Posts Tagged “bill o’reilly”

Acocks Green Village after dark - Christmas lights - Jeffries Hardware - Merry Christmas / Elliott Brown, via FlickrOr should I have titled this post, “War on Christmas Finally Ended!”? I don’t know for sure, but that’s what Bill O’Reilly — effectively, the field marshal of this annual phantasmal conflict — has said. It sounds amazing that he’d make such a concession, but he did. It’s right there, for all to see, on his own Web site (WebCite cached article):

You may remember, about 10 years ago, The Factor began spotlighting companies that refused to say the words “Merry Christmas.”

In fact, some of those businesses actually ordered their employees not to say it.

Well that culture war issue ignited, and we won. Most companies stopped the nonsense and Merry Christmas became a common greeting once again.

The only problem is, it’s all a big, fat, lie. A steaming load heaved right out the back of the barn. So what if a company doesn’t want its employees saying “Merry Christmas”? As private companies, isn’t it within their rights to have such a rule? In reality, though, it’s never been common, and in fact many employees said “Merry Christmas” in spite of it. So really, it never was a problem to begin with. It was just made-up bullshit that O’Reilly and the rest of the Religious Right have used to force everyone in the country, Christian or not, to celebrate Christmas too.

In his declaration that his own fictional “war” has concluded, Billy said:

And because it is a federal holiday, there is no reason to diminish Christmas or insult those who believe in it.

This is an allusion to Billy’s longstanding position that, since president Ulysses S. Grant declared Christmas a federal holiday, all Americans are required to celebrate it. Or something. I haven’t really figured out how that works, to be honest with you. I wasn’t aware that federal holiday declarations had that much power over people’s personal lives. But Billy has been saying this for years, so I guess it must be true. Somehow. Some way. Maybe someday he’ll disclose the exact mechanism by which this works … but I don’t plan to hold my breath waiting for him to cough it up.

Note too that O’Reilly alluded to the election of the Groper-in-Chief as the reason the “war on Christmas” has been won by Christofascists like himself. This comports with the Groper-in-Chief’s minion, Corey Lewandowski, who earlier had declared it – finally! — legal for Americans to say “Merry Christmas” again, as of November 8 of this year.

Now, although Billy has declared the “war on Christmas” concluded, I don’t expect that the Religious Right will let go of it. It remains a great way for them to indulge their Christian martyr complex and convince themselves they’re being persecuted for their Jesus, even though they aren’t.

Photo credit: Elliott Brown, via Flickr.

Hat tip: Christian Post.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on War on Christmas 2016, Part 7

crybaby bill-o / Steven Perez, via FlickrJust a couple days ago I blogged about the Christianist phenomenon of “disaster theology” wherein terrible events are blamed on sinfulness, gay marriage, abortion, fornication, etc. in an effort to keep “the faithful” perpetually angry about — well, about whatever-it-is the faithful are supposed to stay worked up about. The WDBJ shooting near Moneta, VA yesterday morning (cached) provides yet another sterling example of “disaster theology.” As Mediaite reports, this one came from the sanctimonious mouth of the sanctimonious Bill O’Reilly (cached):

Bill O’Reilly tonight connected the WDBJ shooting to America “turning away from spiritualism” and saying that nearly every killer he’s ever reported on has believed in nothing.

O’Reilly cited “rise in nihilism and a decline in spiritual belief,” as well as the declining number of Americans identifying as Christians and the increasing number of Americans identifying as religiously innovated, to connect this to what influences killers with “few restraints in their lives.”

O’Reilly went on to make a crazed generalization:

[His guest, psychotherapist Karen Ruskin] insisted that mental illness doesn’t discriminate whether you’re a believer or non-believer, but O’Reilly insisted, “Every single murderer over 40 years that I have covered in these circumstances has been either atheistic, agnostic, no religious basis at all.”

He again asked, “Can you point to one person who committed mass murder recently that had a religious background? You cannot.”

The Mediaite story doesn’t say whether or not Ruskin had any response to that. But I can easily point out murderers … mass murderers, even … who were most assuredly religious:

Oh, and in addition to all of the above … there’s the fact that most people in American prisons aren’t non-religious, which O’Reilly contends. Quite the opposite: It turns out, rather, they’re mostly all Christian (cached).

O’Reilly also whined about people “practicing” nihilism. I have no idea what he could have meant by that. This statement is a non sequitur since nihilism isn’t something a person can “practice.”

