Bravo to Brit Hume: Why Faith is Not a Private Matter

By Selwyn Duke

Not too many things raise my eyebrows in these days of through-the-looking-glass America, where I fully expect up to be down, left to be right and right to be wrong.  It’s not that I’m a pessimist — just a realist.  And this is why hearing mainstream-media newsman Brit Hume recommend Christianity over Buddhism on FOX News Sunday, well, made my eyebrows say bonjour to my hairline.

In case you missed the story, Hume was addressing Tiger Woods’ womanizing woes and recommended that the golfer seek his answers in Christianity, saying, “I don't think that faith [Woods’ Buddhism] 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.’”  While pleasantly surprised, I knew Hume was going to take heat for straying outside the Box of Tolerance, which is about the size of Get Smart’s Cone of Silence.  And the reaction came promptly.  Describing it at Politics Daily, Carl M. Cannon wrote:

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal Constitution asserted that "faith is a private matter between that person and God, and is not a matter to be judged by some pompous TV anchor." In case Hume was misunderstood, Bookman subsequently called him "rude and crass" and guilty of "bad manners." MSNBC anchor David Shuster maintained that Hume had somehow "denigrated" and "diminished" Christianity. Even knowledgeable religion writers were nonplussed by Hume. USA Today religion writer Cathy Grossman asserted on her blog that the Fox commentator was "talking trash."

Now, Cannon must be unusually kind, because a writer who is “nonplussed” by Hume is certainly not knowledgeable. Nor is he religious — at least not in any sense beyond the recreational.

But let’s cut through the nonsense here.  I’m always amused when people object to others’ efforts to convert them, especially since it’s a daily occurrence.  What I mean is, conversion is the business of most of the world — and it’s especially the business of the commentators criticizing Hume.  Democrats want to convert others to being Democrats, liberals want to convert others to liberalism, Muslims to Islam, Coca-Cola to Coke-drinkers, Ford to Ford-drivers, homosexuals to homosexual “rights” supporters, dairy farmers to milk-drinkers (it does a body good), and the United States Golf Association to golfers.  And don’t the liberal commentators criticizing Hume try to convert others to supporters of things such as universal healthcare, faux marriage, and anti-spanking laws?  This is why it’s nonsense when Bill O’Reilly (who defended Hume) says, as is his wont, he’s not trying to change anyone’s mind.  Unless someone is so mercenary that he renders opinion simply to make money, he must care about certain things enough to want to win philosophical soul mates.  I mean, could you imagine, let’s say, Jay Bookman stating, “You know, I like universal healthcare, but, hey, dude, whatever works for you”?  Could you imagine him applying his own standard to political proselytization and refraining from mention of the issue?  I guess he can’t, either, because Bookman has been quite unabashed in his advocacy of Obamacare, writing, for instance, “By any measure, we are grossly inefficient in health-care delivery compared to our industrialized competitors.”  Is that like Buddhism being grossly inefficient in salvation delivery compared to Christianity?  Stop being “rude and crass,” Bookman.  That’s my country you’re talking about.

You see, playing the “I’m offended!” game is a lot easier than actually thinking.  But I accept that liberal journalists will portray America as inferior to other nations in manifold ways.  What is far more offensive — that is, to any discerning intellect — is the profound stupidity and prejudice reflected in a double standard that denies only Christians (and perhaps a few other groups) the right to advocate their beliefs. 

Yet something must now be asked about this notion that “faith is a private matter.”  If secularists are so adamant about it, why do they never admonish the Richard Dawkinses and Christopher Hitchenses of the world to mind the principle?  Hitchens wrote a book titled God is Not Great and makes a lot of money and waves parading around the country spreading his anti-theist (as he puts it) message.  And there is no shortage of liberal journalists echoing his sentiments in their effort to convert others to their way of thinking (or, I should say, feeling).  Am I to understand that faith is private when you want to spread it but public when you want to condemn it?  The contradiction here is so thick that, were I as intellectually sloppy as those I criticize, I’d call them hypocrites.  But they’re too philosophically juvenile to embrace their contradiction with full knowledge.  So I’ll be kind and just call them ignorant.

At this point, many will aver that there is a profound difference between politics and religion.  This idea has given us not just the separation-of-church-and-state principle (flawed and misunderstood in itself) but also has been expanded into what Brit Hume violated: the separation-of-church-and-society principle.  In reality, though, if there is no reason for religious proselytization, there is also no reason for the political variety.  After all, why do we argue about political ideologies?  It’s because different ideologies espouse different values, and we can’t have a healthy civilization unless we adopt the correct values.  Thus, the ideology we embrace matters.

