Can You Say That on TV?

Have you heard the storm of controversy over this?



As you might imagine, there were people from all sides saying that Brit Hume shouldn't have brought up the Christian faith in this discussion.

Trevin Wax wrote later in the week, responding to each of these oft-heard objections.

Objection #1: “Brit Hume’s remarks indicate that he thinks Christianity is superior to Buddhism.”

Objection #2: “Christianity looks bad when Christians talk this way. Christians should not publicly and actively proselytize people of other faiths.”

Objection #3: “Brit Hume implied that Buddhism is deficient in some way.”

Objection #4: It is arrogant for Brit Hume to assume he believes in the only true religion and to try to lead people to the Christian faith.

Objection #5: Brit Hume’s attempt to evangelize Tiger Woods shows how exclusive and narrow-minded fundamentalist Christians are.

Go here to read Wax's response to each one.

And Michael Gerson:

True tolerance consists in engaging deep disagreements respectfully — through persuasion — not in banning certain categories of argument and belief from public debate.

In this controversy, we are presented with two models of discourse. Hume, in an angry sea of loss and tragedy — his son’s death in 1998 — found a life preserver in faith. He offered that life preserver to another drowning man. Whatever your view of Hume’s beliefs, he could have no motive other than concern for Woods himself.

The other model has come from critics such as Shales, in a spittle-flinging rage at the mention of religion in public, comparing Hume to “Mary Poppins on the joys of a tidy room, or Ron Popeil on the glories of some amazing potato peeler.” Shales, of course, is engaged in proselytism of his own — for a secular fundamentalism that trivializes and banishes all other faiths. He distributes the sacrament of the sneer.

Who in this picture is more intolerant?

Source 1, 2, 3