O'Reilly: The Canadian Model

[HagiaSophia]

So the diversity excuse is a bunch of bull. What’s really going on is a well-organized movement to wipe out any display of organized religion from the public arena.

The secular-progressive movement knows that it is organized religion, most specifically Christianity and Judaism, that stands in the way of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, legalized narcotics, euthanasia and many other secular causes. If religion can be de-emphasized, a brave new progressive society can be achieved.

It has happened in Canada. Once a traditional religious country, Canada has become like Holland in its embrace of the secular movement. Some facts: In 1980, 79% of Canadians said religion was important to the country. The number has fallen to 61%. In 1971, less than 1% of the Canadian population reported having no religion whatsoever; that number has risen to 16%.

The fall of religion in Canada has corresponded to a change in public policy. Canadians have legalized gay marriage and any kind of abortion, and the age of consent for sex is 14. Can you imagine American adults being allowed to fool around with children that age? I can’t.

The Canadian model is what progressive Americans are shooting for, so religion must be dealt with. Since Christmas is the most demonstrative display of organized religion, a strategy of minimizing the birth of Jesus makes sense.

I know this sounds conspiratorial, but it isn’t. Most of those marginalizing Christmas have no idea about the big picture. They simply think they’re looking out for the minority of Americans who don’t celebrate the birth of Christ.

But committed secularists in the media, courts and education system know what’s going on. And now so do you. Merry Christmas!

nydailynews.com/front/story/261528p-223885c.html

 

[katherine2]

interesting article from Bill O’Reilly. It shows even a pro-choice, pro-gay guy who likes to talk dirty to women over the telephone still has respect for Christmas.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

interesting article from Bill O’Reilly. It shows even a pro-choice, pro-gay guy who likes to talk dirty to women over the telephone still has respect for Christmas.

Interesting version of your truth Katherine. What makes you think he’s prochoice or progay? I listen to him every day and I have read all of his books. I’ve never heard anything on that order. The “dirty talk” gig was settled so neither you or I will ever know the truth. FWIW O’Reilly often makes rather crude remarks on his show. But then so does Dr Laura.

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

Interesting version of your truth Katherine. What makes you think he’s prochoice or progay? Lisa N

??? Maybe the fact he says he is.

 

[Lisa_N]

??? Maybe the fact he says he is.

I’d love to see some confirmation of this claim. As I said, I listen to him all of the time and I have not heard any prochoice/progay statements. I believe he said he is not adamantly against ALL gay adoptions but said it would have to be a special circumstance. That is not progay. He has been adamant against a “secular progressive” agenda and has spoken out against gay marriage and gay activism.I have never heard him say anything even slightly proabort.

So you need to provide more evidence or I’ll just chalk it up to the source.

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

Well since Katherine didn’t respond, by coincidence O’Reilly spoke very specifically about abortion today. He said he is against all abortions exept in extreme circumstances (life of the mother). PBA should specifically be outlawed everywhere, with the same exception only if the life of the mother is at grave risk. He also said every embryo from moment of conception has 100% human DNA. It is a human.

However, in fairness to Katherine he isn’t supporting the overturning of Roe v Wade.

I don’t think that translates to being ‘pro choice’ although his ideas of restricting abortion to only the most dire situations differ from those who believe the only way to prevent abortions is overturning Roe. IOW I think he is a prolife person who disagrees with the methodology espoused by some groups.

BTW I recall in the past he offered to support a friend who was unexpectedly pregnant if she would forgo having an abortion. He said that if you want women to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term you need to offer financial and emotional support.

Lisa N

 

[fix]

IMO, both Hannity and O’Rielly are faux Catholics. They may be secular political conservatives, but they are not orthodox, faithful Catholics. Their own words show they reject the faith. They are not much better than the libs.

 

[Lisa_N]

fix:

IMO, both Hannity and O’Rielly are faux Catholics. They may be secular political conservatives, but they are not orthodox, faithful Catholics. Their own words show they reject the faith. They are not much better than the libs.

