How Bill O'Reilly Sleeps at Night

In 2002, I was on The O'Reilly Factor to discuss why the media were so lustily attacking Martha Stewart for insider trading while men involved in much larger financial scandals, like Enron's Kenneth Lay and Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski, were relatively ho-hummed off the stage. When O'Reilly and I wrapped up our little skirmish, he smiled and told me off air, "People love this stuff!"

For anyone who's ever watched O'Reilly, there's nothing surprising about his cynical suggestion that it's all for show (maybe it's a mild jolt that he thought even a leftwing lunatic like me might enjoy performing in his theater of conflict, as if being bullied were a chance to preen for the camera). Besides, acknowledging that he tries only to provide the overwrought bluster the Foxy masses crave doesn't prove that O'Reilly doesn't believe everything that comes out of his mouth.

But it does make you wonder about how casually he takes on beliefs. Monday night, in defending himself from charges that as the leader of the "Tiller the Baby Killer" media attack, O'Reilly played the "Words don't kill people, guns do" media defense. (Although O'Reilly is quick to blame the liberal media's words for all sorts of violence and mayhem, as Keith Olbermann points out.)

O'Reilly briefly explained--after Dr. George Tiller was murdered, not before--why vigilantism and murdering those with whom you disagree is wrong. Then, he spent the rest of the four minutes bolstering his story--"no back-pedaling here...every single thing we said about Tiller was true"--and performing the old "I'm the victim" Fox-trot. "When I heard about Tiller's murder," he said, "I knew pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters would attempt to blame us for the crime, and that is exactly what has happened."

I especially like the part where he plays the scientist: "My analysis was based on those facts." "Facts" like these about Tiller, as Salon found:

He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida, he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.

While attempting to legally cover his butt, O'Reilly has come closer than anyone in the media in calling for something to be done about Tiller:

And if I could get my hands on Tiller--well, you know. Can't be vigilantes. Can't do that. It's just a figure of speech.

But despicable? Oh, my God. Oh, it doesn't get worse. Does it get worse? No.

Of course, as long as O'Reilly doesn't directly tell an individual to commit violence, he has the freedom of speech to go right up to that line, and then scurry away.

While O'Reilly takes on "far left zealots" like former 60 Minutes producer Mary Mapes and the Daily News's Helen Kennedy (who had the nerve to call his Tiller attacks "rants"), he carefully doesn't address Frank Schaeffer, the former religious right activist who now, with almost painful honesty, writes, "I share the blame (with many others) for the murder of Dr. George Tiller."

Schaeffer also says that many of the anti-abortion groups and media figures who are publicly distancing themselves from Tiller's murder are likely popping open the champagne in private. In other words, he demolishes the whole "words don't kill" charade:

But Bill doesn't--or won't--see responsiblity and morality in such nuanced terms. I think he's perfectly capable of understanding moral gray grounds. But it wouldn't be the sort of stuff that people love.

Comments (55)

1. So I guess technically...

   Joseph Goebbels bears little or no responsibility for the Nazi atrocities?

   A stretch? Well, Goebbels PERSONALLY didn't kill anybody (that we know). He was merely Propaganda Minister, no military or policy authority.

   If Goebbels was merely saying he'd like to "get his hands" on some Jews and called them despicable...but never personally went after any....

   I guess he'd have been in the clear at Nuremburg?

   BTW, I explicity acknowledge this violation of "Godwin's Law"...but after all...

   O'Loufa Bill started it.

   Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 7:05pm

2. Does anyone know whether O'R is a member of Opus Dei? He sure behaves like it.

   Posted by sloper at 06/02/2009 @ 7:55pm

3. Should I be impressed or bored, with (I believe) 4 blog postings by The Nation on this abortion doctor's killing?

   Let's see what else went on This Week....

   An Air France plane went down w/unknown causes...

   A black Islamic nutjob kills 1 and wounds another soldier, but not a peep from The Nation.....isn't this a political, "Clash of Civilization" type `news' worthy of a posting, or two, or three?

   Gubber Motors became a reality at a cool $50 billion IPO but the underwriter deftly stole ALL but 10% of the shares.

   Nobody wants Gitmo closed but the Messiah's hardcore disciples......and no country wants their own Gitmo guests back.

   Gold on the cusp of $1,000.....hip, hip, hooray!

