My Photo


« CEO Compensation | Main | Paul vs. Cheney »

January 05, 2010

Comments

zero

when hume first uttered these words about tiger woods it gave me pause. how does he know woods isn't a christian or of some other faith? that was a huge assumption on his part, a lot of hubris, if it were genuine. people of faith fail all the time. people who projected an image are laid bare all the time. tiger fell. he could be "raised up"! ha! and then he's going to be touted as the redemption story of the century. and hume will lead the pack on this and say it was because he encouraged woods to get jesus.

when i hear stuff like this i have to wonder if it's real. hume used to work for abc and one couldn't see this side of him. now that he's at fox, as with all the fox dudes, i wonder if it's real or if it's part of what's required to be on the different networks. if these guys can change their tunes so readily with a job, how genuine are they? (not that i care other than in the sense of how they present themselves, which is full of a lot of nonsense to me but makes impacts on people who don't think for themselves and that's troublesome).

don woolley

a good take:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/01/05/don-t-be-surprised-at-brit-hume-s-exhortation-for-tiger-to-convert.aspx

and regarding my comment about the Huffington Post a week a while back, note: "The usual suspects—MSNBC and The Huffington Post—and indeed the whole liberal left blogosphere leapt all over Hume for his arrogance and conservatism."

I don't care for Hume because I like my news to make SOME effort towards fair and balanced. And I agree the delivery / format was disquieting, but its a bit much to question his fitness to represent the Good News. If he was a liberal commentator, this probably would have been a non-story.

zero

no, don. that's hume delivers news, supposedly without his take on it, his views, whatever the slant, is unwelcome. unless a program/presenter is clearly labeled editorial or commentary, no.

don woolley

zero, what are you talking about?

don woolley

I tired of trying to watch Special Report w/ Brit Hume bc he was so obviously biased. And if I'm watching now, I typically turn it when he comes on. At least he is now a political analyst, which I think is a better fit and gives him a format for legitimately sharing his views and opinions.

Zero wrote: "how does he know woods isn't a christian or of some other faith? that was a huge assumption on his part, a lot of hubris,"

Really? Though the degree of Tiger's devotion to Buddhism may be an unknown, Hume didn't just dream it up. Consider these articles from reuters and Slate:

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/03/27/tiger-woods-talks-about-buddhism-and-being-a-dad/

http://www.slate.com/id/86898/

zero wrote "how genuine are they?" And of course who knows. But concerning Hume, you might consider the following:

THR: WHAT OTHER THINGS WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO IN RETIREMENT?

Hume: I certainly want to pursue my faith more ardently than I have done. I'm not claiming it's impossible to do when you work in this business. I was kind of a nominal Christian for the longest time. When my son died (by suicide in 1998), I came to Christ in a way that was very meaningful to me. If a person is a Christian and tries to face up to the implications of what you say you believe, it's a pretty big thing. If you do it part time, you're not really living it. (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4A454420081105 )

zero

no one knows about tiger woods' interior being regardless of what is reported where. hume is a news reporter. if he wants to make commentary his show should be clearly labeled "my opinion" and not passed off as news. that's how all news outlets should be. the last i looked all major religions in this world worship the same god (even using the same texts) it's just in different ways. it is hubris to suggest by anyone of any faith that there's only one way to god and salvation. that religion teaches that is one of the major problems with organized religion. to me, a person of any faith who doesn't express that faith in all facets of their lives really isn't following the faith. because then it's way too easy to compartmentalize life and allow behavior in some segments that isn't ok but excused through rationalization. makes it really convenient and/or hubristic.

don woolley

thanks for the response zero.

zero

most welcome.

Aaron Perry

I find it interesting that it is hubris to claim that there is only one way to God, but apparently not hubris to say that all religions worship the same god, but in different ways. Those are both very large truth claims about the divine.

zero

the last time i read or heard about the major religions of the world, the one god is essentially the same. perhaps those on this blog who know more about it than i do would enlighten. if i am incorrect, that would therefore be ignorance not hubris.

Aaron Perry

Really? The God of Islam is essentially the same as the God revealed in Jesus?

The nature of the claim remains the same, whether or not one is incorrect, ignorant or informed. Maybe I should take it back a step. Why is it hubris for a person to claim there is one way to God?

zero

anyone's belief in anything and that is the way for them is just that; theirs. it's offensive that they then presume to know that's what someone else needs. any religion that insists that members bring others into the fold, so to speak, and doing so is critical to their own salvation or duty to their faith is manipulative.

Aaron Perry

Thanks for the reply, zero. I wonder if you're not doing the same thing. You are making a claim, attempting to win others to your perspective. Your claim that all religions worship the same god seems to entail an implicit invitation to that point of view, as it has your endorsement.

Now, I don't mind you doing this in the least. I don't find it offensive. Your claim to hold something to be true is not necessarily offensive. You may say something in an offensive way, but you haven't done that here, and most religious conversations I have, regardless of the size of truth claims, are conducted in all kindness and civility.

But if I may say so, I still don't know why a theological claim like there being one way to God is hubristic. What makes that statement one of excessive arrogance?

zero

to assume that what is best for someone else, in this case, all tiger woods needs is jesus, is overstepping. does brit hume know tiger woods? has he been let in on some dark interior of tiger woods by tiger himself or someone close to tiger woods? it's as ridiculous as when bill frist, a doctor and then a senator, stood on the floor of the senate and pronounced that terry shiavo was alert and responsive! from photos and maybe a video clip, no less. i sure don't have any faith in a doctor that would do that and i certainly don't have any trust in a "news" person who decided, from a great distance and based on what is reported by all forms of dubious media that all tiger needs is jesus. hubris comes in all forms.

as far as what i know about god i refer you back to this response:
"the last time i read or heard about the major religions of the world, the one god is essentially the same. perhaps those on this blog who know more about it than i do would enlighten. if i am incorrect, that would therefore be ignorance not hubris."

The comments to this entry are closed.