Curious what you mean here. I don’t think O’Reilly is a conservative. Hannity yes. I don’t know what specific teachings they have rejected but I rarely listen to Hannity.

Lisa N

 

[katherine2]

The All-Spin Zone? Catholicism According to Bill O’Reilly

National Catholic Register
November 9-15, 2003
by PATRICK COFFIN Love him or hate him, it’s hard not to admire the scrappy charisma of Bill O’Reilly.

The Fox News Channel superstar handily leads the pack of American news commentators. His steady rise from working-class Levittown, N.Y., to hosting both a nationally syndicated radio show (“The Radio Factor” on Westwood One) and “The O’Reilly Factor” on Fox News Channel as well as writing best-selling books epitomizes the American dream. You have to marvel at the man’s interviewing prowess, the sheer ease with which he jolts his subjects off rehearsed talking points and the way he somehow comes across as avuncular and pugilistic at once.

But there is one noticeable misstep in the swagger. A major, ungainly misstep. And he doesn’t even know about it.
Though taught by dedicated nuns in a robust blue-collar Catholic upbringing and a graduate of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, he has an unusually poor grasp of his religion. While it would be wrong to attack sincerely held beliefs, the fact is many basic teachings of his Church are lost to him. Not just this or that part. He seems spectacularly unaware of the whole: the Church’s self-understanding as the repository of Christian faith, her teachings on sexuality and the sacredness of human life, even the basic duties of a practicing member of the Catholic Church.

Space forbids a complete list of examples, but for starters O’Reilly believes that for him (the “for him” being key to his subjectivist viewpoint) being a Catholic is purely a matter between Bill and God. No need for any binding earthly authority, no necessary mediating community and certainly no filial regard for the bishops. Not to be unecumenical, but this is essentially mainline Protestantism. In his first book, The O’Reilly Factor, he says flatly, “My religion is Roman Catholicism. I go to church, but I’m an independent thinker” (p. 183). This is code for, “I disagree with a ton of Church teaching, but it’s okay because it’s really just the Church of Me.”

The wintry climb to the Church of Bill required the use of philosophical ice picks. “And if there is a God at the end of it all,” he asks in a stab at theodicy as touching as it is adolescent, “What does it matter? You’re in the ground or scattered to the winds. If the deity is a fraud, you won’t possibly care” (p. 168). His odd preference for the word deity is telling. It is not a part of the linguistic patrimony of Catholic theology as a God reference, belonging more in an encyclopedia than a prayer book. It may even reflect some dim uncomfortableness with the whole organized religion thing. Indeed, he says, “Religion is primarily a way to examine my conscience and spend some time thinking about things more important than my own conscience” (p. 187). The identity of the “something more important” he keeps from us.

But an identity crisis is an identity crisis. And symptomatic of this one is his schizoid confusion over abortion. When it comes to abortion, the No Spin enforcer spins like a whirling dervish. It is fascinating to watch. He bullies pro-abortion guests, cataloguing the horrible aftereffects of abortion in the lives of the women the procedure is alleged to help. He is appalled by partial-birth abortion and was pleased President Bush signed the partial-birth abortion ban. He mocks the National Organization for Women and other pro-abortion groups that protest the charge of double homicide in the famous Laci Peterson murder case because her slain son, Conner, had yet to be born alive.
Execute. Major human-rights violation. Barbaric. Brutal killing. Defenseless baby. Killer. Mute media. How eagerly O’Reilly applies these adjectives to the type of infant killings that boyfriends can hear. But, ah, that bright and sacrosanct line between infanticide and abortion: Bill O’Reilly is a dutiful supporter of Roe v. Wade.

 

[katherine2]

But he might not be a true Roe v. Wade believer. You can pick up the way abstract illogic trickles down into concrete body language. There is an unease in his treatment of it. Fifty percent of his passion is spent on loathing how abortion scars women; the other 50 is left to prop up the “right-to-choose” rhetoric. It’s hard to tell where his real center of gravity lies: Is he a pro-choicer who’s embarrassed by the extremes of his fellow travelers or a diffident pro-lifer who recoils from where he knows his principles will lead him?