   Oil approaching $70 per bbl.....double hip, hip, hip, hip, hooray, hooray!

   Oh, back on topic, I worry how O'Reilly Sleeps at Night about as much as I worry how Magic sleeps at night!

   Posted by Happy at 06/02/2009 @ 7:58pm

4. here's one for you happy:

   timothy geithner: chinese assets are very safe.

   chinese students: hahahahahahaha!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2009 @ 8:06pm

5. Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2009 @ 8:06pm

   We both saw, surely, the photo of the two sides sitting across the lonnnnng table. I could literally see what they are thinking....."Amateurs! Change We Can Believe In!"

   Posted by Happy at 06/02/2009 @ 8:40pm

6. So if some nutcase kills Bill O'Reilly it's Leslie Savan's fault. At least partially? Why isn't Keith Olberman more restrained about his verbal attacks if the left is so concerned about violence? If Miss California was murdered by some lunatic would it be Perez-Hilton's fault? Why do you want to publicize American "torture" when just mentioning (falsely) that a Koran was burned caused deaths? When you criticize O'Relly for this death do you even try to think criticaly and honestly or does your left wing just spasm into your keyboard?

   Posted by iktinos at 06/02/2009 @ 9:18pm

7. Well, who cares how that or this guy sleeps at night? But surely the jews will lose the sleep as the get to know real Obama.

   ----------

   The Emergence of President Obama's Muslim Roots June 02, 2009 6:58 PM ABC News' Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report: The other day we heard a comment from a White House aide that never would have been uttered during the primaries or general election campaign.

   During a conference call in preparation for President Obama's trip to Cairo, Egypt, where he will address the Muslim world, deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications Denis McDonough said "the President himself experienced Islam on three continents before he was able to -- or before he's been able to visit, really, the heart of the Islamic world -- you know, growing up in Indonesia, having a Muslim father -- obviously Muslim Americans (are) a key part of Illinois and Chicago."

   Posted by HelenDAO at 06/02/2009 @ 9:24pm

8. sure thing, helen.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 06/02/2009 @ 10:32pm

9. Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 7:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   Abortion doctors committing genicide= Nazis death camp doctors

   Fox News TV personality Bill O'Reilly = Nazis propaganda ministers

   Small world eh MASK = Churchill remarks on 9-11!

   Posted by BigPasture at 06/02/2009 @ 11:57pm

10. Well, blaming Bilious for Dr. Tiller's death may seem to some like appropriate outrage, but given our First Amendment rights, it seems quite a stretch to me.

    Nonetheless, one would have to be completely lobotomized to miss the irony in the fact that this pompous, self-serving, hypocritical bag of shit constantly harangues the lefty blogs for creating an atmosphere of hate.

    He is a Lewis Carroll character on steroids.

    Posted by drhammer at 06/03/2009 @ 07:55am

11. Posted by BigPasture at 06/02/2009 @ 11:57pm

    Like I said, RIO....O'Reilly started it. If he and you want Nazi references, I'll go toe-to-toe on them.

    Plus YOU were blaming the VICTIM of the Tiller murder and linking him to Nazis....just like Ward Churchill.

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 08:13am

12. Abortion doctors committing genicide Posted by BigPasture at 06/02/2009 @ 11:57pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    boy, are you dumb. genicide? hahahahahaha

    Posted by emile duBois at 06/03/2009 @ 09:19am

13. 'Why can't we all just get along?' -- Rodney King

    ' .."I don't regret setting bombs," Bill Ayers said. "I feel we didn't do enough."...He writes that he participated in the bombings ... of the Capitol building in 1971, the Pentagon in 1972.... "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon,"...So, would Mr. Ayers do it all again, he is asked? "I don't want to discount the possibility," he said....' -- New York Times -- 11 September, 2001 -- Dinitia Smith

    Posted by HonestLiberal at 06/03/2009 @ 11:02am

14. This article takes Mr. O out of context and it's target audience obviously will never know the truth because they don't watch O'Reilly. To say O'Reilly is at fault is like blaming song lyrics or TV violence for real life violence; it's just stupid. Tillers killer was a right wing loon and about as far right as the author is far left. O'Reilly is a patriot and the author is a Pin Head.

