[to comment, click up here ^^^]
I’m still working out my thoughts on this, but I wanted to share the video below. It’s by the same folks who did the Prosperity Gospel video that I posted a couple of months back, but this time they’re focusing on Muslims who follow Christ…But who remain Muslim.
It’s a fascinating concept, and I’d love to hear any opinions people have on the subject.
(Make sure you click the “expand” button on the video too. Vimeo does really well in widescreen.)
Hi. I'm Brit Hume, and I would like to talk to you about Jesus...
(Yup, it’s a faith post. I am in Divinity School after all…)
In the continuing tradition of my writing articles long after events have come to pass, I wanted to take a moment to talk about something that happened earlier this month…
Late last year the United States was wrapped in a blanket of fear. All across the country people huddled together for safety, urgently trying to comfort one another in the wake of a horrifying string of news stories that shocked the nation…
What were we shocked by? Was it the suicide bombings that killed several CIA officers in Afghanistan? Was it the almost-bombing of an Detroit-bound flight by a new breed of anti-American terrorist? Was it the possible shake-up of Late Night television?
No, it was far, far worse: Tiger Woods’ honor as a husband was called into question. :: shudder::
Hearing the distraught pleas of the masses, the ever-vigilant twenty-four-hour news media swooped in to comfort a forlorn America desperate for some kind of explanation.
Naturally, Brit Hume – a former ABC anchor turned Fox News pundit – had his own explanation (and recommendation) for the American people and Tiger Woods:
“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer. Whether he can recover as a person I think is a very open question, and it’s a tragic situation for him. I think he’s lost his family, it’s not clear to me if he’ll be able to have a relationship with his children, but the Tiger Woods that emerges once the news value dies out of this scandal — the extent to which he can recover — seems to me to depend on his faith. He’s said to be a Buddhist; I don’t think that faith 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.”
Perhaps unsurprisingly, many people were a bit miffed by Hume’s words. The Daily Show in particular got a good two days of material out of Hume’s words. Take a moment to laugh at the following clip:
WordPress will not let me embed Comedy Central videos (unless you know how, and if so tell me how below!), so just watch the video here before reading on.
Alright, have you laughed? Good – I laughed too. The Daily Show is flippin’ funny.
Now I’m going to do something weird. I’m going to ask you, my reader(s), a question: is the Daily Show right to mock Brit Hume for his remarks?
Before people clamor to answer, let’s break down (and admittedly oversimplify) the arguments by pretending to be a hard-liner on either side:
Viewpoint One: Brit Hume’s remarks were presumptuous and irresponsible and he should be mocked accordingly.
Why: For starters, to assert one religion as superior to another is just asking for trouble. Many doubt that Brit Hume has a particularly nuanced understanding Buddhism, and empirical evidence suggests that Hume is not a personal friend of the legendary golfer, and thus has almost no understanding of Tiger’s personal faith. It is condescending enough to make claims about another religion without backing it up, but it’s downright presumptuous – if not irresponsible – to make assumptions about another individual’s personal faith without even discussing it with him or her.
Furthermore, Brit Hume is a pundit on one of the most-watched networks in the country. Again, his words were bad enough in isolation, but to say what he said on national television is downright irresponsible. The reason the Founding Fathers gave us the First Amendment was to prohibit a powerful entity like the government from coercing people to follow a specific faith, and that is exactly what Brit Hume was doing.
No, Hume is not the American Government, but with great power comes great responsibility (and that’s a Biblical reference!). Besides, if Fox News is supposed to be “Fair and Balanced” – or offer unbiased reports – then Hume’s proselytizing makes for bad journalism, period.
And now Viewpoint Two: Brit Hume’s remarks were justifiable and mocking them is to mock religious freedom in the United States.
Why: Brit Hume is an American citizen. As such, he is entitled to his First Amendment rights – namely, the right to freely exercise his religion. It is true that the First Amendment does prohibit Congress from mandating a state religion, but Hume is neither a member of congress nor is he attempting to pass legislation. Hume is a journalist and thus entitled to say whatever he wants as long it isn’t slander or libel. His words were neither. Instead, his comments were a vocalized expression of a sentiment expressed by almost anyone who follows a particular faith tradition: that is, anyone who follows a specific faith is usually – by definition – silently making a claim that their faith is in some way superior than other faiths. True, there is a pivotal difference between people who claim that a faith is best for themselves and those who believe that a faith best for all, but the law sees both as equally viable.
Furthermore, there are adherents of several faiths who see mission work – or straight-up proselytizing – as an instrumental part of their belief system. Are we to mock them for making use of one of our nation’s founding principles?
Does Hume’s status as a nationally-recognized journalist give his words more weight than the average American? Certainly. Does that mean he should take his power into account before speaking? Certainly. Does that mean that with status comes the loss of one’s Constitutional right to religious freedom? Certainly not.
So, faithful reader(s), how do you feel about it? Do you side with Viewpoint 1, Viewpoint 2, or do you find them both oversimplified? Does the recent Pat Robertson comment play a role this as well? Let me know!
