Intolerance? – The Case for Debate as an Entertainment Medium

“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,” said Brit Hume. Then he added, “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” (Brit Hume, This quote is found on many websites).

Hume’s comments appear to be a Christian exclusivist view (Jesus is the only way). In response, he was blasted across the media for what they deemed intolerance. Here is an example from Andrew Sullivan https://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/01/brit-hume-convert-tiger/192234/ :

“The pure sectarianism of this comment – its adoption of the once-secular stage of political journalism to insert a call for apostasy – is striking. It even seemed to catch Bill Kristol off-guard a little. But it has long been established that non-evangelical Christians have at best an auxiliary role in today’s religiously defined GOP, and the slow morphing of Fox News into the 700 Club is not exactly new. What earthly reason do these pundits now have to prevent or stop it? Once you have abolished the distinction between secular and religious discourse, as they routinely insist on doing, their politics is their religion and their religion is their politics. And both are corrupted.”

Let’s examine this:

If the Bible is indeed God’s word (as it claims to be), then it would follow that it should have authority in all areas of life including politics. One who believes that the Bible is indeed God’s word must therefore also recognize the Bible’s authority in politics. This does not mean that one should presume that another individual will recognize the Bible’s authority in his/her politics. That person may recognize some other authority or authorities:  a sacred text, a political document (e.g. the U.S. Constitution), an ideology (e.g. Communism, Fascism, Feminism), another person’s opinion, or the person’s own opinion.

If Brit Hume should not recognize the Bible’s authority (which supports his statement), what authority is acceptable when speaking in the political realm? Who gets to decide this? Doesn’t the Constitution offer freedom of speech? Does the Constitution prohibit the exercise of free speech in the political realm? The Constitution, which governs the secular, includes free speech in the political realm. If this is so, upon what authority does Andrew Sullivan condemn Hume for exercise his Constitutionally-protected rights? Surely it is not a sacred text because Sullivan wants to keep the secular devoid of the sacred. It cannot be the Constitution as his comments express a flagrant disregard for the First Amendment. If it Sullivan’s ideology, then he is being hypocritical because Hume is acting upon his own ideology as well. If it is another person’s opinion, Sullivan fails to reference that individual or group of individuals. In the end, it would seem that Sullivan’s source of authority is himself and his own opinion.

By exalting his own opinion and lifting himself up as judge, Sullivan tramples the Constitutional rights of his fellow citizen under his feet. His reaction to the perceived intolerance (see the discussion below) led him to respond not only with an intolerance of Hume but all others who may share Hume’s opinion. In his condemnation, Sullivan clearly believes that Hume is wrong and by default Sullivan is right. Such an uncritical assumption of one’s rightness based on no more than one’s own opinion would seem to be the height of arrogance. Sullivan draws further suspicion to himself by drawing a line between secular and sacred that ends up exalting secular above sacred.

While Sullivan is free to have and express his opinions just like Hume, it would help if he were more tolerant of those who disagree with him. This type of tolerance does not require acceptance; it merely requires mutual respect between individuals for each person’s right to have and express his/her opinion. Sullivan, if he disagrees with Hume, can offer critical responses to Hume based on Hume’s comments. Even so, he still has the right to make his intolerant rants even while the rest of us are free to receive them as such should we choose.

Was Hume really intolerant? Hume disagrees fundamentally with the Buddhist’s doctrine which Tiger holds; therefore, Hume expressed his belief that Tiger should reconsider those views and consider the Christian path to forgiveness (as Hume’s views it). Hume did not disrespect Tiger’s right to have his religious views, and he did not personally attack Tiger for having those views. He merely proclaimed his views and his wishes for Tiger based on those views. What else should he or could he do if he legitimately holds a Christian exclusivist view?

Many people today would have Hume keep his beliefs to himself and simply wish Tiger well. But what if Hume disagrees? How is Hume wrong if he chooses not to let his religion be private? Soceity in general may say that religious exclusivist should be kept and held privately, but society has been wrong before. Did someone just say the Civil Rights Movement?

Other people today think Hume should just accept that everyone has their own way to God based on how and if they see God. Once again, Hume may disagree because of his exclusivist views which teach that Jesus is the only way. Just a brief study of the culture in Islamic states and one will realize that many Muslims will disagree with American pop culture and its advocation of religious pluralism. This advocation, which seems to be so sacred to many in the West, is actually a supreme insult to all of the major religions who believe their way is the only way. Maybe the so-called tolerant are the ones who are being the most intolerant?

Perhaps our culture needs to reconsider the idea of tolerance. Instead of shunning and/or verbally assaulting those who hold exclusivist position (from whatever religion), maybe we should agree to tolerate the individual right to hold and profess publicly the views which they hold. Instead of silencing exclusivist views, maybe we should open ourselves up for more debate among the various conflicting viewpoints so that we may all make more informed opinions. Maybe our country’s pastimes can be more than just a ball being passed back and forth by overpaid players. Maybe it is time to bring our intellects back into the fray.

Further evidence for the intolerance movement can be found in this helpful article: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/media-faces-backlash-after-taking-swipes-at-candidates-religions