03/18/2010 05:12 am ET | Updated May 25, 2011

In Defense Of Brit Hume

So Brit Hume is a Christian who thinks Christianity offers something that Buddhism doesn't and thinks Tiger Woods should become a Christian as well -- and we're all supposed to be offended by this? Give me a break.

If you've read this space before you know how I feel about proselytizing -- I'm all for it and I think we need more, not less of it.

Every day I am proselytized by any number of people and products to give up my beliefs and go with theirs. Part of being human is the ability to consider various pitches by various people who are advocating for their "thing" and either stand firm in ones own beliefs or switch sides. When did that process of advocating for one's "thing" become bigoted?

I'm a nominal Yankees fan and have been since I was a kid. If my friend the Dodger fan tells me that the Dodgers are better than the Yankees and says I should switch sides, should I be offended and call him intolerant? If Avis runs an ad saying they're better than Budget, is that also offensive speech? If an American says he thinks America is the greatest country in the world is that hateful?

What we need are more, not fewer Brit Hume's in the public square, each advocating for their ideas and beliefs. Hume's defense of Christianity and his pointing out the alleged deficiencies of Buddhism are best answered not with whining and cries of intolerance, but with a vigorous and spirited defense of Buddhism by its advocates who owe it to us to answer Hume's charge and tell us why their faith is superior to Christianity and all the other religions they could have, but didn't, choose to believe in.