O’Reilly: the Bible is Not Welcome in Public Debate

April 4, 2013 at 9:43 AM 18 comments

According to the opinion of Bill O’Reilly, the Bible is not welcome in public debate.  He has referred to people who rely on the Bible for truth as “Bible-thumpers.”  Frankly, I’ve long thought that O’Reilly himself is not really welcome in public debate, but he certainly has a right to continue to offer his opinions about things.  I haven’t found any sensible reason to agree with him on many of his viewpoints though.

I’m not saying that people like O’Reilly cannot have their opinions and I’m certainly not saying that people cannot share those opinions.  What I’m saying is that it would be nice if, after making sweeping generalizations as O’Reilly too often does, he would not attack those who disagree with him, as he did with Laura Ingraham recently.  Of course, not long after that, he sought solace with another guest, who happened to back him up; Charles Krauthammer, who said he was “right” to use the term “Bible-thumper.” [1]

I don’t mind his reference to people like myself as “Bible-thumpers.”  After all, in a way, it’s a compliment because it implies that I am constantly going back to the Bible to learn what God’s opinion is on this issue or that one.  The reality is that for many of us, the Bible is truth.  It represents God’s absolute truth and we understand it that way.  So for us, instead of relying on some subjective truth (which is really not truth at all) that is constantly changing based on the way people feel about things, we simply look to God’s Word to define what is true, absolutely.

I have more of a problem with O’Reilly’s statement that the Bible itself is not really welcome in the arena of public debate, where policy is concerned.  I’m quite confident that our founding fathers would disagree with O’Reilly on this point.

It all started when O’Reilly stated to Laura Ingraham the following:  “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals. That’s where the compelling argument is. ‘We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else,'” O’Reilly said on air last week. “And to deny that, you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.” [2]

Again, that’s his opinion, though I disagree with it.  The compelling argument is not only not on the side of homosexuals, but the Bible does have a say in the matter if it was written by God Himself through roughly 40 human beings, over a space of approximately 1,600 years.  While I believe the Bible was written by God, I also understand that not everyone agrees with that position.  That’s up to them, but to discount the veracity of Scripture simply because there are people who choose to take that position against it does not also mean that they are correct either.

In response to Ingraham’s issue with the use of “Bible-thumpers,” O’Reilly stated, “It’s not disrespectful. In their private life they can. We’re talking a policy here. Don’t you understand the difference between private beliefs and public policy?” [3; emphasis added]

See, that’s the real issue here in a nutshell.  Christians are allowed to have their beliefs and opinions, but we must keep them private.  We are not allowed to insert those opinions into the public arena when it concerns public policy.  We should keep our opinions to ourselves and let the world do what it needs to do.

This is exactly what the Obama administration argues against the owners of Hobby Lobby, who want a reprieve from having to purchase health insurance for their employees that could include medication that in essence, creates abortions.  The Obama administration argues that Hobby Lobby is a public company and should play by the rules.  Well, if that is true, then why are exemptions given to some companies and not others, Mr. Obama?  Again though, the truth of the matter is that Christians are being told at every turn that their religion should be a private matter and our opinions do not matter if those opinions are biblically based.

Now, we have O’Reilly going so far as to say that the Bible itself is not welcome in public discourse when policy is being decided. Really Mr. O’Reilly?  The Bible should have nothing at all to do with pubic policy?  That’s interesting, considering how much of an impact it had on the creation of our founding documents.  Maybe that is why so many want to move away from specific amendments or the Constitution as a whole.

The plain fact of the matter is that there is nothing wrong with the Bible.  There is nothing wrong with the Ten Commandments either, yet those were taken out of the schools and public places a long time ago.  It’s a terrible thing to tell people they should not kill, or steal, or cheat, or commit adultery, or other things, isn’t it?  It’s offensive when it comes from a Judeo-Christian perspective, but when it comes from an Islamic one, that’s fine.

For Islam, we can throw out the red carpet, allowing Muslims to block NYC streets so they can pray.  We can use taxpayer dollars to pay for foot-washing basins at an increasing number of federally funded colleges and institutions of higher learning.  We can allow Muslims to push for Sharia law in the United States, which includes the execution of homosexuals and all of this is perfectly fine.  I have personally listened to O’Reilly defend Islam too many times, while taking swipes at Christians and the Bible.

I know that O’Reilly says what he says because of the need for ratings and nothing more.  Controversy is a ratings draw, so that’s why he does it, not realizing (or caring) that many who listen to his show are some of the “Bible-thumpers” he says he is not denigrating.

The issue of same-sex unions is new to this world.  Gays have been around since before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and will be with us until the returns of Christ.  Never before in the history of the world (as far as I’m aware) have homosexuals yearned to be legally married, but apparently, now is the time.  The real truth is that gays have opted for this measure because it legitimizes them.  It forces people to accept them as normal.  End of story.

