I don’t know that I would have made the assertion that Brit Hume did about Tiger Woods Buddhist faith and how he would do well to become a Christian. That is, though, a function of having had several years of theological education which included some comparative religious studies and having come out of a tradition which takes a more subtle approach to evangelization. However, I don’t see anything all that outrageous in a professing Christian saying that someone needs to get a little Jesus in their life – indeed, there is this little directive in the New Testament that tells Christians to spread the Good News of Christ to the whole world.

Consider, for example, the over-the-top reaction of MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann to this pretty mild expression of from a fellow commentator who has never made a secret of his Christian faith.

KEITH OLBERMANN, IN OPENING TEASER: Brit Hume and the attempt to threaten Tiger Woods into converting to Christianity. He does it again. BRIT HUME, FROM THE O’REILLY FACTOR: You speak the name Jesus Christ, and, I don’t mean to make a pun here, but all hell breaks loose.

...

OLBERMANN: BEFORE COMMERCIAL BREAK: Brit Hume has tried to force Tiger Woods into becoming a Christian again. That in a moment.

Threaten? Force? I don’t think so? Did Hume indicate that Tiger Woods should be physically harmed if he does not convert? Was there any suggestion that Woods should be coerced into changing his religion? Hardly! Yet somehow, Olbermann and his ilk make it sound as if Hume has suggested that Woods in an infidel who should be murdered! Does this sound like a threat of force?

"He is said to be a Buddhist. I don`t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. So my message to Tiger would be, Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world."

Or what about the follow-up statement on Bill O’Reilly’s show that struck Olbermann as even more outrageous?

What I`m saying is if Tiger Woods were to make a true conversion, we would know it. It would show through in his being. And he would know it, above all. And he would feel the extraordinary blessing that that would be. And it would shine because he is so prominent. It would be a shining light. And I think it would be a magnificent thing to witness.

I guess I miss what is particularly outrageous about what Hume had to say. And as a Christian, I’ll go so far as reject the notion put forth by Keith Olbermann that the original statement, if made by a Muslim suggesting a conversion to Islam, would be any more offensive to me or to most Christians if couched it were expressed in otherwise identical language. There just is not anything to be offended by – provided, of course, one is not offended by the very notion that believers in one religion might believe that their faith is superior to other belief systems.

And therein lies the problem – too many Americans (indeed, too much of the Western world) have fallen for the notion that public expression of religion – at least by Christians – is something that is in bad taste and is so intolerant that it should not be tolerated.

The Washington Times may have put it best in this editorial comment.

If there were doubt that much of the media is hostile to traditional faith, especially traditional Christianity, that doubt has been drowned in the wake of a vicious verbal assault on Fox News analyst Brit Hume. Histrionic fulminations against Mr. Hume's inoffensive expression of faith expose an ugly strain of anti-religious bigotry that is spreading inside this country's liberal establishment.

Exactly – and might I suggest that advocates of liberal secularism like those cited in the editorial have become so intolerant of religious belief, practice, and expression that they are a bigger threat to any concept of the fundamental human right to freely practice and profess one’s religion than a Christian like Brit Hume is for merely saying those things that Christians have been saying since the Resurrection.