    Posted by Dave_ATL at 06/03/2009 @ 11:19am

15. Posted by Dave_ATL at 06/03/2009 @ 11:19am

    Sure....When Bill O'Loufa said he wanted to "get his hands on" George Tiller, he simply meant he wanted to give him a hug. Wasn't a threat!

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 12:47pm

16. James Taranto of the WSJ found some blog posts from the killer singling out Dr. Tiller from a couple years ago. This guy has been obsessed with Tiller for years. I doubt that any TV personality drove the killer over the edge. The killer has been a part of radical anti-abortion political groups for years. What was or wasn't said on TV had nothing to do with the killer's decision to murder.

    What would drive a person to vigilantism? A feeling of powerlessness or hopelessness. If the killer thought that he could enact positive change through the democratic process, I suspect he wouldn't have resorted to murder. But since a handful of unelected judges abrogated themselves the power to remove the issue of abortion from the political process in 1973 by making up new parts to the Constitution to suit thier own political opinions, a lot of passionate people have felt powerless to effect change. This is what drives people to terrorism.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 1:39pm

17. Profile of the Sociopath This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

    Glibness and Superficial Charm

    Manipulative and Conning

    They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

    Grandiose Sense of Self

    Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."

    Pathological Lying

    Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

    Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt

    A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

    Shallow Emotions

    When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/03/2009 @ 2:01pm

18. I have to agree with righties on this one. Even though Billo railed against the guy, there is really no sane logic whereby he can be blamed. Its just silly, to even bring him up about it.

    I also agree with Happy above and think this topic for the Nation is starting to get a little played out.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/03/2009 @ 2:05pm

19. no sane logic whereby he can be blamed. Its just silly, to even bring him up about it.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/03/2009 @ 2:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Like Olberman said - if a TV celebrity has no influence over the viewing public, why do we have commercials.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/03/2009 @ 2:36pm

20. Surprise, surprise....

    O'Reilly is backpedalling.

    Now saying "I wasn't calling Tiller a 'killer'...I was merely repeating what the pro-lifers were calling him!"

    Like a kid who's mom is reaching for the soap to wash his mouth out!

    Bad enough when he was a slimer and a liar...now he's gutless. But...we knew that, didn't we?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 2:45pm

21. Now saying "I wasn't calling Tiller a 'killer'...I was merely repeating what the pro-lifers were calling him!"

    Like a kid who's mom is reaching for the soap to wash his mouth out!

    Bad enough when he was a slimer and a liar...now he's gutless. But...we knew that, didn't we?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 2:45pm

    That's what people get for listening to a moderate (O'Reilly).

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 3:24pm

22. That's what people get for listening to a moderate (O'Reilly).

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 3:24pm

    Funny how the word "moderate" has become the new perjorative of the Repubican Party...

    "If you ain't a radical, you ain't a Republican!"

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2009 @ 3:36pm

23. Like I said, RIO....O'Reilly started it. If he and you want Nazi references, I'll go toe-to-toe on them.

    Plus YOU were blaming the VICTIM of the Tiller murder and linking him to Nazis....just like Ward Churchill.

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 08:13am | ignore this person | warn this person

    "Obamanation like" you try to sweeten your obvious bias and hypocrisy with more LIES!

    Which is more Nazis like murdering thousands of unborn babies with foreceps or commenting against the offending abortionist operating without moral conscience?

    Why do you hate the unborn so much?

    Why do you and Churchill thrill so much at the deaths of defenseless innocent victims rather than the offenders?

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/03/2009 @ 4:10pm

24. Funny how the word "moderate" has become the new perjorative of the Repubican Party...

    "If you ain't a radical, you ain't a Republican!"

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2009 @ 3:36pm

    It's always been a perjorative in my view. Moderates by self-definition do not believe in anything.

    To me it's like the view Jesus has of lukewarm Christians. He said that He vomits them out because they are lukewarm.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 4:44pm

25. How many Docs are driving U-Haul's back to Quebec right now because their former hospital's won't be serving any more customers from the nearby plant in Detroit?

    Posted by snowball666 at 06/03/2009 @ 12:13pm

    In choosing between two unkown quantities, say, hemoroid cream A vs. hemoroid cream B, a person may be indifferent and a celebrity endorsement can "tip the scale". It is quite a different thing to say a celebrity endorsement can tip the scale between murder and not murder.

