Foaming At the Mouth

Secular Humanist Derangement


We recently posted on semi-retired senior news anchor, Brit Hume daring to wish and urge Tiger Woods to seek the Lord in his troubles. Hume, of course, raised in a Christian environment, repented and was converted in later life during a time of intense family trouble--namely the suicide of his son.

The outrage at Hume's politically incorrect public pronouncements was predictable. He seems completely unfazed by it, and good for him. Peter Wehner, writing in National Review Online overviews the storm-in-a-teacup, providing some useful perspective.

Hume’s Gentle Witness
We should welcome honest talk about faith.

By Peter Wehner

Brit Hume’s comments on Fox News Sunday — “I don’t think that [Buddhism] offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith,” and, “My message to Tiger [Woods] would be: Tiger, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world” — have unleashed a torrent of criticism from the Left, including the various circus acts over at MSNBC and the Washington Post’s Tom Shales.

Shales’s criticisms in particular are manifestations of a mind that is enraged and slightly unhinged; they are ad hominem and, in some respects, unserious. But there are two lines of argument worth examining as they relate to what Hume said. The first is that he “dissed” all Buddhists; the second is that urging Woods to turn to the Christian faith is inappropriate, offensive, and out of line. Let’s examine both claims in turn.

What Shales reflects here in his umbrage at Hume "dissing" Bhuddhists is the prevailing humanist cant that all public criticism and ridicule of Christ and His Kingdom is fair game, but criticism of any other religion is not. As to Shale's indictment of Hume's remarks as being "inappropriate, offensive, and out of line" we would merely observe that we Christians are not much interested in the lines of secular humanism, nor what is offensive or considered inappropriate to devotees of that particular idolatry.

What Hume said about Buddhism is, I believe, accurate. Whatever its virtues, Buddhism does not offer the kind of forgiveness and redemption that are central to Christianity. Buddhism’s hallmarks are (among other things) reincarnation; the belief that wisdom, discernment, and enlightenment can emerge through meditation, self-control, and self-denial; that suffering ceases with the achievement of Nirvana; and that the path to liberation is found through the extinguishing of human desires and passions. One of the many theological differences between Buddhism and Christianity is that the former does not entail a belief in God, if God is defined as a personal being who created the universe by design; and it asserts that “the human self . . . has no soul,” in the words of the religious scholar Huston Smith. Hume did not say that Buddhism doesn’t teach virtues (it does) or that there are no good qualities about it (there are). But forgiveness and redemption are not cornerstones of the Buddhist faith in the same way they are in the Christian faith.

We should note in passing that secular humanism can easily fit Bhuddhism into its tent. For Bhuddhism both lionises man as his own self-deliverer, whilst looking for salvation in self-abnegation. This rational-irrational dichotomy lies at the root of all secular humanist thinking as well: for example, the rationalist individual is absolute whilst his absolute value can only be realised through the ever tightening controls and extensions of an impersonal state. The modern secular humanist therefore finds a basic religious kinship with Bhuddhism: they are kissing cousins. Both embrace the rational-irrational dichotomy found in all Unbelief systems. Any debate between the two is only about methods and details. That is why a secular humanist, such as Shales, will ever give a respectful nod to false religions and idolatries, such as Bhuddhism.

The second argument is that Hume should not be in the business of “drum[ming] up new business” for his faith, that he doesn’t have the authority to do so, and that, in the words of Shales, “he should do it on his own time, not try to cross-pollinate religion and journalism and use Fox facilities to do it.”

Lots of commentators have offered opinions on what Tiger Woods has done and what he needs to do to recover. What was clearly motivating Hume was the hope that Woods can reconstruct his life; Hume believes Christianity, which was central to his own journey out of a terrible valley, is the best way in which to do so. (In a later, somewhat more expansive interview with Bill O’Reilly, Hume uses the example of Watergate convict Charles Colson, who turned his life around after he became a Christian.) Most people commenting on Tiger Woods deride him; Hume seems genuinely concerned for him. Is that a bad thing?

One of the most admirable things in Hume's remarks to us was the way he was able to convey genuine sorrow and care for Tiger Woods.

The intensity of offense taken at what Hume said is itself revealing. Perhaps it can partly be chalked up to shock; maybe Shales and Hume’s other critics are genuinely surprised to learn that those who hold the Christian faith do so because they believe the claims of Christ are true, that His story is real. But of course if Christians didn’t believe their faith were true, there would be no reason to embrace it, as the Apostle Paul himself understood.

Some people obviously disagree with Hume; that is certainly their right. They can offer a different remedy to Woods if they so desire. They may think that a commitment to materialism, or atheism, or pantheism, or something quite different, is what Woods needs. Or they may think what Woods did was not problematic, and that he should be free to indulge his appetites and passions. If so, let them make their case. But Hume, in the context of the discussion he was having, should be free to make his case. And one cannot help but think that if Hume had recommended that Woods embrace Transcendental Meditation, the philosophy of Deepak Chopra, or the New Age movement, instead of Christianity, Shales would not have been so offended.

Precisely. That is why the outrage is faux. It is little more than special pleading dressed up in civic self-righteousness.

I should add that when Christopher Hitchens, whom I like and whose company I enjoy, appeared on television shows promoting his book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he was far more critical of Christianity than Hume was of Buddhism. Yet I don’t recall the Left saying that those criticisms were inappropriate for public debate. In fact, they weren’t — and neither are Hume’s words. Furthermore, those who are unnerved by Hume’s “sectarianism” were untroubled by the aggressive atheism of Hitchens. . . .

— Peter Wehner, former deputy assistant to the president, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Why this umbrage, this foaming of the mouth at the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom? One thing hated above all else by the modern secular humanist is the Christian proclamation of Christ's death as the atoning sacrifice for the sins of His people. For the secular humanist acknowledges no sin, no true moral guilt before an angry and offended God. He will admit only to foibles, failings, or inadequacies common with all mankind. The idea, therefore, that Christ laid down His life to bear the guilt of their sin is a deformed monstrosity.

To think that Someone had to suffer for them when they believe they have done nothing really wrong is offensive in the extreme. They hate the very notion that God would be so terrible as to require it. If they would admit for a moment even the possibility of its truth, their self-respect, their amour propre, their chest-beating would disintegrate. And that would be too much to bear. That is why they hate the Gospel so much. That is why they foam at the mouth so much at the mention of Christ and why they use His name as a curse-word every day.

(An excellent interview with Hume giving more background and colour to this controversy, and to Hume's faith and conversion has been published in Christianity Today, can be read here.)