Brit Hume's sin: he believed what he said

There has been a torrent of news, blogging, raging, and opinion-shucking going on over Brit Hume's remarks about Tiger Woods, Buddhism, and Christianity, (the best I've read so far is by The Anchoress), so I thought I'd toss my thoughts into the great vacuum of blogdom (or is it "wheel of blogging dharma"?). My take on the aftermath is fairly simple: Hume offended three notable groups of people:

1) Those who claim that news is meant to be completely objective and free of any opinion whatsoever.
2) Those who cannot fathom someone making an unapologetic public remark about their belief that Christianity is objectively true.
3) Those who hate FOX News.

An example of #1 is Baptist pastor Welton Gaddy on the WaPo blog, "On Faith":

The picture on the television screen and the audio of reporter Brit Hume's words struck me as contradictory. Just below the image of the reporter's face, the insignia "Fox News" appeared in three different places. Yet, the content of Mr. Hume's comments was not that of a news reporter so much as that of a televangelist.

Strangely enough, I found it disconcerting to read a piece by a Christian pastor criticizing a Christian making a positive statement on an opinion panel on FOX News, especially when that critical opinion piece was under the insignia, The Washington Post. Did I miss something? Have we lost all sense of irony? Or just commonsense?

This would make a bit more sense if, in fact, news networks and programs of all ideological persuasions were obviously dedicated to objective reporting. But, sorry, that seriously ill bird fell out of the coop, oh, many years ago. Does anyone with half a brain really think that CBS News or CNN or MSNBC is really honed in on giving us "just the facts, ma'am"? In fact, on the rare occasions that I do watch network news these days, I find that within two minutes I am being lectured (sometimes obviously, sometimes with attempts at subtlety) by some perfectly coiffed, immaculately manicured talking head with the personality of an iceburg about what ordinary, middle-class Americans should be doing and thinking when it comes to, say, carbon footprints, universal healthcare reform, immigration, President Obama, Democrats, George W. Bush, Republicans, taxes, big business, terrorism man-made disasters, education, taking care of pets, driving in the snow, nutrition, buying cars, movies, summer vacations, traveling to Europe, dieting, watching television, cell phones, and surfing the Net. What, exactly, is the difference between, say, Katie Couric and Oprah Winfrey? Well, yes, Oprah might just be a better reporter. Who can really tell?

A perfect example of #2 is John Aloysius Farrell, a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report, who writes:

It takes a religious zealot to strap explosives around his or her waist and, murmuring prayers, blow up a CIA facility in Afghanistan, or take down an airplane over Detroit, or steer a jet into the World Trade Center. Or, for that matter, to treat the world to Crusades and Inquisitions and the kind of faith-based savagery we've seen in places like Belfast, Bosnia, Beirut, and Jerusalem. That is what made Brit's comments so creepy: the self-certainty that "my god is better than yours."

Because, you see, the man who is completely certain that "self-certainty" about a matter of religion is the doorway to violence and savagery is himself a noble and sophisticated creature. His certainty, be assured, is completely unlike the creepy and barely contained barbarism (nay, terrorism!) hidden within Brit Hume's dapper suit. How do we know this is true? Because he said so! Hey, Farrell is a thoughtful reporter with an opinion, unlike Hume, who is a thoughtful reporter with, uh, an, um, opin—never mind.

A number of folks have rightly noted that if Hume had suggested Woods take up yoga, practice TM, undergo counselling for sex addiction, or read an Eckhart Tolle book, no one would bat an eyelash. Again, it is the Christian claim to objective truth (and the inherent call to conversion) that upsets so many people. After all, they know for a fact that objective truth doesn't exist.