It’s as though he’s having an ideological affair with Roe, has a hunch it’s wrong but doesn’t know how to break it off. Were he to become consistently pro-life, he might jeopardize his “independent thinker” status, so essential to his image as an agent provocateur. Perhaps it’s simply about the bottom line: The coffee mugs, books and doormats that bear his name do not make Bill O’Reilly less rich. Or perhaps it’s the long shadow of the Fox brass. Indeed, former Fox newsman Matt Drudge quit/was fired from Fox News over his intention to use in order to illustrate the human face of abortion the now-famous photo of a fetus grasping the finger of his surgeon.

The closest O’Reilly comes to affirming the sanctity of unborn life is in his pet term, “potential human being,” a slogan drawn from the language of Roe v. Wade. No guest has told him he has it exactly backward: A fetus (or embryo, or zygote, or blastocyst, depending on nearness to conception) is not a potential human being but a human being with potential. Biologically, the actuality begins at conception. Blessed Mother Teresa cut through the inane idea that abortion is somehow a “complex issue” when she said, “If abortion is not wrong, nothing is wrong.”

It would show consistency and courage if O’Reilly allowed an actual abortionist to explain in detail, with slides and video footage, exactly how the various abortion procedures (D&E, saline, RU-486 and partial-birth abortion) accomplish their tasks. Now that would be No Spin. But, like most Roe v. Wade fans, O’Reilly doesn’t want to know. Such a show ‘n’ tell might make drowning in a garbage bag seem relatively humane.

Then there is Pope John Paul II, whom O’Reilly has denounced repeatedly as complicit in the American priestly scandal and who earns his special wrath. Papal coverage invariably comes with a note of irritated condescension. To him, the Holy Father is a sad, dithering letdown. He agrees with the Pope on the death penalty, albeit for a different reason: He thinks the criminal will suffer more by harsh prison conditions than by lethal injection.

Finally, as regular viewers know, O’Reilly is always up for bishop bash, a set of gripes not unconnected to their moral credibility as teachers. The game goes like this: Call the bishops craven, criticize them, then find vindication in their silence. From one angle, at least, he has a point. While there are many forest fires in chanceries these days, Catholics who were adults during Vatican II will tell you that the sounds of episcopal silence would have been unthinkable a generation or two ago. If radio and TV pioneer Edward R. Morrow was a Catholic and began distorting or disparaging Catholic teaching a la O’Reilly to his legion of listeners, chances are slim that a Cardinal Spellman, Cardinal Cushing or an Archbishop Sheen would say nothing. Forget the bishops - lay Catholics from Jersey to Juneau would be in an uproar.

The problem is, the pick ‘n’ choose “cafeteria Catholicism” of the Church of Bill is not to be mistaken for the Body of Christ. One can only imagine how much sharper his rhetorical blades would become if he could “come and see” this (John 1:39). The barbarism of a newborn baby being drowned in a creek has nothing do with being pro-choice?

To employ an O’Reillyism, that’s the most ridiculous item of the day(cont)

 

[Michael_C]

I don’t watch him because of his Catholicism. I watch him because the majority of the time he speaks about issues using common sense.

 

[Lisa_N]

Michael C:

I don’t watch him because of his Catholicism. I watch him because the majority of the time he speaks about issues using common sense.

That’s what I look for as well. I frankly don’t recall his speaking of what he believes or doesn’t believe and the only criticism of Catholicism I’ve heard from him is “they keep using the mustard seed story in the homily…”

Katherine thank you for the venom. I’m quite sure that this person knows what O’Reilly believes or doesn’t believe. I based my conclusions about him on actual day to day encounters rather than a single sentence pulled out of a book. But thanks for taking the time to post the article. As with Michael C. I am not looking for a spiritual director when I listen to O’Reilly, I’m looking for a real world approach to issues.

