Religion on Fox: News or evangelism?

buckeye

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 7:21:32 AM1/6/10

to

Posted by Milton David Fisher on
HRSepCnS � Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

*************************************************

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/panelists/c_welton_gaddy/2010/01/religion_on_fox_news_analyst_or_televangelist.html?hpid=talkbox1

Religion on Fox: News or evangelism?
The picture on the television screen and the audio of reporter Brit
Hume's words struck me as contradictory. Just below the image of the
reporter's face, the insignia "Fox News" appeared in three different
places. Yet, the content of Mr. Hume's comments was not that of a
news reporter so much as that of a televangelist.

Speaking about Tiger Woods on "Fox News Sunday" January 3, 2010, Mr.
Hume observed that Mr. Woods' recovery "depends on his faith." Was
that a personal opinion of the reporter, a theological belief, or a
"breaking news" story? After telling his audience that Mr. Woods is a
Buddhist, Hume said, "I don't think that faith offers the kind of
forgiveness and redemption that is (sic) offered by the Christian
faith." Evidently the reporter has expertise in both Buddhist and
Christian thought. With such self-assumed authority, Hume addressed
Woods personally, "Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can
make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Having served as a Christian minister for 50 years, I am delighted to
see my faith discussed in public. However, I am not pleased to see my
faith used in a utilitarian manner whether the issue is personal
forgiveness or national politics. Unfortunately, the manipulation of
faith has become so common that to many it now seems acceptable.

I have two problems with Mr. Hume's comments.

First, a news program should deal with news, not evangelism, whatever
religion is involved. Even though Mr. Hume's remarks occurred during
a portion of the program devoted to commentary, a news anchor should
not assume an authority to compare "redemption" in various religions.
That is a legitimate subject for inter-religious dialogue, but not
for a news report. Mr. Hume was delivering an opinion, not the news
regardless of how many "Fox News" insignias adorned the screen.

Second, the implication of Mr. Hume's suggestion to Mr. Woods is
utilitarian--you will get a better deal related to forgiveness in
Christianity than you can get in Buddhism. Christianity is not a
means to an end; it is a holistic faith to be embraced and lived.
Seeking the easiest form of forgiveness--though such a description of
forgiveness in Christianity is woefully inadequate and misleading--is
not a reason to become a Christian. The life of a Christian involves
far more than a response to wrongdoing.

I would hope that, as a reporter of the news, Mr. Hume would report
truth to people of all religions with mutual respect and not use the
cover of "a news cast" to engage in proselytization. Ironically, Mr.
Hume is engaging in a practice that most religious leaders in the
nation try to avoid.

Compare religions at Patheos.com

***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS � Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
James Veverka wrote:
One of the ways to counter the attack on American Constitutional principles
by the religious right is to address their revisionism, misinformation and
distortions.

****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote

"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"

That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.

It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.

*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

****************************************************************

Bert Hyman

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 8:51:32 AM1/6/10

to

In news:s109k5pscfsoodt4m...@4ax.com buckeye
<bucke...@nospam.net> wrote:

> The picture on the television screen and the audio of reporter Brit
> Hume's words struck me as contradictory.

The writer apparently can't tell the difference between "news" and
"commentary."

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com

Witziges R�tsel

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 1:44:51 PM1/6/10

to

"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF84FF2022...@216.250.188.140...

> In news:s109k5pscfsoodt4m...@4ax.com buckeye
> <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> The picture on the television screen and the audio of reporter Brit
>> Hume's words struck me as contradictory.
>
> The writer apparently can't tell the difference between "news" and
> "commentary."
>

Isn't the name of the channel "Fox News Channel", not "Fox
Commentary Channel"?

Bert Hyman

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 10:50:43 AM1/6/10

to

In news:hi2b06$bak$1...@news.eternal-september.org "Witziges R�tsel"
<z...@roer.invalid.com> wrote:

Sure, just like it's the "Cable News Network" and "Headline News
Network".

So?

jcon

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 11:11:58 AM1/6/10

to

On Jan 6, 7:51 am, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Innews:s109k5pscfsoodt4m...@4ax.combuckeye

>
> <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > The picture on the television screen and the audio of reporter Brit
> > Hume's words struck me as contradictory.
>
> The writer apparently can't tell the difference between "news" and
> "commentary."
>

It occurred during a "news" show (the quotes being necessary because
it was Fox). The question asked was about the biggest sports
story of the year. Hume used is a a chance to treat Woods and
the rest of us to his own pre-adolescent views on religion.

Was he really out of line for doing that in that context?
Arguably not. Was it a fucknuts stupid thing to say for about a
dozen reasons? Definitely.

The author is correct in that Hume was effectively saying
"Convert to Christianity so you can be forgiven for banging
countless women while you were married". With that logic,
wouldn't it make more sense to convert to some totally
hedonist religion where forgiveness wasn't required at all,
and Tiger could simply console himself with his many millions
and presumably continuing offers to fill his bed?

-jc

> --
> Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN b...@iphouse.com

Kilmir

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 11:19:16 AM1/6/10

to

On 6 jan, 14:51, Bert Hyman <b...@iphouse.com> wrote:
> Innews:s109k5pscfsoodt4m...@4ax.combuckeye
>

> <buckeye...@nospam.net> wrote:
> > The picture on the television screen and the audio of reporter Brit
> > Hume's words struck me as contradictory.
>
> The writer apparently can't tell the difference between "news" and
> "commentary."

Fox broadcasts are considered comedy by most people I know.

Lord of the Cock Rings

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 1:27:36 PM1/6/10

to

Though not actually part of its name, MSNBC also presents itself
as a 'news' network, though you never hear anything other than
the opinions of its 'commentators.' And all their opinions seem
to be the same, with Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Ed
Schultz all spewing the same identical pro-Democrap propaganda
slogans.

What's really ironic is listening to the MSNBC commentators spew
socialist propaganda about the evils of greedy corporations
while working for two of the largest corporations on earth:
Microsoft and General Electric.

Lord of the Cock Rings

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 1:30:03 PM1/6/10

to

Even funnier is watching President Obama's semen dribble out of
Rachel Maddow's mouth as she babbles on about the virtues of
H.R. 3200.

Bob LeChevalier

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 3:56:23 PM1/6/10

to

Lord of the Cock Rings <lo...@cock.com> wrote:
>What's really ironic is listening to the MSNBC commentators spew
>socialist propaganda about the evils of greedy corporations
>while working for two of the largest corporations on earth:
>Microsoft and General Electric.

Which would tell any sane person that those two corporations don't
consider their positions to be in the least bit socialist.
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org

Paladin

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 7:28:28 PM1/6/10

to

Lord of the Cock Rings wrote:

> Witziges Rätsel wrote:
>> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CF84FF2022...@216.250.188.140...
>>> In news:s109k5pscfsoodt4m...@4ax.com buckeye
>>> <bucke...@nospam.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The picture on the television screen and the audio of reporter Brit
>>>> Hume's words struck me as contradictory.
>>> The writer apparently can't tell the difference between "news" and
>>> "commentary."
>>>
>> Isn't the name of the channel "Fox News Channel", not "Fox
>> Commentary Channel"?
>
> Though not actually part of its name, MSNBC also presents itself as a
> 'news' network, though you never hear anything other than the opinions
> of its 'commentators.' And all their opinions seem to be the same, with
> Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz all spewing the same
> identical pro-Democrap propaganda slogans.

What's really ironic is that you don't recognize the
difference in the networks.

Fox spews right wing rhetoric into their "news"
reports. Claiming, for instance, that a few thousand
pee-baggers in Washington totaled "an estimated 100,000."

MSNBC's news programs are just that: strictly
non-partisan reporting, entirely separated from their
political commentators. And. ummm...you are aware,
aren't you, that Joe Scarborough, one of the most rabid
right wing nutjobs has a show on MSNBC. Faux
Networks's lone liberal is Billy O'Really. BTW, that
last comment was sarcasm.

Paladin

unread,

Jan 6, 2010, 7:30:02 PM1/6/10

to

Lord of the Cock Rings wrote:

Just so you know, Maddow proudly declares herself to be
lesbian. You're the one hung up on black guys.

Zerkon