He did concede that “jihadism” could be a form of religious violence, but he sectioned it off as its own thing, as though it weren’t relevant to what he was saying. Really, though, it’s indeed quite relevant, if inconvenient for Billy and his Christianism. Jihadism is a fanatical and violent form religionism, an Islamic version of the exact same impulse followed by all the anti-abortion murderers I listed above.

Billy’s claim that all murderers are non-religious is just plain fucking untrue … and Billy himself can’t possibly be so ignorant or stupid as to think it is. He just said it because he knows his audience will lap it up — because they’re all both ignorant and stupid. So that lie puts him in my “lying liars for Jesus” club, where he’ll find a lot of his friends.

One last thing: When Billy talked up the virtues and importance of “spiritualism,” I don’t think that’s what he meant. I think he meant “spirituality.” “Spiritualism” is something else, and I don’t think it’s something a devout Catholic — which Billy supposedly is — would really care much for.

Photo credit: Steven Perez, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on O’Reilly Blames Virginia Shooting On Non-Belief

Help! Help! I'm being repressed! (Dennis the constitutional peasant, Monty Python & the Holy Grail)Note: There’s been more news about this; see below.

Bill O’Reilly is one of those sanctimoniously-outraged Religious Right nutbags who, sometimes, I think can’t possibly actually believe the lunacy, stupidity, and childishness he spews. Every year, for example, he blusters and fumes about a putative “war on Christmas” that he claims exists, but which most certainly is not happening — no matter how often he or any other furious Christianist insists otherwise. I fail to see how someone could actually believe there truly is an effort underway to outlaw Christmas in the US.

But recently the Billster ran up against one of his own Fox colleague and fellow Rightist (though not of the religious sort) John Stossel, and as Raw Story and other outlets explain, O’Reilly inadvertently revealed the depth of his insanity (WebCite cached article):

Self-avowed “secularist” John Stossel challenged Fox News colleague Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday, arguing that the Factor host was overstating his allegations that Christianity was under attack in the U.S.

“Your ‘war on Christianity,’ you’re just a 10-foot-tall crybaby,” Stossel told O’Reilly. “It’s not so bad. Christians aren’t being killed.”

“Not yet,” O’Reilly replied.

“Not in America, and they’re not going to be,” Stossel countered.

“They’re verbally being killed,” O’Reilly insisted. Stossel scoffed in response, asking, “So what?”

In case you find it difficult to believe a grown adult could reel out something this asinine, here’s video of their exchange, courtesy of Media Matters:

Now, I’m not precisely a fan of Stossel. He’s far too close to the Teabaggers for my taste. Yeah, he was once a talented investigative reporter for ABC News, but that was long ago; since then he’s made himself into a corporatist shill. Even so, I appreciate that he stood up for secularism and was willing to call his own colleague on the carpet for his religionist lies. So thanks, Mr Stossel!

It’s true that Christians are, in fact, being persecuted in other parts of the world, which makes it all the more obscene that the Billster would dare equate their tribulations — which are very real, to the point of sometimes being lethal — with US Christians merely feeling “persecuted” because they’re not always obeyed, by claiming American Christians are being “verbally killed.”

I mean, seriously … “verbally killed”? Really, Bill!?

As for “respect,” that’s a two-way street. It can’t be demanded of someone — not any more, anyway. These aren’t ancient or medieval times when monarchs would order people hacked to death for failing to kneel quickly enough before them. Christians have no right to stomp around and dole out orders with the expectation those orders will automatically be obeyed out of “respect” which they think is owed them by virtue of their beliefs. To presume so is childish and needs to fucking stop already.

As I’ve mentioned many times previously, I understand what’s happening here. I get why Billy-boy wants to think he’s being persecuted for Jesus. It’s because a desire to be martyred is embedded deep within the psychopathology of his religion. He and his fellow Christianists really and truly can’t help themselves. They want to feel persecuted, so in the US, which is majority-Christian and therefore there is no persecution of Christians, he and they are required to invent it. The problem comes about when they try to impose their self-delusion on other people and punish them for something they haven’t done. It just doesn’t work, because rational thinkers know this delusional thinking for what it is, and don’t subscribe to it. The Billster and other Christianists can stamp and fume and screech and holler until they’re blue in the face, but no amount of them claiming to be persecuted can ever make them actually persecuted.

Honestly, it’s long past time for the Billster and his fellow Christofascists to fucking grow the hell up already and start living in the real world … in which “respect” is earned, not demanded or coerced.