Lisa N

 

[Michael_C]

Lisa N:

That’s what I look for as well. I frankly don’t recall his speaking of what he believes or doesn’t believe and the only criticism of Catholicism I’ve heard from him is “they keep using the mustard seed story in the homily…”

Katherine thank you for the venom. I’m quite sure that this person knows what O’Reilly believes or doesn’t believe. I based my conclusions about him on actual day to day encounters rather than a single sentence pulled out of a book. But thanks for taking the time to post the article. As with Michael C. I am not looking for a spiritual director when I listen to O’Reilly, I’m looking for a real world approach to issues.

Lisa N

Ditto, I go to EWTN for Catholicism.

 

[fix]

Lisa N:

Curious what you mean here. I don’t think O’Reilly is a conservative. Hannity yes. I don’t know what specific teachings they have rejected but I rarely listen to Hannity.

Lisa N

They are cafeteria Catholics. They are liberals in many ways. The key issues are contraception, homosexuality and abortion to name a few. Aquinas said if one rejects even one teaching they reject the entire faith. They make themselves the moral authority, instead of the Church. O’Rielly, in particular, is self aggrandizing and a moral relativist.

 

[jlw]

katherine2:

interesting article from Bill O’Reilly. It shows even a pro-choice, pro-gay guy who likes to talk dirty to women over the telephone still has respect for Christmas.

He’s a liberatarian to some extent, folks. He doesn’t discuss his “Catholic faith”, only his or your “deity”, so he doesn’t really say “I’m anti-gay”, does he??

He has a live-let live mentality, but is quick ot take on radical secularists.

 

[HagiaSophia]

Now that we’ve dissected O’Reilly and his level of “being Catholic” - I thought his comments on the subject of efforts to make the US follow the “Canadian Model” were right on.

 

[jlw]

HagiaSophia:

Now that we’ve dissected O’Reilly and his level of “being Catholic” - I thought his comments on the subject of efforts to make the US follow the “Canadian Model” were right on.

Absolutely. That’s the subject he champions–that the wacko humanist-secularists must be stopped before they burn everything from Atlanta to Savannah (pardon the Civil War reference)

 

[katherine2]

Lisa N:

Katherine thank you for the venom. Lisa N

Venom? A re-print of an article from of all things the “National Catholic Register”?

Not a publication I am usually a fan of, but I will store away your description of it for future reference.

 

[Lisa_N]

katherine2:

Venom? A re-print of an article from of all things the “National Catholic Register”?

Not a publication I am usually a fan of, but I will store away your description of it for future reference.

You are welcome! Obviously the writer has a particular dislike for O’Reilly and feels called to disparage his Catholicism. That’s his/her perogative. That venom might make some sense if O’Reilly were a priest or a bishop or trying to set himself up as a model Catholic. He’s not. He’s a media person, who makes comments on politics and current issues. I generally agree with his stance on these issues, specifically with respect to his strong stand on the secularists’ attempt to take over the country…hence the thread on the “Canadian Model”

I don’t think the thread is necessarily focused on judging whether or not O’Reilly is a good Catholic. That’s between him and God. I don’t think you are a particularly good Catholic Katherine, based on what I’ve read. But that’s my OPINION only. It really doesn’t matter because you aren’t clergy and I am not looking to you as a model of the Faith. Same with O’Reilly. He’s a commentator and an entertainer. That’s it.

 

[caroljm36]

I like O’Reilly okay but he’s obviously a confused Catholic. And this is a case I think of worldly success going to a celebrity’s head, convincing them they don’t really need Church, they can handle their lives on their own thank you. But he does come up with some good insights, and is spot-on about Canada. I just wish he had a more consistent world view. Whoever said he was having a love affair with Roe is right, that’s exactly how it is. I had to break mine off too. Bill needs to think seriously about the sheer numbers involved, how easy it is to get, amounting to social pressure in fact, and then visualize those tiny hands and feet…

Peace.