Likewise, different religions also espouse different values; therefore, applying the same principle, a conclusion is inescapable.

The religion we embrace matters. 

Many people are uncomfortable with this, as they fear the messy business of actually determining what Truth is; thus do they embrace religious-equivalency doctrine and claim all faiths are morally equal.  But since different religions do espouse different values, they cannot all be morally equal unless all values are so.  This is moral relativism, and, sure, it would render religious proselytization unnecessary.  Yet it would also do the same to the political variety, for then all ideologies would have to be equal as well.  Perhaps politics should be a private matter, too.

Of course, settling these matters really is messy business.  This is why we hear, “Never discuss religion or politics,” an admonition as stupid as the counsel “Faith is a private matter.”  Both are prescriptions for superficiality because they mean, logically rendered, “Never discuss anything of importance.”

So today we live a contradiction.  We seek to convert politically while condemning as intolerant those who seek to convert religiously, failing to realize that politics and religion are inextricably linked.  After all, politics is about putting into practice what is good, and this is impossible unless there is a good and we know what it is.  And there cannot be good in a real sense unless there is moral Truth, something outside of and above man that is the yardstick for making value judgments, and this implies God.  Thus, we cannot determine good as a society unless we discuss Truth, God — those things categorized under “religion.”  Ergo, faith is not a private matter.

It is in fact the most public of matters because it deals with the most important of things.

Note that I haven’t discussed here the relative merits of Christianity and Buddhism, as that would be premature.  Without understanding there is Truth, that eternal yardstick for judging religions, ideologies and philosophies, it is a waste of time.  It would be like debating which diet is best with people who won’t acknowledge that there are rules of human nutrition or which car design is best with those who won’t acknowledge the laws of physics.  Or, it’s like debating politics with someone who won’t acknowledge there is Truth.  The lesson here is a tautology: First things come first.

There are some of us, though — and perhaps Hume is one of them — who have escaped the contradiction.  We don’t preach more than the relativists, just with less hypocrisy.  We don’t say there is no God but then talk about good.  We don’t say good is opinion but nonetheless impose it on others.  We don’t say there is no great treasure, but we’ll search for it anyway.  Some of us also know that what really stops secularists from hashing out the Truth is not that it’s messy, but that it’s scary.  It places limitations on our personal lives, ambitions and agendas; we can no longer play God.  Why, we may even learn that while faith should not at all be private and constrained, sex certainly should be. 

And we also know something else.  As our confused world at the edge of a precipice proves, while determining Truth can be messy, messier still is not doing it at all. 

                                   This piece first appeared at American Thinker on January 11, 2010

                                                   © 2010 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved

Comments

[Laura]

I don't suppose liberals would have had a problem if a muslim came on TV suggesting that Tiger convert to muslim.

[Laura]

That should read: convert to islam.

[Shaun]

Well put Laura and great article Selwyn. As always, public support for christianity brings about very sharp criticism on the boob tube. Although I dont know much about Brit Hume (I definitely have a mistrust of almost any news anchor) I say hats off for showing a little courage.

Shaun

[Robert Berger]

Yes, Hume had the right to express his opinion.
It really doesn't matter that he suggested that Tiger convert to Christianity.
But Hume obviously doesn't know diddly squat about Buddhism,and it WAS rathger stupid and insensitive for him to say what he did.
What if Hume had been a Buddhist and urged Tiger to concert to Buddhism? Conservative Chrsitians all over would have had their panties in a bunch ! Look who's being hypocritical!
At least Buddhists aren't a bunch of self-righteous busybodies who are always trying to tell people that Buddhism is the only way.
When was the last time you heard the Dalai Lama thunder about non-buddhists being doomed to hellfire?

[Sticks and Stones]

Ok, I thought Tiger was a Moslem. Later today I may be able to take my foot out of my mouth.

I think the point Mr. Duke was trying to make is that the teachings of Christianity condemn extra-marital affairs.

Robert, as for conservative Christians being hypocritical and self-righteous, I disagree but acknowledge your right to say and believe such things. That used to be the American way.

I do caution you on painting with such a broad brush as it makes you appear unable to see the finer details. I would not label Christian extemists as conservative. Rather, that type are those who can talk the talk but are unable to walk the walk. Hence, they also use a broad brush against any who don't think or believe exactly as they do.

God bless and keep smiling.

