Hatred for speaking kindly of Christianity

 clipped from www.informz.net

How Dare He?
Brit Hume's Advice for Tiger

January 7, 2010

On Fox News this week, Brit Hume, respected journalist and one-time Fox anchor, was asked whether Tiger Woods would recover from the scandal that has cost him several lucrative endorsements. Brit Hume replied, "Tiger Woods will recover as a golfer."

But he didn't stop there—and in the process ignited a controversy that says more about his critics than it does about Hume or what he had to say.

Hume said the "open question" is "whether [Woods] can recover as a person." Hume pointed out that Woods had "lost his family" and that his future relationship with his children is unclear.

At this point, as golfers might put it, Hume was already in the rough. Americans don't like to be reminded that sex outside of marriage has consequences. But what set the commentariat's teeth on edge was Hume's suggestion that Woods' best chance for recovery lies with faith—and specifically, the Christian faith.

Noting Woods' Buddhist background, Hume said that Buddhism doesn't offer "the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith," and he urged Woods to consider Christianity.

Hume's words were followed by "a moment of awkward silence." But that didn't last long. As Rabbi Brad Hirschfield put it, response to Hume's comments ranged from "outrage to disgust."

One example was television critic Tom Shales of the Washington Post. Shales, who once called convicted rapist Roman Polanski a "celebrity hounded by the state," was less-charitably inclined toward Brit Hume. He wrote that "darts of derision" should be aimed at him.

Mind you, this was kind compared to most of the other things written about Hume.

The obvious question is, "Why the outrage?" Was Hume wrong about the differences between Christianity and Buddhism? Not really. Barbara Hoetsu O'Brien, a Buddhist journalist, told USA Today that "Buddhism doesn't offer redemption and forgiveness in the same way Christianity does" since "Buddhism has no concept of sin."

Was Hume's offense presuming to offer Woods unsolicited advice in public? If so, the outrage is selective. At ESPN, writer Malcolm Gladwell "advised" Woods to make it clear that "he is not someone who is ready, as yet, to settle down" and then take lessons on how to "live a tasteful bachelor lifestyle" from Yankee shortstop Derek Jeter. I don't recall any outrage over Gladwell's "presumption" to advise Tiger Woods.

The outrage, as Rabbi Hirschfield writes, stems from the fact that "many people fear faith and even more genuinely resent it being discussed in public." I would add they especially resent Christianity being discussed. If Hume had advised Woods to spend time in a Buddhist monastery, there wouldn't be a controversy. If he had urged Woods to enter rehab, Hume would have been applauded.

But what Hirschfield calls the "shrill objections" to Hume's comments are, as he tell us, rooted in the "contempt which many others have for Christians and their willingness to speak their faith."

Here's a prediction for 2010. I know Brit Hume; he will be fine. He is a strong, good man who can take the heat. But let's hope his conviction to speak the truth plainly and winsomely will spur other Christians to do the same—even in the face of the "shrill objections" that are sure to follow.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.

Christianity publicly off limits?

 clipped from www.informz.net

Closeted Christians
No Room in the Public Square

January 6, 2010

This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship president Mark Earley.

If you have heard me on BreakPoint before, you know that I am not an alarmist. While I am concerned about the culture and the Church's place within it, I don't sound the alarm after every setback.

Still, I am concerned about the increasingly small space to which our culture is seeking to confine the practice of our faith. We are heading in the direction of making faith a purely private matter, one that is not allowed to intrude in any public square or discussion. Recent cases making their way through the courts illustrate this direction.

The first story originates in San Francisco. On December 7, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving the Christian Legal Society and the University of California-Hastings Law School. The local chapter's recognition and funding were revoked after the CLS added a provision to its statement of faith which voting members must affirm. That provision stated that "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with" affirmation of the statement of faith.

Although the language includes all sex outside of marriage, school officials decided that the provision discriminated against gay students and, thus, violated the school's non-discrimination policies. It didn't matter that all Hastings students were welcome to attend and participate in the organization's meetings.

The CLS sued the school, and in March the Ninth Circuit ruled that Hastings could require student groups to "accept all comers as members, even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group."

The precedent for this ruling was a 2008 opinion by the same Ninth Circuit, Truth v. Kent School District, involving a Bible club in Kent Washington. There, the application for official recognition was rejected because voting membership was limited to those who affirmed biblical inerrancy and pledged to live in accordance with Christian teachings.

In ruling in favor of the school district, the Ninth Circuit essentially said that if you want to be officially recognized, you must undermine your religious mission.

You don't have to be an alarmist to wonder if such a requirement would be imposed on any other kind of group.

It's difficult to reconcile these rulings with the Supreme Court's decision in Rosenberg v. Rector. There, the court ruled that the University of Virginia could not deny funding to a Christian publication while providing it to other student publications. This denial was a form of "viewpoint discrimination" that violated freedom of speech.

The Los Angeles Times editorialized that something similar is at work here. The CLS is concerned with a person's beliefs and whether they live by them, not who they are. Yet 14 years after Rosenberg, people are still singling out Christian groups for exclusion.

Well, we'll see what the Supreme Court has to say because they're up next.

In the end, groups like the Christian Legal Society aren't seeking to change school policies—they simply want to identify themselves publicly as Christians in the same way that members of other groups can publicly identify themselves.

This apparently is too much for a culture that, having freed one group from a closet, now seeks to stuff Christians into it.

Get Clipmarks - The easiest way to email text, images and videos you find on the web.