-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Michael Gerson has an excellent piece in the Washington Post taking the talking heads to task for their Brit Hume derangement syndrome.
Yes, Brit said that Tiger Woods should convert to Christianity. Yes, Brit said that Buddhism doesn’t offer the kind of forgiveness inherent in the Christian faith. No, there was nothing wrong with any of that.
Gerson writes:
True tolerance consists in engaging deep disagreements respectfully — through persuasion — not in banning certain categories of argument and belief from public debate.
In this controversy, we are presented with two models of discourse. Hume, in an angry sea of loss and tragedy — his son’s death in 1998 — found a life preserver in faith. He offered that life preserver to another drowning man. Whatever your view of Hume’s beliefs, he could have no motive other than concern for Woods himself.
The other model has come from critics such as [the Post’s Tom] Shales, in a spittle-flinging rage at the mention of religion in public, comparing Hume to “Mary Poppins on the joys of a tidy room, or Ron Popeil on the glories of some amazing potato peeler.” Shales, of course, is engaged in proselytism of his own — for a secular fundamentalism that trivializes and banishes all other faiths. He distributes the sacrament of the sneer.
Who in this picture is more intolerant?
The giant pink elephant in the room is that had Hume suggested Tiger convert to any religion besides Christianity, we wouldn’t be having this discussion today. To the contrary, liberals would hail Hume as remarkably sensitive. It is the Christian faith — and uniquely the Christian faith — that elicits the rage of secularists in America.
Pingback| 1.8.10 @ 3:13PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Brit Hume Derangement S links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 1.8.10 @ 3:21PM
O.K., folks.
From this day forward "Derangement Syndrome" is to be considered a lame, tired cliche.
It had a good run, and I'm happy to provide for you all a brief, respective eulogy.
First used to satirically portray the irrational anger that overwhelmed many liberal whenever Bush's name was mentioned, this clever but not immortal tag was appropriated by supporters of both Palin and Obama to describe their respective detractors.
By the end of the 08 election season the phrase had grown ill, and by early spring 09 had become clearly sick. Over the summer, its condition was considered permanently disabled and terminal to anyone with any sensitivity to language. Over the fall, it lapsed into a coma, finally passing away on 8 January, 2010, Year of Our Lord.
The phrase is survived by thousands of poor usages, lame cliches, tiresome stereotypes, predictable analogies, lazy enthymemes, nitwitted adages, pompous proverbs, foolish canards, and general debasements of the language, many of which can be heard constantly repeated on daytime A.M. radio.
Dixie Pixie| 1.8.10 @ 4:19PM
OK, I am convinced the term 'Bush Derangement Syndrome' needs to be changed.
I here by submit the motion ' Bush Derangement Syndrome' be changed to 'Liberal Derangement Syndrome'. Is there anyone out there to second the motion??
Interested Conservative| 1.8.10 @ 4:29PM
Seriously LR? "DS" is less than a decade, yet we're still labelling scandals "-gate" coming up on 4 decades later. I propose "quiddick" as the catch-all suffix - hence, we're currently stuck in Obamaquiddick.
Of course the point of the article is how quickly we've moved from Christian intolerance to intolerance of Christians. That's hardly news.
Liberal Reader| 1.9.10 @ 5:33PM
"Obamaquiddick." Nice, Interested. I can't ever complain you don't have a sense of humor.
If Hume were not retired and reading the evening news, the complaints would have more merit. I do think it's weird to have someone purporting to be broadcasting journalism making remarks like this, but I'm not offended by Hume.
I think intolerance towards Christianity exists, but I think people are a little too eager to claim the role of victims of such intolerance. The fact is that this country is primarily Christian; normally being a Christian in and of itself does not really endanger someone of being discriminated against in any real way.
People on the left and the right have just become altogether weak. Maybe economic hard times will toughen everyone up a little bit. Who cares what religion Brit Hume is peddling on Fox News? People should just loosen up a bit.
Margie| 1.8.10 @ 4:40PM
Dear Dr. Reader,
You just don't like it when it's used to reflect said syndrome on your side, the Liberal side.
Oh well. Though you play a Dr. on AmSpec and would like to put this one in the grave, well, we'll see!
ncatty| 1.8.10 @ 3:42PM
J.C. is a stumbling block, isn't he? His mere existence still causing problems among the sadducees and pharisees.
Jeremiah Alert| 1.8.10 @ 3:44PM
This is hard to take from someone who spews out tired politically correct nonsense every time he writes. OK, I admit it. I have Jeremiah Derangement Syndrome.
Michael Gerson| 1.8.10 @ 5:39PM
Thanks David for the positive mention -- not that common for me on the spectator blog. Got at lot of good reaction to this column today, including from unexpected sources.
