In defense of Brit Hume

2) What he said was offensive to Buddhists and other non-Christians. Really? If non-Christians are really offended that many Christians believe that Christianity is true and wish that other people would adopt it, well, they need to get out more. If the argument is that they’re offended because he openly stated his view, then the question is why we should maintain an informal rule of social etiquette that forbids people from proclaiming their faith superior in important respects to other faiths. And the main reason to do that would seem to be, again, to avoid giving offense. Maybe people should just grow thicker skins instead. A Buddhist who is confident in his beliefs would know why he rejects Hume’s counsel and slough it off.

3) What he said was intolerant. It’s not intolerant for someone to express that someone else would adopt his belief system; otherwise attempts at persuasion would all be per se intolerant. If Christopher Hitchens, for example, is intolerant, it’s not because he hopes that other people will become atheists.