That’s really the issue.  Normalcy.  Once this happens, then the next step can occur, which is the mandating of laws that make it an arrestable offense to even say that homosexuality is wrong.  This is the case in the UK and Scotland and is nearly the case in Canada.  Recently, a person was arrested there for referring to a homosexual as a “sodomite.”  In Scotland, an American was arrested and charged a fine of one thousand pounds for saying that homosexuality is sinful.

So even though the 1st Amendment guarantees the right of freedom of speech and freedom of expression, asinine politically correct laws are being passed and foisted on the populace that in essence, restrict 1st Amendment rights.  But what other group needs laws to protect them from hearing what they do not want to hear?  It’s a bit much, but then, that’s the way political correctness works, based on who the determined “victim” is in the situation.

O’Reilly is also simply being politically correct, which is his safety net.  He knows that in order to remain as a talk show host, there are certain factions he dare not offend.  It’s getting ridiculous though that people are watching what they say and how they say it all because it might offend one particular group, yet no one cares whether or not Christians – “Bible-thumpers” – are offended.  The reason?  Because Christians have long been seen as the “aggressor.”  Never mind that America was founded on biblical principles.

In the end, I’m not really offended as much as I am saddened.  We are watching the world spiral into what Paul describes for us in 2 Timothy 3:1-5:

But realize this, that in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, revilers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unloving, irreconcilable, malicious gossips, without self-control, brutal, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these.

There is a tremendous amount of that going around these days!  People are far more concerned with themselves and their own “needs” than their salvation.  To me, this is never more clearly seen than on the Left, who only seems to know how to ostracize through labels and demeaning language.

I had a “conversation” the other day with someone from the Left and the only thing they knew how to do was call me names.  That was it.  They had no facts at their disposal at all.  When I presented facts to them, I was called a “parrot” or “traitor” to my country.  They did not once take the time to actually refute what I said with any facts of their own at all.  I’m assuming then that they had no facts to contradict what I had said to them.  It’s what they do.

Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book called, The Skeptical Environmentalist.  He actually proved a number of fallacies that have been foisted upon the unsuspecting public regarding “global warming” and other imaginary idols of environmentalism.  Because of his book, he was panned, ridiculed, and castigated in an effort to suppress the information therein.  However, no one could (or can) refute his data.  So, what were they left to do?  Throw a pie in his face.

Lomborg stated, “when your opponents throw a pie in your face, you know they have run out of arguments.” [4]  This is what the Left does.  They try everything they can to embarrass people who hold differing viewpoints from them, even if it means resorting to throwing a pie in someone’s face.

This is why “talk show” debate doesn’t work.  Most of the time, people have no real clue about how to academically debate and it’s not long before they become unhinged and start labeling the other person with a variety of names that are designed to insult and demonize.  The other thing they will do is constantly talk over one another, in an attempt to shut down the person.  Piers Morgan and other Lefty hosts enjoy doing this.  The only reason their guest is there is to be used as a sounding board or an object of ridicule.

They cannot – to save their own life – simply discuss a situation without embarking on a path that is designed to ruin their opposition.  It is all about the attack, not the information.

There is plenty of room in the public arena to use the Bible as a means of determining policy, in spite of what political correctness tries to dictate to the rest of us.


[1] http://jenkuznicki.com/2013/04/krauthammer-oreilly-was-right-to-use-the-term-bible-thumpers/

[2] http://www.ibtimes.com/bill-oreilly-vs-laura-ingraham-conservative-hosts-debate-term-bible-thumper-1170279

[3] Ibid

[4] B. Forrest Clayton Suppressed History (2003), p. 86

Entry filed under: Political Correctness, Politically Correct, Politics, Religious - Christian - Theology. Tags: , , , .

White Liberals Are the Worst Racists Politically Correct Violence


  • 1. kochmachine  |  April 11, 2013 at 1:09 PM

    Whoa Coach Dave adds nicely to this discussion,
    Turn Off Bill O’Reilly, 4-11-13

    • 2. modres  |  April 11, 2013 at 2:19 PM

      Yep, too many individuals who pass themselves off as conservatives aren’t really conservatives. They like to keep up appearances, but that’s about it. I’ve read a number of people over at News with Views, including Dr. Dennis Cuddy.

  • 3. kochmachine  |  April 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM

    Another good article in the discussion…
    “Gay Marriage: Bill O’Reilly Misses the Point.”

    • 5. modres  |  April 9, 2013 at 10:56 AM

      I’m going to have to post a link to that – thanks! Great video!

