Bill O'Reilly insulted Christians on Fox News Channel when he referred to them Bible thumpers. While Zo agrees with O'Reilly to a degree, he is upset that O'Reilly adopted a very liberal attitude towards morality. Does defense of gay marriage really require national television hosts to ridicule the faithful? Hear more on the ZoNation.
For the last two weeks Bill O'Reilly has committed multiple journalistic mis-steps.
As long as he is allowed to define the terms of the narrative of what happened they will not be corrected. His failure to do so is a massive public relations problem and a mis-step in itself.
He owes a significant demo of his viewership an apology. He owes them one quickly so that his previously demonstrable prejudice against people of faith does not cause unintended long term effects.
"The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly said on his evening broadcast March 26, 2013. “The argument on the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”
The final half of that statement is erroneous. Some would assert--knowingly so. In saying it O'Reilly is either ignorant of the process, or negligent of the facts.
Laura Ingraham attempted to help him see as much on April 2, 2013, but the host ran over his guest and used her as a rhetorical punching bag. He also compounded the original problem.
"I made a very honest point... That if you're going to stand up for heterosexual marriage, and exclude gay marriage, if you're going to do that... You've got to do it outside the Bible. You can't cite the Bible. Because you'll lose if you do," O'Reilly attempted to explain.
When Ingraham very politely attempted to explain that the statement was itself disrespectful, the host went off.
"It's not disrespectful... In their private life they can. We're talking a policy deal here," O'Reilly shouted at Ingraham. "Don't you understand (eyes squinting with a soured look plastered on his face) the difference between private beliefs, and public policy? There was no insult at all to any Christian belief system in that comment. There was no insult!"
But Mr. O'Reilly there was, and you added another insult in the follow up with Ingraham. Here's where you went wrong:
In the first statement O'Reilly asserted that the side arguing in favor of leaving marriage defined as it has been for over 5000 years had done nothing but "thump the Bible." The term itself is always used derogatorily and usually in demeaning fashion to describe those who study sacred scripture, adopt its principles for their lives and attempt to be true to its meaning. It should be understood that the group O'Reilly was really describing wasn't any specific religion at all, but rather all people who are devout to the sacred moral law of their religious beliefs--be they Evangelical, Catholic, Orthodox, Jewish, Mormon, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. But O'Reilly is aware of the culture war, specifically measured out against Christians and as such he has to be aware of how the term is used to demean pro-family voters specifically.
His original statement is entirely inaccurate. In the Supreme Court arguments, and much more thoroughly in the many court cases leading up to it, and from the very earliest of the public debate over whether marriage should be changed and redefined, the pro-family side has always used abundant amounts of historical precedent, documented research, and case law to argue it's side. Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly just plain didn't pay attention, but Senior Counsel Paul Clement arguing on behalf of DOMA before the Supreme Court used specific previous historical precedent and case law to argue--for example--the federal government's right to limit the institution of marriage and the laws governing marriage. Clement rightfully argued that the federal government had banned polygamy, and in some cases expanded marital protections from the civil war era. These and other arguments had literally zero to do with the Bible, or even religious teaching.
By asserting that the Bible itself, and the moral code it argues for can not even be "cited" is to arrogantly ignore the will of the people of the nation, who base much of their life on the moral codes contained therein. It is also completely disingenuous. The original basis for most of our basic laws stem from the ten commandments. The original version of any form of recorded law is the Bible, and the founders of the United States sought the God of the Bible (Nature's God) in establishing the most moral system of law our world had ever seen. So to assert--as O'Reilly clearly did--that the Bible can not so much as even be a piece of the discussion ultimately dooms, what is largely an issue that is based on moral behavior, to be decided upon entirely secular or non-moral, amoral, or immoral viewpoints. To refuse even citation from the Bible, is to also arrogantly assume that 5000 years of humanity that observes its moral code from the Bible, was unenlightened and unworthy of a voice in a discussion as important as this.
By claiming that the citizens of this nation do not deserve a place in this debate is to misunderstand federalism and the individual's control of government in our representative Republic. But to assert that those citizens may only engage the debate if and only if they disallow the impact of their moral character, moral beliefs, and moral code to contribute to what in essence amounts to a discussion of morality is disrespectful--to most of America. Remember that in all but one state, where voters have been allowed to decide the matter of redefining marriage have the voters ever actually done so. Even in quite leftist states like California, the voters have--in overwhelming numbers--on multiple ballots--rejected the idea of redefining marriage. You also need to understand Mr. O'Reilly that people who live by the Bible, generally tend to allow it's impact to touch all areas of their lives, hence it's almost impossible for one to both believe the Bible privately and it not have an impact on all things in their lives publicly.
