News isn't the forum for proselytizing
Cal Thomas wrote in his column that Brit Hume's message reflects caring, not arrogance. Well, Mr. Thomas, I absolutely disagree - his attempt to proselytize on a national television news format is an arrogant act, make no mistake about it. If Mr. Hume's message had been that Tiger Woods turn to God, I would have less of an argument, but still an argument because a news format is not a venue for proselytizing.
Mr. Hume suggested that Tiger Woods turn to the Christian faith, but if he was Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, Sikh, Zoroastrian, or a member of any other of the world's religions and suggested that Tiger Woods turn to that religion, I would still find his comments arrogant. If Mr. Hume wants to proselytize, he can join the myriad television evangelists who have their own programs - or who still have their own programs, because so many of them have been caught committing acts that are not in keeping with what they preach that they have been forced to leave the airways.
Furthermore, Mr. Thomas, on a more personal note - the last paragraph of your column offended me. That New Testament Biblical passage (among others) has been used by righteous Christians as a rationalization for anti-Semitism and as an excuse for the forced conversions of non-Christians (Native Americans and native Africans, among others). A prime example of using the name of Jesus to justify acts of hatred or forced conversion is the Crusades, during which the Christians swept through Europe killing Muslims and Jews in the name of Jesus. Do you honestly think that Jesus would condone such acts? I don't.
Judith A. Carlson
Des Plaines