Update: The Billster did precisely what any crazed paranoid lunatic would do, after being called out as a crazed paranoid lunatic: He doubled down on his persecutorial delusion, declaring that white men like him are “under siege” and about to be wiped out (cached).

Photo credit: Based on Monty Python & the Holy Grail.

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist, Salon, RationalWiki, and many more.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on It Turns Out Bill O’Reilly Really Is As Deluded As He Seems

Jesus weptWhen I heard Bill O’Reilly, Fox News’s screaming, tantrum-throwing prime-time gadlfy, was writing a book about the life and death of Jesus Christ, I groaned inside. Lots of people over the years have attempted to write about the historicity of Jesus, so it’s not as though the topic has never been handled. I’ve read a lot of those books, and most of them are poor attempts at historiography. Based upon reviews of Billy’s book I’ve seen, by scholars like Candida Moss, the Fox News host’s effort is no exception.

O’Reilly’s contention is that Jesus was killed, because … <drumroll please> … he objected to Roman taxation.

That’s right, folks. Billy-boy’s Jesus was a first-century tax protester, ergo he was killed.

Think about that for a moment. Just stop, and think about it. For a moment.

There’s a very simple and very obvious problem with this claim. It shouldn’t take most Americans long to come up with it.

Go ahead. Stop. Think. I’m sure it will come to you.

In case you haven’t got it by now, I’ll explain: According to the gospels (well, three of them anyway!), Jesus was clearly, explicitly, and specifically not a tax protester! Allow me to quote from the Billster’s own Catholic Bible:

Then the Pharisees went off and plotted how they might entrap him in speech. They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians, saying, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion, for you do not regard a person’s status. Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?” Knowing their malice, Jesus said, “Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? Show me the coin that pays the census tax.” Then they handed him the Roman coin. He said to them, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?” They replied, “Caesar’s.” At that he said to them, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away. (Mt 22:15-22)

They sent some Pharisees and Herodians to him to ensnare him in his speech. They came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion. You do not regard a person’s status but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not? Should we pay or should we not pay?” Knowing their hypocrisy he said to them, “Why are you testing me? Bring me a denarius to look at.” They brought one to him and he said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They replied to him, “Caesar’s.” So Jesus said to them, “Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.’ They were utterly amazed at him. (Mk 12:13-17)

They watched him closely and sent agents pretending to be righteous who were to trap him in speech, in order to hand him over to the authority and power of the governor. They posed this question to him, “Teacher, we know that what you say and teach is correct, and you show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful for us to pay tribute to Caesar or not?” Recognizing their craftiness he said to them, “Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?” They replied, “Caesar’s.” So he said to them, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” They were unable to trap him by something he might say before the people, and so amazed were they at his reply that they fell silent. (Lk 20:20-26)

Given that Jesus was reported by three gospels to have said this, how can anyone rationally conclude that Jesus objected to the Romans’ taxation? Clearly, he did not! The Billster’s effort to turn Jesus Christ into a classical-era prototype teabagger is laughable, transparent, absurd, and — perhaps most importantly — directly contradicts what Christian legend tells us about Jesus.

Before anyone asks … no, I haven’t read O’Reilly’s book. And no, I have no plans ever to read it. (The same goes for Reza Aslan’s book that I blogged about back in July.) I’ve long since soured on books that claim to dig into the life of Jesus as a historical topic. Almost invariably those books have nothing to do with “history”; truthfully, most of their authors are not interested in “history” in the first place. All they’re doing is selling their own ideas about Jesus by cloaking them behind the claim of being “historical.” Unfortunately, the actual historicity of Jesus is more elusive than most people, including scholars, will admit. Barring some kind of discovery that sheds new light on the matter, that’s the way it’s going to stay. Centuries of Christian legends, history revision, myth-making, and trampling of the historical record, have made sure of it.

