I (the poster here, Bradphi) completely disagree, as does almost everyone reading this, I think, but what's wrong with that? What part of that wouldn't we defend his right to say? Seems to me, the only residual issue (besides our disagreement on metaphysics and morality we have with him) is that he is a...newsman? hmmmm, media figure? yeh, well...proselytizer (Yeh,that's it!) for Fox News.

I agree that this kind of thing would take Fox into new territory, but I don't know, would it? Doesn't O'Reilly say this kind of thing every night? Is there a difference between what Brit Hume does (more of a newsman?) and what O'Reilly does? Maybe--but it's at the very least a thin line between the two.

It is odd to see this thing so blatantly "out there" on a major "news" channel. I look forward to Jon Stewart making fun of him for being a general dipshit, but...oh hell, I don't know anymore.

TDS already went there. The result wasn't really that funny.

It would've been nicer if Brit had phrased everything the way you did, and had not done it on a news program. We might still disagree with him and whether it was the place of such a figure to say such things.

However, he didn't say things that way, and yammers on and on about how great Christianity is, how if Tiger would see the light we'd all notice the big change in him etc. etc. I don't dig it any more when O'Reilly gets in the act. Since I don't ahve cable - or even a working tv - I'd have to make an effort on the internets to put myself through such tripe.

Woods needs to decide if he's the marrying kind and move on from there. At the moment, he qualifies as someone who shouldn't marry - so make the divorce as painless as possible (in doing so he'll have to decide if he wants to bring up the injuries he sustained and how he incurred such injuries) and get back on the greens.

BH won't let it Die.

There is certainly a level of anti-Christian bigotry that may have something to do with the fact that on certain issues, the views of Christians are against theirs on certain matters such as abortion and others, but I can't account for all of it. It is a striking reality, however.

i think the point that twit hume is making is a good one, just not in the matter the he intends. if tiger wants to be forgiven by us (consumers) so that he can regain his sponsors and continue earning millions, then yes christianity is the right way to go. just accept jesus, appear contrite, and eventually all will be forgiven by the public.

It's not the power of His name, becuse His name wasn't actually Jesus.


man, every time I say "FUCK YOU ASSHOLE" someone hits me... must be that saying the words is a righteous act. Hey, this book here says if you say the words people will hit you. Must be the word of God.

Yeah...Tiger Woods was admired for his morals and now he's lost that, and accepting Jesus would change his moral view point and keep him from sinning again...because that worked so well for Rev. Jimmy Swaggart, Rev. Jimmy Baker, Rev. Ted Haggard, and all the rest of the "moral" leaders who fell.


Support this site

Google Ads

Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives