Public Expression of Christianity are Unacceptable?

by

Since when did we become a country where expressing Christian concepts on the air of the preeminent news channel become forbidden?

Brit Hume publicly encouraged Tiger Woods, a known Buddhist, to adopt Christianity. Liberals begin attacking him for his expression of faith. (link) (Hat tip: Gateway Pundit)

Now, one of the reasons why America exists at all is because we used to live in a world where saying something that wasn’t religiously popular could get you killed. That is, going out of the mainstream was a sure way to get your head separated from your neck.

One of the first great experiments in liberty on this continent occurred in Rhode Island, when the law of the land became that no one could be punished for their religious beliefs. The resulting liberty not only increased the peace within that area, but it was so advantageous that every other colony, and soon, the entire nation, adopted it.

Since the founding of our modern constitutional republic, we have since even abandoned the concept of having states recognize a single church as the state-approved one, let alone funding a church through taxes.

The concept of religious liberty is simply this. You are free to believe what you like, and you are free to act on your belief. If you wish, you can speak on your religion wherever you are allowed to do so by the forum itself. In the public forum, no limits to religious speech can be tolerated.

This means that if the owners of Fox News don’t have a problem with it, Brit Hume is free to exhort Tiger Woods to repent and cast off his false idols, and worship the true and living Christ to receive forgiveness of sins and eternal salvation.

Anyone who believes that the owners of Fox News should not have allowed such free expression of religious liberty should well consider the following scenario. What if you wanted to express your religious ideas? Would you wish the same kind of derision that Brit Hume suffers now?

What if your religious idea is that there is no God, or that evolution, a theory of science, should be believed as a religious doctrine? What if you want to convince people that Christianity is madness, or that we need to worship Mother Earth by sacrificing our SUVs? How would you feel if those expressions were forbidden in all forums in our country?

The definition of a right is that it must be equally applicable to all. Thus, if you believe that religious expression is a right, then the same amount of liberty you possess you must simultaneously grant to Brit Hume.

For the record, Tiger Woods does need to repent. He needs to throw away Buddhism, a religion full of powerless traditions and without a doctrine of forgiveness and redemption, and embrace the true and living Christ. That is the only way he can hope to avoid the eternal damnation that adulterers face for their sins, damnation which he is suffering even now.

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Public Expression of Christianity are Unacceptable?”

  1. Adam Says:

    I think it was more about context. The program Hume was on hasn’t traditionally been used to say the sort of things he said. I certainly don’t think what he said was outrageous or immoral – just tacky in that particular situation.

  2. godlesspaladin Says:

    First off, I agree with parts of your post. Hume and Fox are free to say whatever they want (be it true or not), and other people are free to criticize them. I think you’re blurring the difference between criticism and legal ramifications. Hume was not imprisoned or fined for expressing his views, nor should he. Everyone and their ideas are open to criticism, it’s how our society functions. (good ideas survive questioning and criticism, bad ones don’t. It’s a form of evolution at work ~_^)

    You mention how America is great because here you have the freedom to say things that aren’t necessarily popular, especially when it comes to matters of religion. This is true, but I find it funny that you are using this in the context of what Hume said. So a couple of people criticized him, he’s still not very far from the mainstream. I’m sure the vast majority of Fox viewers would agree with him. If you want to see what real constant criticism is, or experience “christian love” first hand, try being an atheist for a day.

    Lastly, as a side note, evolution has nothing to do with religion. It’s not something preached by one faith or another. It’s not something that needs to be “believed” in. Do you “believe” in the theory of gravity? Or how about germ theory, or atomic theory? The rest of the world realized this over 100 years ago and moved on. Your fight shouldn’t be directed at evolution, but something called abiogensis.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      On Hume’s comments, the issue was that there was a large group of people that wanted to punish him and Fox News for his comments. We don’t really have free speech when a segment of our population feels it necessary to hurt people for what they say.

      On evolution vs. religion, this is a non-scientific debate. When all you have are a few rocks to look at, you can’t tell what really happened in the past. When religion’s God has weighed in on the matter, pronouncing all of humanity of one race and literal children of God, where our people comes from is terribly important. Evolution says that some races are superior to others. Religion teaches that we are all from the same stock.

      Germ theory, atomic theory, gravity theory, etc… are all testable and observable. Evolution, unfortunately, is not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: