It's the Christian Thing to Do

[Torog]

It's the Christian Thing to Do

By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, Feb 15, 2007

Imagine, if you will, a presidential candidate hiring David Duke to work the Internet for him or her. Mr. Duke, an avowed anti-black, anti-Jewish provocateur, spews out hate pretty much everywhere he goes. Recently, he showed up in Iran to deny the Holocaust.

Any American politician who associated with the likes of Duke would be finished immediately; there's no question about that.

Yet former Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards apparently felt comfortable hiring two anti-Christian bloggers named Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan to work on his campaign. Both women have a far-left, bomb-throwing history that was vividly illustrated on their respective Internet sites.

But let's give Edwards the benefit of the doubt because he's a busy guy. Let's say he wasn't aware of the vitriol the ladies were spitting out, and this led to the hiring mistake.

Fair so far? Now comes the crusher. The Catholic League informed Edwards that Ms. Marcotte wrote a description of Mary, the mother of Jesus, having sex with the "Lord" on her website. It was a vile piece of business that can't even be printed in this newspaper.

And what did John Edwards do? He said he "disagreed" with Marcotte's words, but would not fire her or Ms. McEwan, who wrote on her blog that Christian believers were "mother-f---ers."

I couldn't believe it. So I had my TV producers call Edwards and ask his Chief of Staff what was going on. Neither Edwards nor anybody in his campaign would talk to us about the issue.

So I went on TV and told the country exactly what I have just told you. Within minutes of the broadcast, the Edwards campaign got rid of Marcotte. McEwan left the next day.

So how could John Edwards be so stupid? I asked that question to Jane Fleming, the President of the Young Democrats Association. Ms. Fleming replied that the bloggers didn't really do anything wrong, although she also "disagreed" with them. I then asked her if she would hire a person who said vile things about blacks. She said no. So why is it okay to say vile things about Christians?

Ms. Fleming had no answer to that question, but I do. In the far-left, Christian-bashing is totally acceptable and rarely are any consequences imposed. The only reason these two women are not working for John Edwards right now is that he didn't want to take the heat my program was giving him.

This entire shoddy episode has badly damaged Edwards, in my opinion, but it also points out that American culture, especially in the swampy blogosphere, is extremely tolerant of Christian-haters. Again, this could never have happened to any other religious or minority group.

To me, all bigotry is unacceptable in a just society. You can criticize any group on the issues, but using obscenity and sacrilege to demean perceived opponents should be condemned in no uncertain terms.

Even by John Edwards.

Torog Reviewed by Torog on 02-17-2007. It's the Christian Thing to Do It's the Christian Thing to Do By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com Thursday, Feb 15, 2007 Imagine, if you will, a presidential candidate hiring David Duke to work the Internet for him or her. Mr. Duke, an avowed anti-black, anti-Jewish provocateur, spews out hate pretty much everywhere he goes. Recently, he showed up in Iran to deny the Holocaust. Any American politician who associated with the likes of Duke would be finished immediately; there's no question about that. Yet Rating: 5

[birdgirl73]

I guess I find myself wondering why it's OK for so many so-called "Christians" to use piety and religious zeal (the counterpoint to O'Reilly's question about non-believers using bigotry and sacrelige against their perceived opponents) to say vile things about non-believers? And gays? And Muslims? Buddhists? Atheists? Against anyone who differs from their viewpoint?

Above all, how is it even possible for anyone to spend more than a half second listening to or reading the greatest irony of all--a pompous, angry, self-righteous buffoon like O'Reilly asking questions about bigotry and vitriol when he himself has cornered the market on such behavior?

[Zimzum]

LOL Bill O' Prisonplanet :chainsaw:

Take a look at this blog. Longish read so no copy/paste.

Why I had to quit the John Edwards campaign
During my brief tenure as blogmaster for a Democratic presidential contender, I experienced the right-wing smear machine firsthand

[delusionsofNORMALity]

I guess I find myself wondering why it's OK for so many so-called "Christians" to use piety and religious zeal to say vile things about non-believers? And gays? And Muslims? Buddhists? Atheists? Against anyone who differs from their viewpoint?

though judeo-christians are a majority in this country, they enjoy painting themselves as a persecuted minority. as such, they feel that they deserve the same protections as any true minority. this gives them the right to spew forth their hatred while being protected from being ridiculed in return. it's a neat little bit of deceit that has served them well.

[medicinal]

Anyone that gets off on Bill-O should see a shrink!