    Contra Oberman, if celebrity endorsements are all that powerful, where are Presidents Gore and Kerry?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 5:16pm

26. Like Olberman said - if a TV celebrity has no influence over the viewing public, why do we have commercials.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/03/2009 @ 2:36pm

    Sorry Snowball, the post above is in response to Onevote

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 5:19pm

27. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 4:44pm </i>

    First off, that's a plain misuse of the verse. Your assumption that moderate=lukewarm is simply false; the fact that moderates don't go to extremes doesn't mean they don't hold beliefs passionately. It means they can appreciate both the need to weigh conflicting values and the fallibility of human beings. To conflate being moderate with being unprincipled makes no sense.

    Moreover, on the quote...Revelation said he said that. It's also completely against what the Gospels say, on two levels. First, Jesus rails at people for being hypocritical or judgmental, not for "not being radical enough." Second, and more fundamentally, the suggestion that moderates are not only problematic but are bile in Jesus' mouth is about about as contrary to the love of Jesus as it's possible to get; it's like suggesting that someone is a stench in the nostril of God. I hate to be so blunt about it, but that statement is a cruel lie because it tells someone that God hates them when that could not possibly be further from the truth.

    So...I think the tally now is that we've reached significant theological contradiction # 2. Though Paul speaks eloquently of grace, he tries to limit it. The author of Revelation tries to narrow grace as well, though in a different way. This is yet another nail in the coffin for inerrancy.

    By the way...this is precisely why I think inerrancy can be so corrosive. In addition to being so fragile that a faith contingent on it can easily break, it allows one to get behind principles which run contrary to the core of Jesus' message.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/03/2009 @ 5:25pm

28. Keep an eye on Glenn Beck, too. His multiple rants and fake-crying jags against unseen - and often vaguely identified - enemies, are specifically intended to fire up the unhinged right wing. And his 9/12 Project is a direct invitation to the loons out there, to join in his secret plan of retribution, and to then unveil something 'big' on 9/12. It plays like a dare to any nut-job, a goad to try something violent on 9/12.

    The networks who carry these creeps and sociopaths should be ashamed of themselves.

    Posted by subtext at 06/03/2009 @ 5:29pm

29. capt. cluster, jebus vomiting is by far the most entertaining thing you have ever contributed to this site. Now i have the indeliable image of a messiah who can't handle his wine seared into my brain. "that guy must have been drunk 24/7" Peter griffin after imbiding in jebus' blood.

    Posted by entropy at 06/03/2009 @ 5:30pm

30. To me it's like the view Jesus has of lukewarm Christians. He said that He vomits them out because they are lukewarm.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 4:44pm

    Did you happen to see the X-Files episode in season 7 that dealt with this Bible verse?

    It's very well done. If you look for anti-religious bias from Hollywood, it's easy to think the episode is anti-religious, but I don't think so. I think it's anti-lukewarm religion

    http://www.twiztv.com/scripts/thexfiles/season7/thexfiles-709.txt

    Signs and Wonders 7x09 (7xAB09)

    US Airdate: January 23, 2000

    Written by Jeffrey Bell Directed by Kim Manners

    **************************************************************

    Below is the script of two pastors preaching the verse you cited, followed by Mulder's final "conclusion" when it is revealed that the "lukewarm" pastor was actually Satan.

    (Rev O'Connor is a snake handler; Rev Mackey is actually the serpent.)

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 5:40pm

31. REVEREND O'CONNOR: (voice) Our God is a fearsome God.

    MAN: (voice) Amen!

    REVEREND O'CONNOR: (voice) He demands our very lives!

    (Inside the church, REVEREND O'CONNOR is reading from the Bible.)

    REVEREND O'CONNOR: Revelations Three, the 16th verse. "'Tis better to be hot or cold than lukewarm."

    (Congregation shouts affirmation.)

    REVEREND O'CONNOR: (laughing with joy) God says, if you're lukewarm He will vomit you out of His mouth.

    CONGREGATION: Praise God!

    REVEREND O'CONNOR: Yes! Did you hear what I said?!

    CONGREGATION: Praise God! Yes!

    REVEREND O'CONNOR: God hates the lukewarm!

    CUT TO:

    (REVEREND MACKEY's Bible study class. They are sitting in a nice calm circle.)

    REVEREND MACKEY: (reading from another, more "modern" version of the Bible) "So, because you are lukewarm I am about to spit you out of my mouth." Now, that could sound pretty harsh, couldn't it? I mean, depending on how one reads it. But if we put this verse in a historical context I think we'll see that John was specifically addressing the problems of the Church at Laodicea.

    [Conclusion of episode]

    (Days later. MULDER's hospital room. His [snake] bites are healing. SCULLY enters and sits on the edge of his bed.)

    MULDER: Mackey?

    SCULLY: Still no trace... even though every law enforcement agency in Tennessee's out looking for him.

    MULDER: They won't find him. People think the devil has horns and a tail. They're not used to looking for some kindly man who tells you what you want to hear.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 5:40pm

32. By the way...this is precisely why I think inerrancy can be so corrosive. In addition to being so fragile that a faith contingent on it can easily break, it allows one to get behind principles which run contrary to the core of Jesus' message.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/03/2009 @ 5:25pm

    This is further evidence that sadly leads me to conclude you probably are not a born again Christian. It would explain why you so often believe you find discrepancies or contradictions where there are none.

    1st, though I've seen people make your claim, they have yet to provide a single verse from Paul that contradicts Jesus. Nor could they since as Paul notes, he was taught not by man, but by Jesus.

    As to the lukewarm, Jesus made it abundantly clear that he would have nothing to do with the lukewarm in the gospels.

    Mark 8:34,35

    "He said to them, "Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me.

    For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel's will save it."

    Luke 13:23-27

    Then one said to Him, "Lord, are there few who are saved?" And He said to them,

    Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.

    When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, 'Lord, Lord, open for us,' and He will answer and say to you, 'I do not know you, where you are from,' then you will begin to say, 'We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.'

    But He will say, 'I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity."

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 5:49pm

33. enough of the fucking jesus shit!

    Posted by entropy at 06/03/2009 @ 5:54pm

34. Thrawn,

    Let me add to why I came to the conclusion about your relationship to Christ.

    We are promised that when we receive the Holy Spirit after being born again, that we will have the ability through the Holy Spirit to understand all of the revealed wisdom of G-d.

    You repeat the identical arguments as those who dismiss all of scripture as possibly being the word of G-d, including all of the words of Jesus.

    The seeming contradictions all seem to stem from your inability to acknowledge a G-d that can eternally punish rebellion.

    At no time did Jesus ever criticize or abolish the OT commandments from G-d that 1)no one is righteous on their own, 2)the soul that sins will die, 3)G-d, not man determines what sin is.

    That knowledge of sin and judgment made clear to all mankind that everyone deserves death. No one lives without sinning. The mercy of G-d is thus demonstrated that while all mankind deserves death, and G-d doesn't desire to see anyone in hell, mercy gave a way so that at least some might be saved.

    Furthermore as evidenced by the gospels including the example in my previous post, Jesus not only did not state that judgment was no longer a fear for mankind, but He spoke more on Judgment than He did on love. Not because He loves judgment and sending people to Hell. But because He repeatedly showed how mankind is trying to be righteous on their own terms or that their lack of submission to G-d will separate them from the love that G-d the Father offered through His Son.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 6:03pm

35. Contra Oberman, if celebrity endorsements are all that powerful, where are Presidents Gore and Kerry?

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 5:16pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    As I recall, it was a pretty close race in 2000. Amazing what "advertising money" can do.

    'The George W. Bush presidential campaign and the Republican National Committee have drawn even with Vice President Al Gore and the Democratic Party's spending, by dramatically increasing spending on television ads since Labor Day. At the same time, the Bush campaign and RNC have shifted their focus to include at least some states previously thought to be solid Republican strongholds.'

    Excerpt:

    Bush Campaign Spending Increases; Draws Even With Gore Battle Shifts to Republican Turf - Florida, Norht Carolina

    September 19, 2000; Brennan Center for Justice

    Posted by OneVote at 06/03/2009 @ 6:15pm

36. Posted by OneVote at 06/03/2009 @ 6:15pm

    OV, the issue was the efficy of celebrity endorsements; not the power of all advertising.

    Further, Gore got close? Isn't it unbelieveable that Bush got close? Eight years of a popular Dem President; a booming economy for 7 straight years; no national security issues; the only "threat" is global warming, which is Gore's signature issue; and he's running against a retarded cowboy. How the hell was this race close?

    Gore had 10 celebrity endorsements for Bush's Pat Sajak, Wayne Newton, and the wife on Everybody Loves Raymond.

    If celebrity endorsements were powerful enough to change people's minds (about voting or murder) Gore would be President. At most, they will sway you on hemoroid cream A vs. hemoroid cream B.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 6:24pm

37. What self-respecting author goes on O'Reilly's show anyway? Of course he's an entertainer. Were you surprised to find that out?

    If someone is going to blame O'Reilly for the death of Tiller, then maybe they should also blame those who have given him so much power: viewers; listeners; publishers; and, yes, pundits who appear on his show. They are part of his act, as the lion is to the lion-tamer, and just as complicit in the deterioration of American discourse.

    Posted by heelstriker73 at 06/03/2009 @ 6:56pm

38. How Bill O. sleeps at night?

    Why, alone, of course.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 06/03/2009 @ 6:57pm

39. They are part of his act, as the lion is to the lion-tamer, and just as complicit in the deterioration of American discourse.

    Posted by heelstriker73 at 06/03/2009 @ 6:56pm

    Agreed. I would also add American values. These people are leeches on our society.

    Posted by Milhaus at 06/03/2009 @ 7:34pm

40. the nutters are out on this one. Three cheers for Dr. Tiller for being brave enough to stand up to the crazies for as long as he did. Clearly, he understood that being the target of crazies was a risk.

    O'reilly and all of the other right wing radio and tv loonies are at least culpable for creating an atmosphere of violence directed toward those with whom they disagree.

    Of course, O'reilly is not directly responsible for this particular nutter; he's indirectly responsible for creating an atmosphere.

    As with all the O'reillies out there, he is a traitor to our country and would never put his life on the line to defend it.

    Posted by erazma at 06/03/2009 @ 8:03pm

41. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 6:03pm </i>

    I find your response here rather odd given that inerrancy is a relative newcomer in theological discourse. No one in the early Church believed the Biblical texts to be inerrant, nor did anyone at the Council of Nicea. Certainly, texts were screened for quality (poor-quality ones were thrown out), but they were NEVER screened with the assumption that only inerrant ones could make it through.

    Moreover, simply stating that there are no contradictions is insufficient, especially when the Catholic Church itself has recognized that these texts are not infallible. So let's talk about them:

    1) Can a fornicator get to heaven? You have yet to respond to this. Paul clearly says no, Jesus equally clearly says yes. It's not just that their statements are divergent, it's that the grounds for their statements are mutually exclusive. In other words, this isn't a silly quarrel about detail, it's a fundamental tension.

    The Book of James contains similar errors as those verses you yourself have mentioned from Paul.

    2) Does God hate moderates? Putting aside my reasons for why your understanding of moderation was just false, let's look at the texts you cite. The very last verse you cite doesn't vindicate your point, nor do those before it. None of them state that God despises moderates. One refers to a "narrow gate" that may or may not be salvation (the non-condemnation of an adulteress, for instance, makes one wonder). The only one that's even close is the one about taking up one's cross, and the way you're interpreting it, it would mean that anyone who is not a martyr goes to hell, something Jesus never meant. Why do I say that? Because that would be salvation by works.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/03/2009 @ 8:06pm

42. <i>Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 6:03pm </i>

    We are promised no such thing. Were your understanding correct, there'd never be meaningful debate in the theological community; there would be X right answer and anyone who disagreed would be "not a true Christian."

    Also, your position says "you either have to have inerrancy or reject Christianity." Besides the oddness of this argument given the overwhelming historical tradition that REJECTS inerrancy, your kind of argument is precisely why inerrancy is so destructive. Imagine that someone is told the Bible is inerrant. Imagine also that this person is not intellectually sophisticated. Someone comes up to them and says "look, passage X and passage Y contradict each other." They go "huh, that really does seem to be the case." The options you give them are either to suspend reason or to abandon faith.

    Your position also strengthens many of the objections people have because it begs some serious questions. The question is not whether God can eternally punish rebellion (though that IS an interesting question, actually, if the punishment is infinite). The real question is whether an all-LOVING God can eternally punish rebellion.

    Here's the other thing you've never dealt with. According to your Atonement theory, Jesus died on the cross and atoned for all of humankind's sin. If that's the case...there's nothing left to punish. If I do something bad, but you take my punishment for me, under no rational system would the guy turn to me and go "you didn't explicitly accept his gift and thank him? All right, your turn now." The only way I can possibly take the punishment is if I march up to the guy who punished you and said "no no, punish me anyway."

    Inerrancy is theologically and philosophically incoherent.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/03/2009 @ 8:15pm

43. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 6:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Nope Darin - the issue is does TV have power to affect people's opinions, including prejudices, fear, intolerance, etc. The answer is yes.

    Your equating O'Reilly to a Hollywood picture star endorsement - if thats what you are trying to do, isn't even worthy of discussion. O'Reilly is broadcast into living rooms constantly 5 or 6 days a week (don't know cause I don't watch the idiot), and his show's focus is political and social commentary.

    Now take someone like Oprah - who does talk show. You don't think she had an influence on Obama's popularity? Seems like right wingers couldn't stop talking about that for months.

    Posted by OneVote at 06/03/2009 @ 8:25pm

44. Moreover, simply stating that there are no contradictions is insufficient, especially when the Catholic Church itself has recognized that these texts are not infallible. So let's talk about them:

    1) Can a fornicator get to heaven? You have yet to respond to this. Paul clearly says no, Jesus equally clearly says yes. It's not just that their statements are divergent, it's that the grounds for their statements are mutually exclusive. In other words, this isn't a silly quarrel about detail, it's a fundamental tension.

    The Book of James contains similar errors as those verses you yourself have mentioned from Paul.

    2) Does God hate moderates? Putting aside my reasons for why your understanding of moderation was just false, let's look at the texts you cite. The very last verse you cite doesn't vindicate your point, nor do those before it. None of them state that God despises moderates. One refers to a "narrow gate" that may or may not be salvation (the non-condemnation of an adulteress, for instance, makes one wonder). The only one that's even close is the one about taking up one's cross, and the way you're interpreting it, it would mean that anyone who is not a martyr goes to hell, something Jesus never meant. Why do I say that? Because that would be salvation by works.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/03/2009 @ 8:06pm

    Inerrancy is theologically and philosophically incoherent.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/03/2009 @ 8:15pm

    I can't post a response right now, my honey is calling. But i will make sure to respond to these issues that you don't understand.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 9:47pm

45. If you don't even give a thought to the innummerable wackos on the streets who go around saying they are god, why on earth would you believe some guy who went around saying it two thousand years ago?

    Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2009 @ 11:33pm

46. Like I said, RIO....O'Reilly started it. If he and you want Nazi references, I'll go toe-to-toe on them.

    Plus YOU were blaming the VICTIM of the Tiller murder and linking him to Nazis....just like Ward Churchill.

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 08:13am | ignore this person | warn this person

    "Obamanation like" you try to sweeten your obvious bias and hypocrisy with more LIES!

    Which is more Nazis like murdering thousands of unborn babies with foreceps or commenting against the offending abortionist operating without moral conscience?

    Why do you hate the unborn so much?

    Why do you and Churchill thrill so much at the deaths of defenseless innocent victims rather than the offenders?

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/03/2009 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Mask did you drift off, or just missed my questions?

    Posted by BigPasture at 06/03/2009 @ 11:47pm

47. <i>Posted by Balrog at 06/03/2009 @ 11:33pm </i>

    We generally try to distinguish between someone who merely asserts something and someone who asserts it and is then vindicated.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/04/2009 @ 12:35am

48. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 06/03/2009 @ 5:40pm

    Interesting, Darin. Given what you've said about fundamentalist/evangelical/conservative Christianity in the past?!?!??!

    "So, Darin, essentially like "the religion of environmentalism"....you're saying the fundamentalist Christian eschatology ("End Times") stuff is just as bogus?"---Posted by MASK 02/26/2008 @ 09:12am

    "Well, sort of. Maybe it's more like astrology were vague predictions inevitably come true."---Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 02/26/2008 @ 09:42am

    Posted by Mask at 06/04/2009 @ 07:52am

49. <i>Posted by snowball666 at 06/04/2009 @ 09:40am </i>

    Hahaha. Nicely done. :D

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/04/2009 @ 10:17am

50. Heehee.

    It wasn't until 1966 that a MARRIED couple (let alone a single person) could legally buy a condom in Connecticut - and it took a Supreme Court decision to accomplish it. I was already married three years and had to buy condoms in NYC>

    Mother Church opposed condoms (remember Vatican roulette?) - and then birth control pills and all other forms of birth control.

