Sneering attacks on Brit Hume for suggesting that Tiger Woods should embrace Christianity are off base, writes Michael Gerson, and show his critics to be as ignorant and sanctimonious as they accuse him of being. The Fox host—despite his denials—was definitely proselytizing, but religious liberty in America means allowing believers to spread their views, Gerson writes in the Washington Post.
Hume, unlike his "spittle-flecked" attackers, was speaking from a genuine interest in Woods' well-being, Gerson argues. Hume's critics, he writes, appear to believe that broadcasters should be banned from mentioning their religious beliefs. "True tolerance consists in engaging deep disagreements respectfully through persuasion," Gerson writes, "not in banning certain categories of argument and belief from public debate."