The idea of the First Amendment is to protect religious people and practice from coming under assault by the force of the federal government. But no where in our nation's founding, nor courts, has there ever been an idea upheld that said religious people can not participate in the governance of our nation.
Mr. O'Reilly, respectfully, you owe American Bible-believers an apology, but if you wouldn't listen to Limbaugh, Ingraham, or McCullough, at least listen to your instinct to hopefully not permanently injure your prospects with one of the most important demos to your show.
After all Bible-believers also firmly believe in... forgiveness!
Bill O'Reilly thinks to highly of himself. Bill talks over people, will not let anyone get a word in edgewise and attacks anyone who does not agree 100% with his viewpoint. This session with Laura Ingraham is NOT an isolated incident. Bill also defends Barack Obama on many issues which are indefensible. This is why I do NOT use Bill O'Reilly videos on this website. RG (WJF)
O’Reilly in a late March show said that gay marriage proponents have successfully defined it as a civil rights issue, which he called a “compelling” argument that social conservatives have yet to counter.
“The other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible,” O'Reilly said.
Rush Limbaugh took umbrage at this. On his own radio show last Wednesday (3/27/13), he took out after O’Reilly, calling him “Ted Baxter," after the pompous anchor from the old Mary Tyler Moore show.
O’Reilly had “marginalized” many religious Fox News viewers with his statement, said Mr. Limbaugh.
“A lot of them do have a very deeply held religious belief about what traditional marriage is,” said Ingraham.
O’Reilly countered that he was not insulting people’s religious belief.
“Why did you use the word ‘thump?’ ” asked Ingraham.
“Because that’s the way you get it across,” said O’Reilly.
Political Analyst, Michelle Fields, joins Bill O'Reilly and debates Attorney/Fox News Contributor, Anahita Sedaghatfar, as they examine shocking new federal stats involving the number of Americans on food stamps.
“This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future.” —Adolf Hitler, 1935
When I shout at the TV it’s usually because of one of these three reasons:
Noticing that Bob Beckel has just dyed his hair a shade of ginger that Carrot Top would eschew. What shade is that, man? Clairol’s “Rusted Barn Pipe” especially blended for the sassy progressive?
Seeing Roseanne Barr on the tube braying her insanity, on any subject, will also get me throwing cigar ashtrays at my flat screen and howling like a Bluetick on a fresh coon track.
And lastly, always guaranteed to get a screech out of me, is when I happen to see Jan Crouch sitting on a gold TBN pagoda sporting a wig that makes her the envy of RuPaul.
However, this past week I was hollering at Bill O’Reilly. Normally, I respect and enjoy Bill’s take on pressing issues, but OMG was O’Reilly out in leftist field on the guns and ammo issue.
On Monday, July 23rd’s Talking Points, O’Reilly made some outrageous and erroneous statements about guns and gun purchases. They were so misleading that I was wondering if Michael Moore was moonlighting as a writer for The Factor.
Initially Bill got off to a good start stating, “[Bill] Moyers has no clue, no clue at all. He apparently believes that federal and state governments can actually control gun crimes. That’s so dumb it hurts.” But then he follows up this statement with some of the most uninformed Talking Points that I have witnessed on his show, and yes, I am a regular viewer. Check it out …
O’Reilly: “Anyone who sells a heavy weapon or ammo should be compelled to report the sale to the FBI. It’s a felony if you don’t. That’s what we should have in the U.S.A. and it just makes sense in this age of terrorism. Right now some gun dealers do background checks but nobody reports the sale of heavy weapons like AK-47s to the feds. That’s insane.”
Bill, if you purchase an AK-47 today at a gun store, you will be required to fill out Federal Form 4473. On this form, you will answer a barrage of questions about your criminal history and citizenship. On page 2, section D, the form lists the type, model number, manufacturer, serial number, etc. of the firearm that is being purchased.
If a licensed gun dealer does not accurately complete this form, he would face penalties up to and including prison time. All dealers are required to complete this form for every firearm purchase. This form is a BATFE form, and if they do not talk to the FBI, then that is a problem between those agencies and not gun purchasers.