P.S. If you really feel the need to read about books that examine the historicity of Jesus, I suggest starting at the beginning of that contemporary effort, and read The Quest of the Historical Jesus by Albert Schweitzer (yes, that Albert Schweitzer, the famous philanthropist-physician … he’d been an accomplished theologian before embarking on a career in medicine). Although I don’t agree with all of his conclusions, nor do most other scholars, his book got the ball rolling, and that alone makes it seminal. For a more recent work on the subject, I suggest Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Bill O’Reilly Kills History In “Killing Jesus”

glowing tree: a glowing christmas tree shaped ornament, via Christmas Stock ImagesBill O’Reilly is commander-in-chief in the so-called “war on Christmas.” His crying and bellyaching about the poor, put-upon Christians who’re insidiously being thwarted in their efforts to force all Americans — of whatever religion, or of none — to worship their Christ and his putative birth, is by now an annual feature of his Fox News show. He’s launched a salvo at Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee, who insolently calls the foliage in his state capitol a “holiday tree” rather than a “Christmas tree” (WebCite cached article):

Anyway, there is obviously more Christmas chaos in Rhode Island and Governor Chafee is again behind it. Apparently he believes that Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island in 1636, would not want to call a Christmas tree “a Christmas tree” or something.

O’Reilly has some problems with semantics. Since “Christmas” is a “holiday,” then it is always correct to call a “‘Christmas’ tree” a “‘holiday’ tree.” There’s nothing wrong with doing so.

Also, the Billster conveniently forgets who Roger Williams was. He’s notable for having been the first major advocate of religious freedom in the American colonies. He was a Baptist preacher who was run out of the Massachusetts Bay colony by furious Calvinist Puritans who’d objected to his presence there, who took refuge among the Narragansett to the south, and then founded the colony (now state) of Rhode Island. Roger Williams understood sectarian persecution far better than Billy-boy ever will. He lived it! He even penned a work whose words have become part of the canon of the United States, an exhaustive treatise called The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience. This work — not Thomas Jefferson’s now-famous letter to the Baptists of Danbury, CT — is the true origin of the phrase “separation of church and state.”

(Yes, folks. That’s right. The Founding Fathers’ effort to prevent the state from encroaching on religion, and vice versa, was not even their own invention; a century before them, a man had been agitating for that exact same policy. They were, to put it bluntly, Williams’s students. For Billyo to dismiss Roger Williams’ work as blithely as he does, is not only an affront to his memory, it’s also an insult to theirs. So much for the Religious Right’s vaunted worship of the Founding Fathers!)

I concede that it’s fair to ask if Roger Williams would have objected to calling a “‘Christmas’ tree” a “‘holiday’ tree” … but as far as I can tell, it’s also fair to conclude he would likely not have cared. Most people in the colonies in his time didn’t really celebrate Christmas at all, much less put up Christmas trees. (You can thank those angry Puritans for that.) This complaint is a strictly modern concept, manufactured from whole cloth by Religious Rightists like Billy-boy and his ilk. It’s not a controversy that Williams would have even known existed, nor would he have understood it, had he been aware of it.

Having spewed such a laughable anachronism, though, Billy-baby doesn’t stop there. He charges happily on to even greater heights of ridiculousness:

Now, this is insane, of course. There is no reason to mess around with the word “Christmas”. As we reported, President Grant signed a law in 1870 making Christmas a federal holiday. So there really isn’t any controversy unless Congress revokes the holiday.

You see, in Billy-boy’s mind, the fact that President Grant — whose presidential administration was, shall we say, somewhat underwhelming — made a proclamation about Christmas, appears to do all of the following:

  • Requires all Americans, of whatever faith or of none at all, to worship Christmas along with all other Christians
  • Mandates that nativities be planted on every town hall lawn, in front of every courthouse, etc., all around the country, every December
  • Forces every American to say “Merry Christmas!” at each and every meeting — without fail, and without substitution or alteration of any kind
  • Prevents Americans from ever referring to Christmas as a “holiday,” even if by every English dictionary definition, it is one
  • It removes all of the sacredness from the holy day known as Christmas and makes it purely secular
  • And on top of all that … Grant’s proclamation carries every bit as much authority now, as it did 142 years ago when he first signed it. The passage of time has only made it more compelling than it had been in the late 19th century.

I don’t know about you, but I find that quite a lot to ask of one simple presidential decree. Billy-boy must think Grant was a whole helluva lot more powerful — and everlasting — than he actually was.

Here’s my challenge to the Billster: If you really think that I, as an American, am obligated to celebrate Christmas alongside you; am obligated never, ever under any circumstances to refer to it as a “holiday” (even if it is one); and am obligated to wish “a Merry Christmas” to everyone I see, whenever I see him/her; then you just go right ahead and make me. I dare you. Please. I invite you to do everything in your power to compel me to obey your wishes. You deliver your copy of President Grant’s decree to me, slam it down, force me to read it, and then coerce me into celebrating Christmas. Go right ahead. If you’re truly convinced it’s my obligation as an American to do so, then why would you not do it?