[Walt]

"Look who's being hypocritical!
At least Buddhists aren't a bunch of self-righteous busybodies who are always trying to tell people that Buddhism is the only way."

Well Robert you got one over there. Let me use an analogy. If there were bear traps set all over the place and people just kept stepping in them over and over, and you had full knowledge of how to avoid those traps would you not share the news? Would you not share it with a vengeance??? This is what Christians do. We do not share the news of Christ for any reason other than we care for you and our country. That is not hypocrisy that is love. We know people like you will ridicule us and we do not enjoy that at all, yet we are not silent; our silence would be indifference to the fate of your soul and our nation. Please do not confuse pomp with zeal. The Universe is ruled by laws, although we have not discovered them all yet; without such order would be chaos. To think such complex order can be derived by random chance is lunacy; I think we can all agree on that. I know your deepest desire is to believe there is no truth and that all is gray, but that is impossible; you know that, and in such lays your torment. Would not your confusion and torment and confusion be the perfect doctrine for the Enemy of the One who creates order? Order is obvious and it is not concealed, but it can not be all things to all people, just as the laws of nature are fixed so are the laws of God.

[DS Reif]

"You see, playing the “I’m offended!” game is a lot easier than actually thinking."

Good one Mr. Duke.

[yoyo]

I think the little point you are disengenously missing, is that the so called advice "sin become a christian and it will all be forgiven" was made on a show that is at least nominally a show about politics, not the religion show. Secondly, I think the outroar would be deafening if the advice was to become a muslim or to become a secular humanist or even to become celibate. Thirdly the bear trap analogy is nonsensical, my take on your version..... a crazy person comes up to you on a sunny street and insists that you hop on one leg through the traffic singing yankee doodle or you will die, then a second crazy person of a different denominations says not hoping because then you will surely die you must crawl through the traffic. Then the person listening to both these guys gets torn apart as a cultural relatavist or killed in the traffic, take your pick.

[Philip France]

Selwyn Duke's statistics for this article:

Attempts/Completions: 44 for 44.
Completion yards: Incalcuale.
Yards after catch: To be determined, but likely inestimable.
Touchdowns/Interceptions: 25/0.
Passer rating: Fellas, we need a new formula.

Selwyn, I look so forward to 2010. Your writing has a renewed vigor and your authoratative expression is on high-voltage. Keep it coming!

PS Excellent retort, Walt.

[Sticks and Stones]

Buddhism does not offer forgiveness of sins and Christians aren't automatically made white as snow when they become a Christian. Mr. Hume offered Tiger Woods an outlet to repentence and forgiveness. Not saying Buddhism is bad, it just doesn't offer these gifts.

Yoyo's example of a bunch of crazies trying to give instructions in the proper procedure to cross a street, lacking even one sane person in the supposed 'sensical' analogy, hints strongly towards extreme bigotry against Christians. A typical response of someone who lacks knowledge of a subject they have chosen to talk about. It's the whole 'if you can't flatter them with..then baffle them with..' Experience has taught me such people are willfully and blissfully ignorant.

I could talk for some time of what it means to follow Christ, but until I see the tolerance that liberals are quick to spout as their supreme quality that makes them superior to conservatives, I'll refrain from doing so as it would only fall on deaf ears.

It's another great article, Selwyn, and I encourage you to continue writing.

[Walt]

Yoyo said, "Thirdly the bear trap analogy is nonsensical"

The analogy is one of the heart. Robert implied that Christians act as they do because they are pompous hypocrites. I contend it is zeal and love for their fellow man and country. Christians believe in a being that wishes to destroy man and his connection with God. Christians also believe connection with God is paradise and separation is torment. The proclamation of the gospel is none less than one man trying to help another man escape eternal torment, and expanding the Kingdom of Heaven here on earth by doing the will of God. The will of God as expressed in the Bible is to spread the word, save the soul. By doing so, Christians have fed the hungry, clothed the naked, nursed the sick, educated the ignorant and comforted the downtrodden. You may disagree with the existence of God and the Devil, that is up to you, but the intention of the Christian, whether you believe misguided or not is sincere. The left is rife with illogical altruism, yet you pronounce it holy. To remain consistent you must regard the efforts of a Christian holy.