As it relates to purchases of ammo, the idea that one would report the hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition sold yearly would take an army of federal employees to process the information. I would wager that they would catch as many criminals as the TSA has caught potential terrorists by groping Granny. However, they would be able to compile a great list of people like me who shoot regularly and buy their ammunition in bulk. That list would include my cowboy action shooting friends, trap and skeet shooters, prairie dog hunters, individual police officers, military personnel, gun collectors, reloaders and so on. Keeping lists of law-abiding citizens does not stop killers bent on bedlam.
Bill’s next ditty was so outrageous that it is near impossible to comment on without laughing. O’Reilly: “Terrorists could just move in here, buy bazookas and the FBI doesn’t know about it. Here is how crazy this is. If you take a flight lesson, the feds get a heads up. But you can buy a machine gun and they don’t know.”
Bazookas and machine guns are commonly referred to as class III weapons and/or destructive devices, which require a very special license to own. Yep, it’s a wee bit different than buying a Ruger 10/22. The “Feds” have been licensing machine guns since 1934. To own a machine gun, one must first live in a state where it is legal, and then complete a Federal licensing process that, as I understand, takes a few months. On top of the aforementioned, get ready to drop about ten grand because the manufacturing of new guns has been banned for years. To the best of my knowledge, only one legally owned machine gun has been used in a crime in the U.S. since 1934, and the owner was a member of the law enforcement community.
Another thing I was howling over was O’Reilly calling an AK-47 a “heavy weapon.” Heavy weapon? Uh … not hardly. Granted, I wouldn’t want any round from a .22LR up inside of my body, but the pipsqueak little 7.62x39 is hardly considered a heavy caliber by anyone who knows anything about guns.
Then to cap off Bill’s misinformation, the following night O’Reilly stepped in it again by wrongfully asserting that the Aurora jackwagon who shot up the theater ordered “60,000 rounds of ammo over the Internet.” Bill screamed that several times … “60,000 rounds!” Wrong again. Holmes ordered 6,000 rounds, and not one ton of ammo.
Look, folks can try to ban semi-automatic weapons and limit ammo sales all day long, but criminals will always be able to get their paws on them. The only thing that would have stopped James Holmes would have been a bullet to his head by an armed citizen who, in this case, was unfortunately banned from entering the theater.
“After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it.”
William S. Burroughs
This piece was co-authored by Steve Sheldon.
“Obama Loves Us This We Know, For He Allows Our Businesses To Grow.”
Bill O"Reilly defines in very clear terms EXACTLY what has happened in regards to the SCOTUS ruling on "Obamacare" and the 'contempt of court' vote for Attorney General Eric Holder in the "Fast and Furious" case. Which direction do the American people want to go in the future of our country?
A recent Pew research Center poll indicates that 31% of Americans aged 18-29 disagree with the existence of God. Bill sits down with Daily Caller Reporter, Michelle Fields, and Fox News Contributor, Leslie Marshall as they provide analysis on why this trend is taking place and what its possible effects could be for America.
Bill O'Reilly insulted Christians on Fox News Channel when he referred to them Bible thumpers. While Zo agrees with O'Reilly to a degree, he is upset that O'Reilly adopted a very liberal attitude towards morality. Does defense of gay marriage really require national television hosts to ridicule the faithful? Hear more on the ZoNation.
For the last two weeks Bill O'Reilly has committed multiple journalistic mis-steps.
Bill O'Reilly thinks to highly of himself. Bill talks over people, will not let anyone get a word in edgewise and attacks anyone who does not agree 100% with his viewpoint. This session with Laura Ingraham is NOT an isolated incident. Bill also defends Barack Obama on many issues which are indefensible. This is why I do NOT use Bill O'Reilly videos on this website. RG (WJF)
Political Analyst, Michelle Fields, joins Bill O'Reilly and debates Attorney/Fox News Contributor, Anahita Sedaghatfar, as they examine shocking new federal stats involving the number of Americans on food stamps.
Bill O"Reilly defines in very clear terms EXACTLY what has happened in regards to the SCOTUS ruling on "Obamacare" and the 'contempt of court' vote for Attorney General Eric Holder in the "Fast and Furious" case. Which direction do the American people want to go in the future of our country?
