'cookieChoices = {};'

‘The American Intelligence Community has finally
done to the USA
what they have been doing all around the world’.


Saturday, January 09, 2010





The most offensive two words in the English language are not “Barack Obama,” “George Bush,” “staunch liberal” or “compassionate conservative.”

Neither are the words “f*** you,” nor any other expletive.

The words, according to Fox News Analyst Brit Hume, are “Jesus Christ.”

Mr. Hume has faced a maelstrom of criticism for suggesting that Tiger Woods, the professional golfer, turn to Jesus Christ in order to makeover his personal life.

Woods marriage has been wrecked by scandals of adulterous behavior not only with golf groupies but also professional prostitutes.

On Fox News Sunday, Mr. Hume suggested that the golfer – - who claims to be a Buddhist – -turn to Christianity for answers to his personal problems and the means to achieve reconciliation with his wife and children.

His remarks concerning Tiger Woods emerged from his response host Chris Wallace’s question about the biggest sports story of 2009.

Mr. Hume said that the biggest story concerning Woods and his admission of infidelities and indiscretions. He speculated that while the golfer will recover professionally, his comeback as a family man and a role model for young people remains a question mark.

“Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer.” Hume predicted. “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.”

The former newsman-turned-commentator then dropped the bombshell: “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.’”
His words prompted immediate outcry from the media.

Tom Shales, media critic for the Washington Post , demanded that Hume apologize and labeled his Christian remarks “even only a few days into January, as one of the most ridiculous of the year.”

MSNBC anchor David Shuster blasted Hume, saying he had no business mentioning Christianity on a political talk show.

“I do think (talking about Christianity on a political talk show) diminishes the discussion of Christianity,” Shuster said. “My Christian friends have said as much, that it diminishes the discussion of Christianity and faith when you have a conversation out-of-the-blue on a political talk show. This wasn’t the ‘700 Club,’ this wasn’t ‘Theocracy Today.’”
Similarly, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann accused Hume of an “attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity.”
Mr. Hume said he was “not surprised” by the media reaction, claiming there is a “double-standard” when it comes to speaking publicly about Christianity versus other religions.

He told CNSNews: “If I had said, for example, that what Tiger Woods needed to do was become more deeply engaged in his Buddhist faith or to adopt the ideas of Hinduism, which I think would be of great spiritual value to him, I doubt anybody would have said anything.”

When asked if he would do it again, Mr. Hume did not hesitate to respond affirmatively.

He further said: “The most controversial two words you can ever utter in a public space are ‘Jesus Christ.”

When asked to speculate about the reasons for the media’s vitriolic response to Christianity and the name of Jesus, Mr. Hume replied: “I think it is true that for people who are not Christian, Christianity makes a fairly extravagant claim which is that the Son of God — God made Flesh — came into this world, lived, suffered terribly, and died for the remission of our sins, and then rose again. This is a huge supernatural event, and a lot of people don’t—have a lot of trouble believing it. But if you do purport to believe it, the implications are pretty staggering. And the result is you may end up talking about it.”

Bookmark and Share
posted by Pastorius at permanent link#


Anonymous revereridesagain said...

Sorry, but it was borderline unprofessional. Granted he's a commentator, not a reporter, so he is certainly entitled to air opinions. But would you think differently about it if he had suggested Tiger take up with Objectivism and spend his down time reading "Atlas Shrugged"? Or if Tiger were Jewish instead of a Buddhist (or whatever he says he is)? If he launced into a Scientology tirade? And no, it wouldn't have made any difference if he'd recommended more Buddhism or a switch to Hinduism.

It's not that it's inappropriate to proclaim your religious beliefs to all and sundry, Brit. It's that it's arrogant to think all and sundry won't tell you to mind your own damn business.

And he wasn't just talking to Tiger. He was talking to everyone, in a sense, as he made clear in his remark about a lot of people "having trouble believing" as he does. I'll say this for Mr. Hume. He has a firm grasp of the issue and takes it seriously. So do I. That is why I have the convictions I do, and not his. He requests that his be respected.

As do I.

(As for Tiger, you could make him the abbot of a monastery in the Gobi desert, and he would still find a way to fool around. Some levels of jackassedness are simply incurable.)

Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:24:00 am  
Blogger rumcrook™ said...

here's the thing rev,

in the last few years all rules have been getting thrown into the trash bin.

so, why cant brit break rules? or so called rules?

in my estimation we really are heading into a pick sides no fence sitting time in the world.

Saturday, January 09, 2010 3:45:00 am  
Blogger christian soldier said...

alinsky's 'rule' -..."make the other side (-Christians-) follow their own rules.."---

the Dark Side-(Lucifer's kids) have NO RULES...BTW-alinsky honors Lucifer in his book _RfR_....

this CHRISTian (and former liberal)-is not going to follow alinsky's 'rule'!!!!!!!


Saturday, January 09, 2010 4:10:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

You said: he's a commentator, not a reporter

I say: Bingo!

You ask: would you think differently about it if he had suggested Tiger take up with Objectivism and spend his down time reading "Atlas Shrugged"? Or if Tiger were Jewish instead of a Buddhist

I say: No. And, I wouldn't have thought differently if he would have said, "Tiger should only hire high-paid call girls from now on. That way, they won't talk to the tabloids."

That was the advice I gave on MY radio show.

If Tiger is a billionaire, and he isn't completely satisfied by his wife, and he is moral-less enough to cheat on her, he ought to be bright enough to do it with girls who will keep their mouths shut, instead of waitresses and hostesses and barchicks. That's my take.

Would anyone be offended if I said that on TV? No. In fact, I am not the only person who has said that. I'm sure some people have said that on TV.

Brit is a commentator. As a commentator, it is his job to give his opinion. He did. End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

Saturday, January 09, 2010 4:22:00 am  
Anonymous cjk said...

Absolutely excellent and truthful and accurate answer by Mr.Hume.
I've always kinda liked him, but now I definitely like him. The man has guts, he's correct, and says so.

I would hope that I myself would show the same wisdom and courage in the face of such hypocritical and self-righteous condemnation from wicked men.

Saturday, January 09, 2010 6:07:00 am  
Anonymous revereridesagain said...

The advice should be debatable just as any other advice. There is no need to attack it merely for being religious proselytizing. However, neither is there reason to refrain from arguing against its merits as advice just because "it's a religion and it's not nice to criticize it".

Tempest, meet teapot.

Saturday, January 09, 2010 1:38:00 pm  
Blogger Pastorius said...

You did not merely argue against it. You called it borderline unprofessional.

Why is it unprofessional for a commentator to give his opinion?

You may disagree with his opinion, but that does not make his opinion borderline unprofessional.

The reason I gave the advice I gave (in the Tiger situation) on my radio show is because I believe Freedom comes BEFORE morality. If a person, like Tiger for instance, wants to behave as he has behaved, then he has the right to do so. But, he must bare the consequences. It would have been wiser for him to have chosen call-girls than waitresses.

Brit Hume would feel such advice was immoral on my part. That's his opinion. I don't give a shit what his opinion is. I think I'm right.

It would be interesting for me to get into a debate with Hume about the idea of whether he is willing to stick up for the idea that Freedom comes before morality. Most Christians would, at a gut level, believe in that idea. However, very few of them know to articulate it.

Saturday, January 09, 2010 2:10:00 pm  
Anonymous cjk said...

It's not that it was merely criticized of debated, it's how knee-jerk and zealously it was.
Brit is correct when he avers that Jesus Christ is the most despised and hated person as far as the left in America goes. When that name is mentioned positively the lefties and even many non-lefties go absolutely monkey-ass crazy wild.

I don't see how any non-comatose person can deny this.
My opinion.

Saturday, January 09, 2010 5:31:00 pm  
Anonymous cjk said...

My mistake above: I know that's not what Brit Hume actually said, that's how I see it.

Saturday, January 09, 2010 5:33:00 pm  
Blogger Epaminondas said...

Was Hume in a soliloquy of some sort, or was he responding hypothetically to a question asked?

One is preaching and the other is a speculation as a response. Big difference.


Nothing sells better in America if it's going to be about perceived recovery.

As for real recovery ..is there any way to look in the mirror after exposing your wife to ALL THAT DISEASE, and then the WORLDWIDE, UNENDING ATTENTION AND HUMILIATION?

It would take a deity to forgive such a transgression, but as a human, I could never forgive myself, OR MY SPOUSE if the shoe were on the other foot.

Which is why Jesus is Tiger's best shot real or otherwise. If he were jewish rra, then his best shot would be Yom Kippur. If buddhist ... he just caused a major karmic disaster.

As far as despised, as a jew, to me, I don't think the left despises Jesus, they don't have that kind of guts. They merely condescend to sneer at the fools who believe in magic NO MATTER WHAT HIS message was then or is now.

Saturday, January 09, 2010 10:18:00 pm  
Anonymous cjk said...

No they hate Jesus because it is mainly under his banner that all their perversions are resisted and their lies are exposed.

Sunday, January 10, 2010 2:10:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

The media would be cheering the crucifixion of the Jewish Yeshua, just as they cheer the murder of innocent Jews today.

Sunday, January 10, 2010 2:48:00 am  
Anonymous cjk said...

The only Yeshua I know of whether past, present, or future is Jewish.

Sunday, January 10, 2010 7:14:00 am  
Blogger Pastorius said...

... Who was, and Is, and Is to come, the Alpha and the Omega.

Sunday, January 10, 2010 2:37:00 pm  
Anonymous cjk said...

Amen, brother.

At risk of seeming to prolong the discussion, but my heart compels me to say that every knee shall bow and every tongue WILL eventually aver to that fact.

Sunday, January 10, 2010 6:16:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

Older Posts Newer Posts