Brit Hume, may God bless his soul, opined on television that Tiger Woods might consider Christianity rather than Buddhism for forgiveness and redemption.
This, of course, riled the politically correct mavens to react, once again, to any perceived offense, real or not.
In order to be believable, these scholars and pundits need to define their outrage and to do so by explaining why they believe that Christianity is an inferior religion in comparison to Buddhism or any other religion.
Maybe this exasperation is in response to the fact that political correctness adherents cannot find any reasonable, rational argument against Christianity's love, forgiveness and charitable behavior.
In a letter to the editor, a writer opined that "Hume should not use his position to tell other people their religion is not as good as his own." The questions on the table are: 1) whether or not Brit Hume told the audience the truth or 2) did he lie to the public?
I simply ask, does the PC crowd know the difference?
Another PC argument by the writer: "The rest of the country that doesn't believe in Christianity doesn't like being inundated with your beliefs all the time."
This is a ludicrous statement, because the writer assumes he knows what the rest of the country knows. I question the reality of that assumption. Secondly, he assumes that the rest of the country is being inundated with Christian beliefs. How does he know who is actually being inundated?
Brit Hume has no need to honor the request to keep his religious preferences private; nor do I. If you think this is an attack on political correctness -- it is.