Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Originally Posted by newtoli Can you imagine the reaction there would be if say, Wolf Blitzer or someone said Sarah Palin should convert to Islam if she wants to be forgiven. There would be 842 threads about it calling for his firing.
I would simply say, OH GOD, there he goes again....
Oh and by the way, I am not a hard core evangilist by anymeans. I am saying that to others, not you particularly. I am not an evangilist at all, but I am a Christian. Sometimes not a very good one I might add.
Nita
================================================== ======
That is exactly right. Christians would find it amusing and know Palin was forgiven and in no need to convert. They would know it was said out of ignorance---why can't others take Hume's statement the same way?
It's just his opinion. Agree or disagree and then move on.
You got to love the Evangelicalist Christians. You can do any sin or crime and as long as you let some minister hear your public confession, use you as a example to bring others into the fold, then you can go on your merry way and all is well in the world. Hume isn't concerned about Tiger's soul. He wants to see him used to advance his spin on Christianity.
I don't think this is true at all. IMO Hume was sincere, why would he even say anything when he knows the reaction it will bring tearing him down? IMO Hume believes this and others believe their religion would be the best way---or else we are all just stupid in our faith.
If anyone believes one can confess sorrow in hurting their family and many others and think they get a free pass is just nuts. Most would not believe that.
I respectfully disagree. Fox crossed a line. I'm a centrist Republican who watches Fox and can certainly appreciate a conservative view but this was religious proselytizing by one of its journalists. There is no place for that in a respectable news source regardless if they are liberal or conservative. Not all conservative Americans are Christians. If I want to listen to Evangelical proselytizing, I will watch the 700 Club. And to be honest, I think you are being a little disingenuous. If the tables were flipped and a Muslim made the same comments regarding a Christian, I very seriously doubt you would be okay with that
This is why O'Reilly asked Hume if that wasn't proselytizing. It had the tinge of it and O'Reilly pointed it out. Fair and balanced reporting on FOX even if some think it isn't.
Brit Hume's remarks are an embarrassment to the nation. On a REAL network he would have been fired by now.
You can be embarrassed but I chose not to. Free speech is covered by this and firing would prove you do not support free speech. He wasn't giving the news, it was an opinion show.
I'm simply amused at the denial by Cunucu and other Evangelicals on this thread. They are denying that Hume didn't belittle Buddhism or proselytize. The evidence clearly shows he did. I will post the exact quotes Hume made
"....the extent to which he can recover seems to depend upon his faith, he is said to be a Buddhist, I don't think that faith offers the 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 make a great example to the world"
I fail to see how any intelligent and educated person can HONESTLY read that and say that Hume was not belittling Budhism and telling Tiger to adopt Christianity instead. It doesn't matter if Hume's intentions were benign. He was still showing irreverance toward a faith he knows little about (Buddhism) and telling Tiger to instead adopt Christianity. Hume was not telling Tiger to seek out spirituality or faith in general, instead Hume specifically claimed Buddhism doesn't offer forgiveness which is why he should adopt Christianity. I don't care if an Evangelical says Hume was correct in his belief but I have a problem with anyone who lies and says that Hume never denigrated Buddhism and asked Tiger to turn to Christianity, that isn't debateable, the quote is there for everyone to read.
FYI I am not an Evangelical. I am not even a Christian. I do not see Brit Hume's statement as "belittling" Buddhism. The path of Buddhism is not the path of Christianity. Buddhism offers one view and path. Christianity offers another. Saying that Buddhism does not have within it the idea of redemption and forgiveness in no way belittles it. It is simply stating a philosophical difference between the two disciplines. That Brit Hume is advising Tiger to get his life back on track by turning to the Christian faith is Brit Hume's advice to Tiger. Nothing more. Nothing Less.
FYI I am not an Evangelical. I am not even a Christian. I do not see Brit Hume's statement as "belittling" Buddhism. The path of Buddhism is not the path of Christianity. Buddhism offers one view and path. Christianity offers another. Saying that Buddhism does not have within it the idea of redemption and forgiveness in no way belittles it. It is simply stating a philosophical difference between the two disciplines. That Brit Hume is advising Tiger to get his life back on track by turning to the Christian faith is Brit Hume's advice to Tiger. Nothing more. Nothing Less.
As though Tiger needs Christianity, Buddhism, Rumpelstiltskin, The Great and Powerful OZ, or (insert your favorite fairy tale here) to get his life back on track.
Whether Tiger gets his life back on track is up to no one and nothing else but Tiger.
FYI I am not an Evangelical. I am not even a Christian. I do not see Brit Hume's statement as "belittling" Buddhism. The path of Buddhism is not the path of Christianity. Buddhism offers one view and path. Christianity offers another. Saying that Buddhism does not have within it the idea of redemption and forgiveness in no way belittles it. It is simply stating a philosophical difference between the two disciplines. That Brit Hume is advising Tiger to get his life back on track by turning to the Christian faith is Brit Hume's advice to Tiger. Nothing more. Nothing Less.
1. I'm sure you are not an Evangelical
2. Hume's quote is evidence that he belittled Buddhism and asked him to turn to Christianity. That isn't debateable
3. Hume denigrated Buddhism by implying that only through Christianity could Tiger get his life back on track because Buddhism doesn't offer the type of redemption that Christianity offers which implies Buddhism doesn't allow one who has sinned to redeem themselves. Anyone who has studied Buddhism knows nothing could be further from the truth.
4. Hume doesn't know anything about Buddhism hence the reason he said: "I don't THINK that faith offers the forgiveness and redemption that is offerred by the Christian faith." Hume made an assumption about Buddhism when not knowing the facts. Why did he choose to make a negative assumption about Buddhism? He could have not addressed Buddhism at all and simply said "I'm a Christian and I believe Christianity can be a great source for someone in Tiger's position" without making any assumptions about Buddhism
5. He is telling Tiger to get his life back on track and to do so, he would need to drop his current faith because it won't allow Tiger to redeem himself. You can't argue Hume said otherwise because he quoted that directly. I fail to see how any logical person can intrepret that as being anything other than a critique of Buddhism.
Last edited by azriverfan.; 01-06-2010 at 06:19 PM..
Forgiveness, hmmmm.
Forget the religious crap. He should (tiger) seek forgiveness from his wife and family.
Other people should butt out and stop trying to save his SOUL.
the damage is done.
You can be embarrassed but I chose not to. Free speech is covered by this and firing would prove you do not support free speech. He wasn't giving the news, it was an opinion show.
NO. because it wouldn't have been mike from back east who did the firing, if at all.
people have been fired from so called freedom of speech (radio & tv) on the airwaves before.
I can recall a duo on chicago radio who were let go for comments they'd made.
yeah, you can say what you want, freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean there won't be repercussions for it.
I happen to think a few people at fox (not news) should be fired, but I'm not rupert either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yuppers! What repugs are best at....showing compassion and concern for billionaires! LOL!OOOOOH! It's sooooo christian !