Liberal Reader| 1.9.10 @ 5:26PM
Mr Gerson --
I thought your column was reasonable. There's no reason why Brit Hume can't make a friendly recommendation of Christianity to Tiger Woods.
But I doubt you'd ever see Jim Lehrer interrupt the News Hour to give such advice. It's a little weird for a show purporting to be NEWS to have a host evangelizing a person who is the focus of journalistic coverage.
I think the complaints about Hume's remarks were unreasonable and shrill, but I can see how people who might be making an attempt at taking Fox News seriously might be vexed by them.
Jim Hlavac | 1.8.10 @ 6:57PM
I avoid syndromes, gates and quiddicks -- I go right for the "mush" and "muddle" - as in mush headed muddleness. And so thus there's the Liberal mush, the Palin mush (pro and con-- she is both savior and disaster,) the Ron Paul Mush (again, pro and con,) the Climate Mush (of late, real snow and slush mush,) Obama Mush, the Gibbs Mush -- all the mush that's passed around as thought and clarity -- but which dutifully avoids any such thing and are muddled platitudes. "The buck stops here" -- yes, I'm sure, but then where does it go? Trains stop at stations too, then move onward. All the mush that's fit to print, even. So much muddleness and mushness -- we need new words indeed -- like Frankmush (Have a merry frankmush) and Pelosimush (very transparent) and Steelemush (can't win, can't rule, wait) and Lugarmush (new today "I wish I was prez to spew mush myself.) It's not even thought any more -- but a quick tear down and dismissal of any idea other than "The Glories of Government in my hands" and all its mushy and muddled permutations. "Are you serious?" -- not even a response -- just a dismissal. "We won, get over it." "He's entitled to his opinion" and onward come the mush statements that mean just whatever the speaker means them to be -- Humpty Dumpty at his finest -- and thus can be hidden behind as "well, you didn't understand."
Correct, I have no idea what most politicians are saying anymore -- it's just mush and muddle that is supposed to befuddle us into believing they have it well in hand -- "The system worked" --Napolitanomush -- while the country comes flying apart at the seams. The mush numbers don't add up -- not to worry -- there's a continuing resolution coming to you right now. If we taxed the Mush & Muddle coming out of Washington and state capitals we might well get the funding for solving the problems we face as a nation. Alas, the IRS code is so mushy that no two preparers can take the same set of facts and arrive at the same conclusion. So Mushy have we become that the Undiebomber claims he's "not guilty" and then tells the judge that he's in pain because, well, his privates were mushed up, indeed -- and it is blithely reported with a straight face and careful discussion about the merits of such a statement. No one -- either side or the vaunted "middle" -- dare makes the statement of truth -- "sir, you are full of mush and your claim is muddled." No, his "not guilty" is to be accorded all seriousness.
Then there are the Independents -- so mushy that they think they have a political party and they vote "for the man, not the party" and then once in office these muddled mushheads go ahead and vote -- like Lieberman and Sanders -- for the mush of their party nearly 100% of the time. Independent of what? Of the mush, no doubt.
Every morning I awake, waiting for The Daily Mush -- and like a tea leaf reader and sheep entrails discerner I seek the meaning of the proffered mush.
Let's all nail the mush to the wall and harp on the muddled mush until they can all speak clear English with meaning -- and actually hold a position for more than a few moments before they utter some other mush to the next group of listeners. Campaignmush anyone?
And I think this is what about 95% of the people -- left, right, middle, up, down, addled, mushed and muddled are fed up with -- to coin a phrase -- it's the mush, stupid.
Bob| 1.8.10 @ 8:15PM
According to your comment, if Brit Hume had suggested that Woods convert to Islam we would not have heard anything negative at AmSpec and he would have received overwhelming support on this board. Right??????
Hmmmm......
Groundswell| 1.8.10 @ 9:50PM
If Brit would have suggested that Tiger convert to Islam, "this board" would have responded that he was wrong but would not have called him a jihadist (ala Olbermann). There is a difference in stating a belief is wrong and stating that a belief should not be stated.
Bob| 1.9.10 @ 10:18AM
Are you kidding me? People on this board think Islam is evil!!!!
EC66| 1.9.10 @ 1:41PM
Bob, it may be true that this board would've reacted negatively given your scenario of Hume suggesting a conversion to Islam for Mr. Woods. What is also true is that had that been the case, the MSM and their fellow-travelers would not have had blog-posts, television segments, talking heads and editorialists, ad infinitum, manning their secularist battle-stations and launching invective at his comments and at him, personally.
Bob| 1.9.10 @ 2:08PM
That's right -- bigotry and irrationality on both sides. And for the record, the "other side" are not secularists -- that is only what you Christian zealots call them. Most of them are very religious, they just believe that Religion should not control our government just as our founding fathers believed. There are secularists, and I am one of them. And by the way, Fox News and talk radio are a very significant part of the MSM. I can't believe a rational person could look at the cable and radio viewership ratings and believe otherwise...