    Sherri Finkbein had to travel to Sweden for abortion of a Thalidomide fetus - one with one arm and no legs. She lost her job and was hounded and harassed by "demonstrators" at her home.

    I support choice - but I also support birth control education including abstinence, easier adoption and financial/medical assistance for those women who decide to go forward with their pregnancies. I would pay increased taxes to support such a program - would you?

    Posted by toritto at 06/05/2009 @ 11:23am

51. It is hard to believe that 65 years ago, thousands of scrappy guys jumped off boats and onto a sandy beach so that our freedoms would remain. The right to reproductive freedom for women eventually became one of those freedoms.

    This is what the conservatives get hung up on, and Billo does, and Dr. Tilley's killer does. Everything is based upon some sick, twisted emotional, religious and patriotic ideal that no one person can ever live up to. That produces the climate of fear and ignorance that creates Dr. Tilley's killer.

    I wish I knew how to solve this problem and honor Dr. Tilley, except to ignore these yahoos and live a life and way of peace.

    Posted by dotsie01 at 06/05/2009 @ 7:46pm

52. Keep in mind that the Fascist News Channel is first and foremost a business that poses as a news network. It's owners and personalities have become enormously wealthy selling their aggreived audience to sponsers. The more highly charged the rhetoric, the more it draws in that saleable commodity, like flies to...whatever the particular flies like. What they believe or don't believe is entirely besides the point. And of course, they absolutely will not take responsibility for their actions. After all, words don't kill, people do. How does O'R sleep at night? Very well, thank you, in his spacious well appointed climate controlled home. That's what $10M or more buys you while you pretend to speak for the regular guy. This will end when that regular guy stops falling for their hype and pulls his/her viewership. Will it happen? Not a chance.

    Posted by darnoc52 at 06/05/2009 @ 7:50pm

53. How this devolved into debating the meaning of statements made in the Bible is beyond me. Probably because I have an extensive blocklist of instigators. The fact that anyone is even discussing the possiblity of the Bible being inerrant in a liberal blog comment section is laughable.

    Anyone with even a modicum of language skills should be able to realize the problems inherent in the idea of a inerrant Bible. The Bible wasn't written in English, Spanish, German, or any language currently in use. It had to be translated. The fact there are several translations in English is a tell tale sign that there is something terribly wrong with any inerrant Bible theory.

    Take for example idioms. They generally make no sense when translated to another language. I know quite a few Spansh idioms that do not translate to anything meaningful in English. Also there is not a one to one correlation between words from one language to another. Some languages will have several words that mean almost the same thing but have different connotations. You lose the connotation when translating to a language that does not have the same depth.

    To believe that any book of faith can possibly be inerrant is to throw out all logic. You have every right to do that in the confines of your Church and in your home but to define policy based only on one group's narrow world view combined with a complete lack of logic is ludicrous. It certainly isn't an enlightened approach and goes against everything this country was built on and stands for.

    Posted by abraxas at 06/06/2009 @ 08:56am

54. Republicans believe that healthcare should be between a doctor and the patient without government intervention yet at the same time they believe that the government should intervene when it comes to the medical procedure abortion. They can somehow square those views along with their support for state sponsored execution. I fail to see how those ideas are not in contradiction. The party that claims to want government out of their lives is the same party that agrees it is ok to terminate a life at the behest of the government but its not ok to for a doctor and a patient to decide to terminate a pregnancy. It's this type of blatant hypocracy that has always repelled me from the party.

    Posted by abraxas at 06/06/2009 @ 09:20am

55. HAPPY points out one of the major contradictions with THENATION. When opportunity comes around, you grab one of your pet issues and you milk it for all it is worth. Consider the fact that there was not a PEEP about the the murder of Wm Long by an African-American "convert" to Islam, (or was it the Nation of Islam?) Let's try to be a little more BALANCED, people. Let's not make The Non-Factor actually be correct about something.

    Posted by missionunaccomplished at 06/07/2009 @ 5:03pm