[birdgirl73]

Married father-of-two Bill O'Reilly pointing fingers at a blogger for using untoward language, particularly in defense of the holy religious right, is just laughable. This from a man who two years ago had to settle $2 million to $10 million on a plaintiff in his sexual harrassment case so the facts of the case wouldn't continue to be made public. Where, on recorded message after message (recordings still in possession of the court and attorneys on both sides), he left an employee assurances of how big his penis is, how nasty and skilled he is in bed, how he'd like to do her six ways from Sunday, among other things Then accused her of extortion when she filed suit to get that to stop?

The fact that a "paragon of virtue" like Bill O'Reilly has the cojones to point the finger at anyone else on moral or religiously righteous grounds--and that anyone, religious or otherwise, would ever again put stock in what he says or writes--just astonshes me.

[Breukelen advocaat]

I don't understand why their feathers got ruffled. The people didn't say "vile" things about Christians, they said that the mother of god had sex with god to conceive the son of god, or something like that. Isn't that pretty much what the religion is all about?

All religions should be subject to criticisms and unrelenting opposition. Unfortunately, people are afraid to go after them and O'Reilly is sort of right that Christianity gets more than their share. I think that we must dismantle and deconstruct all of the ideas that are bad, and if that means religious people will be offended, then so be it.

I wrote a piece about the virgin birth for xmas 2005 and put it here. It was probably the filthiest, most heretical take on this stupid myth ever published. I still have it on my computer, and can post it again, if anybody is interested.

[JackdaWack]

If you are religious, you are biased.

[Torog]

I don't understand why their feathers got ruffled. The people didn't say "vile" things about Christians, they said that the mother of god had sex with god to conceive the son of god, or something like that. Isn't that pretty much what the religion is all about?

All religions should be subject to criticisms and unrelenting opposition. Unfortunately, people are afraid to go after them and O'Reilly is sort of right that Christianity gets more than their share. I think that we must dismantle and deconstruct all of the ideas that are bad, and if that means religious people will be offended, then so be it.

I wrote a piece about the virgin birth for xmas 2005 and put it here. It was probably the filthiest, most heretical take on this stupid myth ever published. I still have it on my computer, and can post it again, if anybody is interested.

Howdy BA,

Yup..they did say vile things,such as a graphic and vulgar description,of sex between Mary and God,and called all Christians "mxxxxfxxker's",I find it to be highly offensive and indicative of a terrible character and most likely-represenative of many liberal's and atheist's opinion of Christians. Religion is not about sex..it's about believing in a higher power.

So you want to "deconstruct",all the bad idea's ? And you think that amoral relativists are the ones who should decide which ideas are bad and which are good ? There's only one way to git into Heaven,and that's by Jesus Christ. Go ahead and run around offending religious folks all ya want-it'll piss em off and we'll vote out the party of the God-less,yet again.

What good,can come from a "filthy piece" about the virgin birth ? That you would write such a thing,makes me wonder if yer gonna evolve to using violence instead of words,against Christianity. It also makes me think that you have some kind of problems with women,like disrespect and chauvinistic behaviour. If someone asks you to post that crap and you do-you'll be confirming everything I have said about amoral relativists and atheists and secular progressives. I find that you wrote such a thing,to be perverse and indicative of a more serious mental problem.

Have a good one ...

[delusionsofNORMALity]

....most likely-representative of many liberals' and atheists' opinion of Christians....

....the party of the God-less....

....you'll be confirming everything I have said about amoral relativists and atheists and secular progressives....

i actually agree with you that offensive imagery has no place in the struggle surrounding faith, but only in that it shows a lack of respect for differing viewpoints. even though the religious may attack unbelievers with all of the vitriol at their command, that is no reason to respond in kind and anyone that would stoop to their level should not be associated with our policymakers.

that being said, you must admit that such offensive pieces can be considered a response to the constant assault by the religious right on those who choose a different path. the quotes i've included above (from your own post) are perfect examples of how you and many of the loudest voices in the christian machine paint their enemies in the broadest strokes; describing atheists and progressives as heathens with a total lack of morality. lumping us all into one category could be considered equally offensive.

the long and the short of it is that as long as the religious zealots continue to take the illusory moral high ground and act as if all others are lesser beings, they will continue to be the targets of the fanatics on the other side. if these reactionary christians can't get over their elitist attitudes and see the possible merit in the beliefs of others then they will find many more of us taking up the sword against them.


as a side note -
i admit that i haven't read this supposedly offensive piece by ms. marcotte, i did try a cursory search for it and found nothing. if someone could post a link to it i would appreciate it, thanks.