Politico's Mike Calderone:
Fox's Brit Hume has taken some heat since advising Tiger Woods yesterday [Sunday] to embrace Christianity as a way to cope with his problems, while knocking another religion in the process.
"He's said to be a Buddhist," Hume said on Fox News Sunday. "I don't think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith. … Tiger, turn to the Christian faith, and you can make a total recovery."
On Monday night's "Factor," Bill O'Reilly asked Hume a good question: "Was that proselytizing?"
"I don't think so," Hume said, before reiterating his comments from Sunday that Woods should convert to Christianity.
It's that last phrase that gets me. Read it slowly.
Hume said he wasn't prosyletizing, and then repeated his belief that Woods should convert to Christianity.
Perhaps he doesn't know what the word "prosyletizing" means?
And Hume didn't stop there:
Hume said that given Woods problems, he "needs something that Christianity, especially, provides and gives and offers." That includes, he said, the chance for "redemption and forgiveness." Later in the segment, Hume said: "I think that Jesus Christ offers Tiger Woods something that Tiger Woods badly needs."
Calderone is right on the money here:
I don't think criticism was leveled at Hume over the past 24 hours or so simply for being a Christian, but more for what seemed like a jab at Buddhism. But apparently, Hume doesn't see pushing his own religion on air, while dismissing another, as proselytizing.
So how does Merriam-Webster define the word? Let's see: "to induce someone to convert to one's faith" or "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause."
How can Hume NOT be prosyletizing?