While making a little 2,600-mile drive a month ago, I listened to quite of a few sports radio programs (they keep me awake, for some reason), most of them fixated on the Woods story. Again and again various "experts" and pundits were asked to offer what they thought Woods should do to recover, to rebuild his image, to get his life in order, to address his problems, and so forth. The responses were all over the map, ranging from thoughtful to funny to stupid to incredibly stupid. Each of them reflected, even if not openly, a particular belief system (often very confused and amoral). So, why should one's beliefs about the basic nature of reality, morality, and truth be off limits when it comes to considering opinions about the news? Peter Wehner makes this very point in an NRO piece about Hume-inspired Sturm und Drang:

Rather than being mesmerized by the stupefying consensus that matters of faith — especially orthodox Christian faith — ought never to be raised in public, people like Buckley and Muggeridge (and Hume) should refuse to accept it. Not because they want to advance tired religious slogans and worn-out phrases; rather, because people are interested in dealing, in an authentic way, with the deepest questions of human existence, of which faith is often a key part. “The life of religion as a whole,” William James said, “is mankind’s most important function.” That, I think, is in part what Hume was getting at.

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, in more forums, and in a more relaxed, comfortable, and confident way. It might actually interest people more than the latest daily tracking poll by Scott Rasmussen or the latest mutterings of Harry Reid.

Amen to that. Oh, as for group #3: turn the dial. But remember, using Mr. Farrell's logic, no news outlet is any better or worse than another.

Related Ignatius Insight Articles:

• Catholicism and Buddhism | Anthony E. Clark and Carl E. Olson
• Buddhist Dreams and Spiritualist Schemes | An Interview with Dr. John B. Buescher

Comments

[James Findlayson]

Where does Brit Hume's divorce and remarriage sit within this for Catholics, or do we just disregard it because he mentions Jesus on TV? Should they be separated 'in my personal opinion', for the sake of expediency, or because he's not Catholic, he can do what he likes?

Isn't Brit Hume just living in a state of 'Christian'-approved adultery?

[Francis Beckwith]

"That is what made Brit's comments so creepy: the self-certainty that "my god is better than yours.""

Ironically, Mr. Farrell is suggesting that no god is better than any other, which means that Mr. Farrell apparently believes his opinion about gods is better than any other opinion about gods including the opinion that some gods may be better than others. And this puts Mr. Farrell in precisely the same position as Brit Hume: he thinks he's right and everyone else is wrong. But the difference between Mr. Farrell and Mr. Hume is that at least the latter understands what he believes and what that entails; Mr. Farrell has no clue, and this is why he mistakes his dogmatic stipulation for liberal tolerance. Passive aggressive self-certainty is still self-certainty, and far more "creepy" than a candid, up-front, confession of one's beliefs.

[No Man]

In general, the louses that attacked Mr. Hume are slanderers and liars, SOP for Obama-worshipping koolaid drinkers.

The noted theologian, Don Imus, on the radio the other day stated that Christianity is better for Tiger. B/C under his so-called religion, Tiger will be reincarnated as a cockroach. No lie! I heard on the radio. Where are the rats that went after Mr. Hume?

I'm an accountant. What say the theologians?

I agree with Hume we believe in the forgiveness of sins.

[Matthew]

James;
I'm just curious about what you are implying. Are you saying that no man who is a sinner can point out the way to Truth and repentance to a fellow sinner?? Perhaps Hume was speaking from his own experience of healing in the face of his own sin. I know nothing of Hume's private life. Just because I do not live the Truth does not mean that I cannot speak it.
Matthew

[Francis Beckwith]

Where does Brit Hume's divorce and remarriage sit within this for Catholics, or do we just disregard it because he mentions Jesus on TV? Should they be separated 'in my personal opinion', for the sake of expediency, or because he's not Catholic, he can do what he likes?

Isn't Brit Hume just living in a state of 'Christian'-approved adultery?

When an imperfect man points to the perfect man for the benefit of another imperfect man, why do you concentrate on the finger rather than on the man to which it points? For the record, in another a life, I would have given you the finger, since I am, sadly, not a perfect man.

[Janny]

Tiger Woods' infidelity has gone way past "private sin" when it impacts as much as it has, and as such, is a prime example of what addicts call "hitting bottom." This is NOT to say the man doesn't need conversion as well...but don't set "counseling for sex addiction" up alongside "yoga" or any of that other nonsense as equivalently ineffective. The first thing I thought of when I heard the Woods story is, "Get that guy to an SA 12-Step Group." The Higher Power can then take over when he's willing to surrender...ergo, a conversion experience.

As for the notion that simply because a man is divorced and remarried, he has no right to express Christian principles/beliefs in public? Are we supposed to dignify that with an answer?

JB

[Carl E. Olson]

but don't set "counseling for sex addiction" up alongside "yoga" or any of that other nonsense as equivalently ineffective.

My point wasn't that all of these are equal in importance or effectiveness, but that few people would think any of these would be considered controversial, whereas suggesting conversion to Christianity is considered controversial, even intolerant.

[Barbara]

Living in the Bible Belt I've come to treasure my separated brethren for many things, not the least has been their confused reaction to Hume's comment. Here they wonder why no one said what Hume did sooner and what kind of Kool-Aid are y'all drinking to have a problem with him.

[Carl E. Olson]

Barbara: Perhaps it escaped your attention that my post was in defense of Hume? Kool-Aid indeed...

[DN]

I believe Barbara's comment is geographical in nature. "Y'all" meaning "those not in the Bible belt" which by implication includes the more urban/coastal news networks and the mindset they represent. Which is to say, not you (Carl), but y'all (non-Bible thumpers from outside the Bible Belt).

[Carl E. Olson]

DN: Ah, I can see that possibility now. The "Y'all" must have thrown me a bit. ;-)

[LJ]

It does depend somewhat on where the advice is coming from in the political sense. This came from FoxNews which, in the minds of some of the far leftists including some Catholics, is a bastion of fascism or something equally inane.

However, when Bill Clinton was finally having to own up to his Oval Office extra-curricular activities with Monica, what did he do? He had his come-to-Jesus moment with the Reverend Jesse and that was completely acceptable on the left. Wasn't the Reverend Jesse his "spiritual advisor" or somthing like that? (Had that been Barack Obama he would likely have had the title "Spiritual Czar")

Brit Hume is just a guy on TV offering an opinion, not a president.

[MarkF]

Folks, you're missing the big point here. We're all called by Vatican II to do just what Brit Hume did. When the time is appropriate we should speak about Jesus and the Church, and what he has done for us. Brit's timing was great and his words were measured but backed by an implicit, but well heard message that he had sinned, repented and changed.

Better to wait for the right moment, don't be a bore. But don't be afraid to speak about Jesus.

It's up to us, not to the people like Brit Hume.

[Brian]

Allow me to ask questions. Did Hume misrepresent Buddhism? Did Hume present a "get ouf of jail free" card disguised as Christianity? Did Hume show presumption that religious conversion will automatically fix one's problems? Those were among the questions that the "perfectly coiffed, immaculately manicured talking heads" have raised. Shall we address them?

[David]

Suggesting Woods try yoga or read Eckhart Tolle are not the same as a call for conversion, as one need not change their religion to do either of these. Indeed, many Christians make use of Buddhist meditation techniques and other practices without converting. Hume didn't merely suggest that Woods "try Jesus"- he also stated that Buddhism did not offer any sort of redemption. In so doing, he effectively insulted the faith of millions all over the world. He also made himself look like an idiot. As Brad Warner, a Buddhist blogger puts it, "If the entirety of Buddhism had no way at all of dealing with such a common thing as marital infidelity it couldn't possibly have lasted 2500 years and picked up several hundred million adherents."

[Ilíon]

Beckwith: "... For the record, in another a life, I would have given you the finger, since I am, sadly, not a perfect man."

Have you never heard of giving someone "the feather" (a raised pinkie finger) ... because his impudence doesn't rate a full bird? ;)

[Thomas Mellon]

I think y'all need to take up golf.