Unless you’re willing to track me down and force me to do what you want me to, then you’re just another whiny coward who’s capable only of complaining, unwilling to put his own words into action.

Boo fucking hoo, Billy, you sniveling crybaby. Boo fucking hoo.

Photo credit: Christmas Stock Images.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on War On Christmas 2012, Part Four

Bill O'Reilly in a furyIdeologues are nothing if not predictable. One of the things they always do, when caught saying something they shouldn’t, is to refuse to admit any error. Concession is not in their vocabulary.

Bill O’Reilly, the ferocious Rightist and religonist ideologue, is no exception to this rule. Last month he declared that God must exist because tides are inexplicable. That was an astoundingly stupid thing to say, because tides are quite explainable and are well understood.

But as a rigid ideologue, O’Reilly is pathologically incapable of admitting this. So, just like any other rigid ideologue, after having dug himself into an intellectual hole, he grabbed a bigger shovel, and kept right on digging.

In a video response posted on his private “insiders'” Web site, he declared that, while tides are explainable as a result of the moon, they nevertheless prove God’s existence, because — after all — where did the moon come from? Youtube now has video of his stupidity:

The problem here is that we have a lot of good leads as to the origin of the moon, and hardly require a God to explain its existence. Once again, science has already dared to go, where Bill O’Reilly fears to tread.

Keep it up, Bill. Stay at it much longer and you just might be the first to tunnel your way to China!

As an aside, O’Reilly charges money for access to his insiders’ Web site. A big “WTF?” leaps to mind; people actually pay for this kind of drivel and bullshit!?

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.

Photo credit: Crooks & Liars.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments Comments Off on Bill O’Reilly Is Even More Of A Moron Than You Thought

Bill O'Reilly and Joseph Goebbels / Drive-by TimesIn his effort to debunk outspoken atheist David Silverman, Fox News headliner and militant Christianist Bill O’Reilly came up with a truly asinine objection to science. In his desperate effort to contradict Silverman, O’Reilly actually said that tides — yes, tides! — were not explainable! The Newser reports on his idiotic ramblings (WebCite cached article):

Apparently, Bill O’Reilly has never heard of the moon. In a debate Tuesday with Dave Silverman, head of the American Atheist group behind this, the Fox host tried to prove the existence of God by citing the unknowable mysteries of the tides. “I’ll tell you why [religion is] not a scam, in my opinion,” he told Silverman. “Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. You can’t explain why the tide goes in.”

That’s right, folks. In Bill O’Reilly’s delusional universe, religion has veracity, because there is no explanation for tides. If you find it hard to believe that, you aren’t the only one:

Silverman looked stunned. “Tide goes in, tide goes out?” he stuttered. O’Reilly pressed on. “The water, the tide—it comes in and it goes out. It always goes in, then it goes out. … You can’t explain that. You can’t explain it.”

Of course, that’s not quite true. In the real world — i.e. outside of Bill O’Reilly’s delusional hyperreligious universe — tides turn out to be readily explicable:

Of course, Raw Story points out [cached], people who passed high school science might tell you that tides are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon as it orbits the earth.

In short, tides are caused by the moon’s revolution of the earth, combined with the oceans’ elasticity. Contrary to what O’Reilly, says, there is nothing mysterious or inexplicable about the tides. They have been measured, and compared with the moon’s motion, and the correlation between them is very well-known.

This is just the sort of childish, contrarian bullshit that militant religionists are forced to resort to when faced with the fact that so much about the world is as well-understood as it is. Religion is the purview of the mysterious and the uncertain; the more we learn, the less of our lives it can control. Fierce religionists like O’Reilly dislike this, so what they do, in order to expand their religion’s sphere of influence, is to deny that certain things are known.

What a fucking joke.

If you’re like me, you need proof O’Reilly said something as astoundingly stupid as this; if so, you can see it for yourself, right here:

Denying the science of tides … I mean, really. Seriously. How much more fucking childish can anyone get?

Update: While I’m not really a fan of Keith Olbermann — he can, after all, be a real asshat sometimes — he reacts in precious fashion while replaying this same video and declaring Bill O’Reilly his “worst person” (video courtesy of YouTube, the O’Reilly part begins at 1:35):

Hat tip: Mark at Skeptics & Heretics Forum on Delphi Forums. Hat tip for update: Unreasonable Faith.

Photo credit: Drive-By Times blog.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 2 Comments »