[yoyo]

Walt I have no doubt at all that many if not most christians that try and convert others do so due to their belief that it is in the other persons best interest, that they are literally saving them. Unlike sticks and stones I do not attribute bad motives without evidence, however just because a person believes something does not make it true or even good. Hence the example of the crazy person. I do apologise if I offended, mind you we atheist have appalling motives attached to our lack of belief by belivers everyday, the laziest being non- belivers do so because they want to be immoral. My lack of belief has a simpler foundation, for me it is just too hard to close my eyes to the logical and physical and metaphysical and yes, to an extent moral, impossibilities involved in an interventionist supreme being or beings. I dont dislike people of faith, I have very close relationships with many (of many differing persuasions), I do have a problem with the anti female slant of many theologies and religious heirachies. However, that being said I dont mind what Hume said to Woods, I think it's a bit presumptuous, but it's no different than all the idiots telling Woods he needs therapy. If you are stupid enough to get major life direction advice from a figure on the television then you are truly living an unexamined and shallow life.

[MeanGREEN]

If Mr. Duke cared one Iota about his
readers he'd update his news section or take it down.

[Bob C.]

God bless you, Mr. Duke! Jousting with those who don't believe in Truth is fun indeed; it's even more invigorating than discussing passing weather systems! LOL Bob C. from Scranton

[Philip France]

I wish to commend yoyo for a sober and sincere post. There have been occasions whereby I have been intrigued by yoyo's thoughts and I consider her to be reasonably intelligent, albiet pitifully misinformed individual.

Dearest yoyo, I can find compassion and even empathy in your atheism. Please suffer me the benefit of my own wisdom and results of my many years of study.

Believers in God and of His Christ have endured despite the wicked intentions of his apostate enemy. That would be Satan. Satan is his name (derived from the Greek "Satanus". Devil is his job description. "Devil" is translated from the Greek word "Diabalos" from whence we have our English word "diabolical". Please bear with me.

Broken down, the word "diabalos" is derived from the combination of two terms: "dia" and "ballos". The Greek word "dia" has been transliterated into our English word "through", hence, the word "via". "Ballos" is the origin of our English word "ball" and means literally "to throw". Combined, the two terms literally mean "to throw through" and should best be understood as "to accuse". THIS, my precious, is what Satan has done for millennia. He has in many ways and cases succeeded in accusing God of his own perfidy.

Much of the weakness and ineffectiveness of the Judeo/Christian message can be attributed to the underestimation of Satan and his outrageous perfidy. Satan deserves credit for his successful campaign against God’s Truth but we ourselves deserve our measure of shame in that His Truth is plain to see (assuming that we have eyes that want to see and ears that want to hear).

I reach out my hand to you (not just yoyo, but every visitor at selwynduke.com) to share with you the fruits of my many years of analytical and critical study of the Word of Life. I personally promise you that your life and your daily habits will not change very much (unless you are blatantly evil or woefully perverted; in which case it is doubtful that you would be a repeated visitor to Selwyn’s website). Instead, you will find a bird’s-eye view of life and a profound understanding of the overwhelming beauty and elegance of our Creator’s design, intent and eternal plan and message.

Selwyn’s website is not a scriptural site, nor should it be. I will refrain from the many Biblical passages that I am able to cite to support what I have just said. If any among us are willing or curious please contact Selwyn to divulge your personal email to me (or mine to you) and I would be delighted to the share the indescribable joy that I bask in with the knowledge of my loving and merciful Creator and the work of His dear son, our living Lord and Savior.

C’mon in! The water’s beautiful…

[Robert Berger]

I meant to say that SOME Christians are pompous hypocrites and self-righteous busybodies. Certainly not all are.
My apologies if any one thought I was
trying to stereotype them.

[Philip France]

Dear Robert,

At some given point, all of us are hypocrites. None of us can of ourselves be righteous. Chapters five and six of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans goes into this in minute and reptitive detail. With a comprehensive understanding of these passages, we should all be "busybodies" in our eforts to proclaim the good news.

Given Selwyn's article, the ensuing blogstream and my previous post, read it in this very context. Let the words speak directly to you.

God bless you,

Philip

[yoyo]

Philp, I do appreciate your gracious offer, and I can see (albeit through an internet darkly) that your faith has given you strength and community/fellowship. I cannot offer you a theology because atheism isn't a religion despite what the fundie bigots claim. But I would offer you a glimpse into the things that give me a feeling of transcendence: the smell of a newborn child, the latest photos from the HD mars rover, the life story of Annes Franks protector, new green shoots following another hideous bushfire and boxing day, the most wondeful day of the year.

I could go on, but wont, we are a wonderous species in an amazing universe. Even this little tool that we are using to communicate, is a thing of beauty, for all the porn and ads and conspicacy theories it is also the strongest tool we have against dictators and to add to the sum of human knowledge.