I’ve been thinking about Brit Hume’s controversial remarks on Fox News about Tiger Woods for two weeks now, trying to identify what was wrong with them. Not whether I agreed with them, or whether I would have said something similar myself, but what was wrong with them: did his comments suggesting a Christian path for the troubled golfer constitute a breach of professional ethics, or ethics generally?

For those of you who missed it, Hume, who is an occasional participant on Fox News since his retirement as news anchor, was participating in the roundtable discussion on “Fox News Sunday” about the week’s big stories when the topic turned to Tiger Woods.  Suggesting that Tiger was in need of some spiritual reinforcement (hardly a revolutionary idea when a married man andfather  has been leading a secret life of sexual liaisons with a double-digit number of strippers, cocktail waitresses, lap-dancers, call girls and lingerie models), Hume mentioned Woods’s supposed embrace of Buddhism, and said,  “I don’t think that faith offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith.” He then opined, “My message to Tiger would be: Tiger, turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

From the horrified reaction in the media, you would have thought Hume suggested that Woods shoot himself, or begin practicing cannibalism. Tom Shales, the Washington Post’s acidic TV critic, sputtered,

“Hume… sought to redefine the job of political pundit, apparently, when he stepped boldly up to the task of telling people what religious beliefs they ought to have….If Hume wants to do the satellite-age equivalent of going door-to-door and spreading what he considers the gospel, he should do it on his own time, not try to cross-pollinate religion and journalism and use Fox facilities to do it.”

Let us begin by pointing out to Shales that any discussion of Tiger Woods’s escapades and resulting image problems does not involve political expertise at all, so anything Hume had to say on the topic expanded his role automatically. George Will writes about baseball; Anderson Cooper chats about movies; Oprah talks about everything; Al Gore talks about science. These people give their opinions, and it is up to listeners and readers how much weight those opinions should have. They are paid to give their opinions, however, and there is nothing wrong with giving them on any topic that arises. Mentioning religion, religious values and religious activities is well within the limits of punditry, which are by their nature high, wide and deep.

We can disregard, then, Shales’ complaint that Hume somehow exceeded his expertise. What is left? That Hume was illicitly using his position to cross-pollinate journalism and religion, I suppose. This argument, however, relies on the assumption that religious arguments are, by some written law, banned from the marketplace of ideas. They are not. And again, a discussion of Tiger Woods involves punditry, not journalism. Shales was using a false standard, perhaps because the standards for journalism are much narrower, and would make his outrage more persuasive.

It is possible to abuse one’s position to proselytize, of course. Back in 2004, an American Airlines pilot lectured his captive passengers on religion, for example, but that is very different from what Hume did, for two reasons: giving his opinion on such matters, or any matter, was not remotely part of the pilot’s job description, and his passengers couldn’t turn him off. The same is true of singers who force their audiences to listen to political rants: this is a breach of trust. It is not a breach of trust, however, for a pundit to offer an opinion, however unexpected.

An opinion based on religious belief is as valid as an opinion based on anything else. If I explained on TV what I thought was unethical about Woods’ conduct based on my application of ethical principles, I doubt that Shales would have had the same negative reaction, but there would be little difference between my comment and Hume’s. He met all the requirements for an ethical expression of opinion. Was he candid? Yes. Was he civil? Yes. Was he addressing the issue at hand? Sure. Was he clear? Absolutely. Was it an honest opinion? Seems so. Was it good advice for Tiger? Only Woods could answer that.

Was it unwelcome? Who cares? At least Hume’s opinion was constructive, as opposed to the thousands of opinions registered regarding Tiger’s conduct that condemned him. Did Hume have a legitimate basis for his opinion? Yes, his personal experience, which is the basis of most opinions.

If Brit Hume had said that Woods needed to enter a “Twelve Step” addiction program, that would have presumably not ignited Shales wrath. Yet these programs rely heavily on acceptance of spiritual guidance from God. Would this be proselytizing, in Shales’ view? What if Hume, to bolster his credibility, told the personal story of how he had embraced the Christian faith? What line would that cross, if it were not irrelevant or overly long-winded? I just don’t see one.

Shales says that Hume needs to apologize for suggesting that Woods’ current faith isn’t doing the job. That’s laughable; it could hardly be more obvious that whatever faith or spiritual compass Tiger Woods has been using, it’s not working very well. Hume shouldn’t be attacked for making a reasonable conclusion and suggesting an alternative.

If Brit Hume transformed into Howard Beale, “the Mad Prophet of the Airwaves” from the film “Network,” and dragged God into every discussion and topic, that would be, if not unethical, really annoying, and I suspect that habit would limit his appearances severely. One sincere statement evoking religious faith as an option for a young man whose life appears to be falling apart, however, is not unreasonable, and cannot be called unethical.

Kind and courageous, perhaps, but not unethical.