EC66| 1.10.10 @ 12:15AM
Bob, you make a good point about Fox News being a part of the mainstream media; however, we both know that Fox is considered partisan, right-wing and "opinion journalism" by the very people in the mainstream media (and their defenders) who feign objectivity while excluding Fox from the approved "mainstream media" list, not to mention the Obama administration. How Brit Hume's advice for Tiger Woods amounts to advancing some form of theocratic intent on the part of either Brit Hume or "Christian zealots" remains as impenetrable a mystery as the Blessed Trinity. Then again, the next time Deepak Chopra or Reverend Wright offers advice to a sports figure on their personal life, let alone an endorsement of a political candidate on Larry King Live, then perhaps we will see if the secular opposition to religion's "control of government" is consistent, mysterious, or simple animosity towards one particular religion.
rp123| 1.8.10 @ 8:16PM
sorry I love Brit Hume but in the case religion & the tiger I defer to PJ O'Rourke who famously said, "Mind your own business and keep your hands to yourself."
Sam| 1.9.10 @ 12:36AM
No one thinks Brit Hume is evil, but claiming that the Christian faith offers superior forgiveness and redemption is arrogant.
To all our Christian readers, imagine how you'd react if someone (fill in your favorite liberal) said this:
"Buddhism does not offer the kind of forgiveness and redemption that Islam offers."
You all would $hit a brick.
EC66| 1.9.10 @ 1:32PM
Sam, it is not arroganct to say that the Christian religion offers superior forgiveness and redemption. It is theologically true. It is likewise theologically true to say that "Buddhism does not offer the kind of forgiveness and redemption that Islam offers." Simple facts. You may as well say it is arrogant to claim that women are better mothers than men.
Bob| 1.9.10 @ 2:52PM
EC, I am not a Buddhist, but you are wrong. Forgiveness in Buddhism is different, but just as strong as it is in Christianity. In fact, all religious have a strong forgiveness mechanism. You should look at Buddhanet's basics which counsels:
"Have forgiveness in your heart for anything you think you've done wrong . Forgive yourself for all the past omissions and commissions. They are long gone. Understand that you were a different person and this one is forgiving that one that you were. Feel that forgiveness filling you and enveloping you with a sense of warmth and ease."
So yes, it is both arrogant and dumb to say Christianity offers superior forgiveness and redemption. But then again, I don't expect knowledge and facts at AmSpec.
EC66| 1.10.10 @ 12:39AM
Bob, I will assume that we could agree that definitions matter, and the truth is that "forgiveness" within Christianity and "forgiveness" within Buddhism are quite different (as is "forgiveness" within the three distinct philosophies within the broader category of Buddhism). "Superior" may only apply if one already subscribes to a theistic worldview, perhaps (which only one "school of Buddhism" subscribes to and even then amounts to, at best, a vague deism); so, I will concede the point to you. We could debate the differences between Christian and Buddhist "soteriology", but this is not the place for a discussion like that. All my best...
Bob| 1.10.10 @ 8:02AM
That was precisely my point, but you have stated it better and more accurately. Thanks. Recognizing bias, which we all have, is one of the first elements in establishing reason. Most of my posts at AmSpec are aimed at recognizing the extreme bias found here. This country will never be fiscally sound as long as bias on both the left and right outweighs reason, logic, and analysis. We will never agree on belief systems, but we should be able to utilize a common set of facts....
pallet racking | 1.9.10 @ 10:23AM
http://www.t-racking.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com
luiny | 1.10.10 @ 9:31PM
People on the left and the right have just become altogether weak. Maybe economic hard times will tougnike outlet
hen everyone up a little bit. Who cares what religion Bradidas outletit Hume is peddling on Fox News? People should just loosen up a bit.
ayag | 1.10.10 @ 9:36PM
nike shoes outlet
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 7:27PM
What did he do wrong « Spirit Led Info links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 7:28PM
What did he do wrong « Spirit Led America links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.12.10 @ 7:28PM
What did he do wrong « Spirit Led Living links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
norris hall| 1.12.10 @ 9:07PM
Brit Hume overlooked a serious statistic...the rate of divorce among born again Christians is no better than for non-believers like Woods.
In other words, being a born again Christian doesn't make for a better family life.
In fact, Asians...most of whom are Buddhist and Muslim are less likely of all groups to experience a divorce
Barna Research Group, which does religious polling in the US came out with a controversial and eyepopping study that challenged the often assumed notion that born again Christians are more family centered than the rest of the population.
You can read the poll results here
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t.....SjAU6mSySw