You Can Disagree With Brit Hume If You Like, But Just Don't Do It Like This

Brit Hume sure has stirred up a hornet's next with his comments about Christianity, Buddism and Tiger Woods. The response gives us a great opportunity to examine the faulty logic of the response from many of those who would disagree. I certainly affirm anyone's right to disagree with Hume, but the way in which most do it should never go unchallenged.  Why?  Simply because it doesn't work. It implodes upon itself. Watch the clip below and see if you can spot the implosion. (To me, there are many erroneous points to interact with but one seems glaring.)



Here are some of the quotes from this interchange:

Keith Olbermann: Keep religious advocacy out of public life since the worst example of that are jihadists. 

Keith Olbermann:  Is it not in the interest of people of faith to avoid this kind of public proselytizing?  The smart ones get that is just makes them look bad no matter what the thought might be.

Dan Savage:  Smart people of faith set an example through their lives.  They don't go on Fox News and lecture other people. 

It is important to ask a simply question when someone makes a claim like this:  Why? 

Why should Brit Hume not speak his view?  The answer usually is that people should keep their religious views to themselves.  But what are religious views?  They are simply statements of belief.  So if we shouldn't communicate our own statements of belief then what about the statements of belief purported by the two men in the clip above?  Why should they be allowed to communicate their beliefs?

If we are truly to keep "religious advocacy out of public life" than why is Keith advocating his view that is undergirded by a certain worldview. 

Is Keith not doing his own type of proselytizing (which is simply trying to convince another of your view) when he says that Hume should not proselytize? 

If people are not to go on Fox News and lecture other people about matters of belief, why is Dan Savage going on MSNBC and lecturing Brit Hume about his beliefs?  Is not Dan Savage lecturing Hume based on his personal beliefs?

Their statements of these two men simply do not stand because they refute themselves as they speak.  The rules have to go both ways.  They can't just apply to those with whom you agree.   If Brit can't state his view, then they shouldn't be allowed to either. 

FYI -
I don't really care that much about political TV. Aside from abortion issues, I care very little about politics in general. It all just seems like a big popularity and power contest. I have very little hope in it no matter who is in office.  So please know that a critique of Keith Olberman and his guest does NOT equate to me frothing at the mouth as I cheer on Bill O'Reily every night at 7pm.