  • 6. Lester  |  April 4, 2013 at 2:00 PM

    HAHAHAHA! About talking over someone, I think Bill is the winner of that label! Rush used to call him the leprechaun! He’s a tricky guy and contrary, contradicting even himself at times! Arrogant, vain and many other ailments affect Mr O’Rielly! Wishy Washy is what my Grandfather would have called him! LOL! Oh the name calling. well slap me! LOL! I do identify with where Bill was brought up and the same time period as me. He was educated in the Catholic way but a self proclaimed rebel at that time. To use a word he is very chauvinistic but he would say not. He is one of a kind and in the name of being fair he walks all over righteousness!
    And God still loves him but Bill will have much fire to go through!

  • 7. Dan Lowell  |  April 4, 2013 at 1:55 PM

    Hi Fred,

    Just a thought to share. Mr Bill has a major ego problem in my opinion…but…think about it this way. the folks on the gay side of the issue don’t beleive, like or want to listen to the bible. The bible will never do anything but make them angry. Using the bible will only ensure your failure. This in no way makes them correct. It does make our side look a little too comfortable in our inability to assuage the attitudes of our debaters.

    This antagonism can also influence the bystander, the ‘uninformed voter’ who may be sympathetic to our point of view but swayed by the retoric of the left, portraying our side as haters and one dimensional.

    My personal feeling is marriage benefits are discriminatory and should be struck down. this would leave the government with no foot hold on marriage and thus be easier to remove from government altogether. Why should government have to sanction what I promise to God?

    A simple state registry to allow individuals to designate a ‘life partener’ for social and legal affairs will put to rest most all other arguements.

    Just trying to Keep It Simple Sinner the KISS method works best.

    Chuckling along to heaven,

    Deacon Dan

    • 8. modres  |  April 4, 2013 at 2:24 PM

      Hey Dan,

      I see your point and I don’t think the emphasis should be on homosexuality. Unfortunately, this is what the gay activists are creating.

      I fully believe that the government should NOT be involved in marriage in the first place. Whenever the government gets involved, it often becomes crippled by legislation. Doesn’t need to be.

      • 9. Dan Lowell  |  April 5, 2013 at 4:18 AM

        Political Ju Jitsu: use their momentum of ‘fairness’ and apply it to single people. They simpley cannot resist their own arguement without compitulating on the original point. The idea, for us, should be to stick to The Truth. If ‘Jesus’ makes them incomprehensibly enraged then call Him The Truth. He said,” I am The Truth”. They cannot defy the truth without showing their true colors.


      • 10. modres  |  April 5, 2013 at 8:19 AM

        I agree completely, Dan.

  • 11. Sherry  |  April 4, 2013 at 10:48 AM

    O’Reilly was a history teacher so he should know better. Then again, he was corrected about a history matter which he got wrong in one of his books and he did not bother to make it right. He had a cavelier attitude about it even. His arrogance turned me off from watching him a long time ago.

    • 12. modres  |  April 4, 2013 at 11:12 AM

      Which simply leads us to ask, whose version of history did he teach? There is so much history that has “changed” and been “upgraded” (or is that “reimagined”?) since he taught.

      Ironic how he is always touting how his show is the “no spin zone.” Uh…sure, Bill.

  • 13. kochmachine  |  April 4, 2013 at 10:17 AM

    Notice the recent comments by O’Reilly to the producers of “The Bible” that a lot of the bible is allegorical and contradicts itself? http://patriotpost.us/commentary/17042. I was looking for that linkage in your piece.

    • 14. modres  |  April 4, 2013 at 11:11 AM

      Hadn’t noticed that interview or his comments. I used to watch O’Reilly somewhat consistently, but his arrogance just bowls me over. I scanned through the article you’re referring to and aside from the stupidity of his “50% Allegory…” comment, I think the author of the article got it exactly right when he said, “O’Reilly has always been pompous while professing humility, and on his March 27th “show” wagged his finger at those viewers who might be inclined to impose their beliefs on others, but he does not hesitate to then do the very same thing he admonishes against. “Do as I say, not as I do,” is more anecdotal evidence of the machinations of the rich, famous, and powerful.”

      I’m very familiar with how the Left in general thinks regarding the Bible. O’Reilly, while tending to come across as a “conservative” is, in general, only really a conservative when it comes to fiscal issues.

      As an example of his arrogance, I guess his forthcoming book “The Killing of Jesus” will “cut through the [Bible’s alleged] contradictions and to try to give a narrative of what actually happened to Jesus, because he was executed.”

      Well gee, all I can say is thank GOD that He created Bill O’Reilly! I mean, where would we be without his expertise, knowledge, and unabashed wisdom?

      It seems that O’Reilly is more than implying that reading his book will finally uncover the truth, where the Bible has apparently come up short.

      In all my years of studying Scripture, I have YET to find one actual contradiction, but what do I know?

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,851 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 846,266 hits

%d bloggers like this: