I've pretty much exclusively been posting blog items to Stinque these days but since the subject I want to write about has already been posted, and since I have a few things I'd like to say about it, I think I'll come back to this blog for another post. It concerns this astonishing comment by Fox News commenter Brit Hume during a Fox round table discussion on the Tiger Woods affair.
Here's the relevant text:
“The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith,” said Hume. “He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of redemption and forgiveness offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger is, ‘Tiger turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”
What's astonishing is that this is supposedly a mainstream news network serving a secular purpose and a general audience. Yet it is quickly becoming indistinguishable from Pat Robertson's 700 Club. This clip highlights the extent to which conservatism and fundamentalist Christianity have collapsed into one another in America. There really is no secular conservative ideology in this country any more. That's probably the reason why Bill Kristol, who is Jewish, does not challenge Hume's inappropriate proselytizing when it is his turn to comment on the Tiger Woods affair, even though we can plainly sense a hint of unease when it is his turn to comment.
A similar situation was highlighted recently by the blog Wonkette, who noticed in a Los Angeles Times editorial by conservative Jew Jonah Goldberg the following peculiar statement regarding the New Agey, environmentalist beliefs that infuse the film Avatar:
What would have been controversial is if — somehow — Cameron had made a movie in which the good guys accepted Jesus Christ into their hearts.That a conservative Jew feels the need to pander to his conservative audience by proselytizing for Christianity is a quite remarkable testament to the failure of American conservatism to speak to an audience beyond the Christian pulpit. It should also dishearten those conservatives who cling to the improbable belief that Jews will soon begin deserting the Democratic party in large numbers for the GOP, and those who fear that the GOP is becoming a largely insular, regional party. No, Christianity is not a "regional" religion per se, but this brand of fundamentalist Christianity is largely relegated to the American South and has little hope of establishing itself in the more urban, industrialized, more culturally diverse and better educated regions of the nation.
10 comments:
Brit Hume - shut up. You have no right to publicly attack one religion or promote another on television - the majority of the World in NOT Christian. duh. And the only person who needs to forgive Tiger is his wife. He didn't cheat on Brit Hume or me or anyone else. He needs forgiveness from the mother of his children and no one else. What a stupid statement. I am shocked and will never again look at Brit Hume the same way.......I thought he was fair and unbiased. I should have known better, I guess.
This has been going on for some time. Another example is Charles Krauthammer's bizarre writings on stem-cell research. Krauthammer ardently defended the Bush Administration for its position on this issue, and attacked the critics. Yet if you read between the lines of his columns, it becomes clear that he actually disagrees with Bush, and supports embryonic stem-cell research. His column from early 2009, in which he engages in almost comical contortions to bash President Obama for taking a position he agrees with, must set some kind of record. Even religious Jews generally support stem-cell research; for a secular Jew to pander to a position that is found almost exclusively among conservative Christians is really something.
What's astonishing is that this is supposedly a mainstream news network serving a secular purpose and a general audience. Yet it is quickly becoming indistinguishable from Pat Robertson's 700 Club.
If you believe what you write, you're stupid.
But I'm not ruling out the possibility that you're malignant.
Previous poster obviously saw Goldberg's response to your post on the Corner today as he simply mimics Goldberg's ad hominem attack. Go read it, it's hilariously defensive. Nice job.
Don't complain about NRO readers leaving comments. They're giving you more blog hits than you've probably ever had. Don't worry...soon enough everyone will forget about this crappy blog and you will go back you your average of 4-5 blog hits per day.
Maybe people would actually come to this blog if you would take the time to research things before posting. If you believe that FNC is like the 700 Level you are either be really dumb or are just lying to make a point.
First off, the second Anonymous is way too satisfied with themselves (and not very believable, quite frankly). Goldberg did a fairly good job of analyzing what was wrong with the remarks here, and in a way that was much fairer and kinder than the original remarks.
Some observations:
-Obviously "Patriot's Quill" has some real problems with evangelical and/or fundamentalist Christianity, which by the way has significant numbers of adherents in all fifty states, many of whom are likely more educated that the author of this blog. (An educated guess, since I dodn't know how much education the author has. I only have a Master's degree, myself.) The ad hominem is clever, since is pretends to analyze, but does so in a way to suggest by inference that fundamentalists (a name many evangelicals see no problem with) are predisposed to be rural, caucasian, and uneducated. The south, BTW, is actually quite diverse, having higher concentrations per capita of Hispanics, and large concentrations of African-Americans. I live in a southern town with large numbers of Vietnamese and Laotians as well.
-Patriot's Quill writes, rather hyperbolically, that Fox News is "quickly becoming indistinguishable from Pat Robertson's 700 Club" and that there "really is no secular conservative ideology in this country any more." The first comment is laughably obtuse to anyone who has watched even 5 minutes of either source. The second comment is similarly obtuse, ignoring the fact that religious conservatism and secular conservatism have several things in common (and that there are a number of socially conservative Christians who have very liberal views on govt., economy, etc.) For example, Krauthammer supports stem-cell research but commends Bush. For the Christophobic Patriot's Quill, this is some kind of knuckling under. For the dispassionate observer, this is Krauthammer seeing the difference between supporting the existence of a practice and using taxpayer dollars to fund it, despite widespread public opposition (the general ineffectiveness of that line of research notwithstanding). One can often tell how much someone hates something by how quickly they are willing to associate even the most meager connections to that thing into a damnable offense. Patriot's Quill gives away their prejudices far too easily.
- victoriam reminds me of the commonly used "Shut up, he/she explained." What on earth makes victoriam think that they have the right to tell another human being to shut up or to otherwise hold their tongue in a situation where they are asked for their honest personal opinion. It's called "freedom of speech" victoriam. I find your disdain for it far more troubling than any media figure's religious viewpoint, whether I share it (as I do in Hume's case) or not.
Apologies, I referred to Patriot's Quill when I meant Kylopod regarding the comments about Krauthammer. Sorry for the mistake.
>For the dispassionate observer, this is Krauthammer seeing the difference between supporting the existence of a practice and using taxpayer dollars to fund it, despite widespread public opposition
That is not Krauthammer's position. Krauthammer supports federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, and disagrees with Bush's policy. He has said so many times. Here are a few examples:
"I happen to favor federal support for stem-cell research, but unless we treat the opposition arguments with respect, rather than reflexive disdain, we will fail to appreciate the looming dangers--moral and biological--inherent in this unprecedentedly powerful new technique." -- June 30, 2001
"I would have drawn the line differently [than President Bush]. I would have permitted the conduct of all research using cells drawn from the discarded embryos of fertility clinics (unused and ultimately doomed) but not from embryos created purposely and wantonly for nothing but use by science." -- August 23, 2004
"It is a good idea to expand federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research. It is a bad idea to do that without prohibiting research that uses embryos created specifically to be used in research and destroyed." -- August 6, 2005
Krauthammer argues that Bush approaches the issue in a morally serious way, whereas most supporters of expanding federal research don't. But Krauthammer agrees with the conclusions of the the shallow, simplistic supporters, and disagrees with the conclusions of the thoughtful, serious Bush. Thus, he pushes his policy position into the background and spends far more space praising Bush and chastising supporters for the contrasting ways in which they allegedly approach the issue.
Kylopod,
I appreciate the Krauthammer quotes and accept that Krauthammer's position on funding is different from Bush's. I stand corrected in my original comment.
However, his position is also quite different from a number of people who support federal funding of embyronic stem-cell research [ESCR for brevity's sake](explaining Krauthammer's clarifications, which are not just between his viewpoint and Bush's but between his viewpoint and many supporters of ESCR who prefer fewer or almost no limits for federal funding). So, it's clearly not just a case of Krauthammer praising someone he completely disagrees with and criticizing those he agrees with.
However, even if that simplistic analysis held true, that doesn't preclude the fact that Krauthammer can consistently criticize the bulk of those who hold his position for the simplisticness of the way they approach it or compliment Bush for the careful way in which he reached his own compromise (which, contrary to popular belief actually allowed federal funding for embryonic research, just on a limited basis. It was the first time a US President has done so under any circumstances).
In other words, just because Krauthammer holds the same position as ESCR supporter A, doesn't necessarily mean that he will respect or value the means by which A reached their conclusions or defends them. This becomes especially clear if Krauthammer's conclusions about the issue are from a different perspective or if he finds the issue demagogued or politicized in a particular way. To use a well-known if perhaps extreme example, John Edwards suggestion/inference that ESCR would result in immediate cures for people such as Christopher Reeve is clearly balderdash and not a credible argument for ESCR.
I suspect (and hope I'm wrong) that the reason Krauthammer's writings are considered bizarre is because of the correlation between opposition to ESCR and conservative Christians. This in itself however is a bit of a generalization, just as the references to secular and religious Jews are. Individual viewpoints and decisions still matter, and just because someone doesn't succumb to groupthink or worse, the herd mentality of "their side" of things, doesn't mean that they aren't thinking rationally.
In many cases, it's a clear example that they are.
>Krauthammer can consistently criticize the bulk of those who hold his position for the simplisticness of the way they approach it
There's nothing inherently inconsistent about criticizing people you agree with for being too simplistic. The normal way people deal with situations like that is by offering their own, more nuanced case for the position. Krauthammer never does that. He has never clearly explained why he supports embryonic stem-cell research, or why he supports federal funding of it. He treats his point of view as basically an afterthought ("Yeah, I support it, but....") then goes on to heap abuse on practically everyone who agrees with him, and to praise to high heaven a man who decided to curb research that Krauthammer agrees could save lives. He gives the impression he doesn't care a whole lot about the real-world consequences of what he's debating; it's all intellectual masturbation, or, in this case, brown-nosing. What's most amusing is his attempt to depict Bush as a person who grapples with moral conundrums, a quality that not even most Bush supporters usually attribute to him.
>[Bush] allowed federal funding for embryonic research, just on a limited basis. It was the first time a US President has done so under any circumstances
As Mr. Miyagi would say, afraid the facts mixed up. In mid-2000, President Clinton approved guidelines by the NIH to provide federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research. These guidelines would have taken effect under a Gore presidency. But Bush suspended these plans just a month after taking office.
>John Edwards suggestion/inference that ESCR would result in immediate cures for people such as Christopher Reeve
When did Edwards say that? Give me a quote/source.
>I suspect (and hope I'm wrong) that the reason Krauthammer's writings are considered bizarre is because of the correlation between opposition to ESCR and conservative Christians.
No. Dr. Leon Kass, the architect of Bush's plan, is a secular Jew. His viewpoint is uncommon among Jews, but I believe he holds it sincerely, not as an attempt to pander to conservative Christians.
What makes Krauthammer's positioning bizarre is not what he believes but rather the way he bends over backwards to praise what he doesn't believe.
Post a Comment