O'Reilly deserves to be taken off air
Read CNN’s latest story on Californians passing a gay marriage ban.
Now, the point of this post is not to suggest reasons why we should be open to gay marriage (although I, as a 24-year-old, white, heterosexual male, support gay marriage), but instead I would like to call attention to one horrifying reason a popular Republican gave today for why the gay rights movement has not caught on.
This afternoon, I was listening to my long-time radio buddy Bill O’Rielly, with whom I do not see eye to eye in regards to many political issues (but I like hearing the broadbanded opinion of the right). Taking calls on the gay marriage ban in California, O’Reilly took the opportunity to editorialize with his “for the people” facts and said that “80 percent of gays hate the kind of gays who participate in the gay pride parades.”
I know what you’re thinking… whoa… O’Reilly is on top of his facts again. He must read the Onion.
UPDATE— Read this editorial and share your views on it. Also I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this discussion so far, because it’s been a breakthrough to get this level of participation.
But all joking aside, it is absolutely irresponsible for someone in O’Reilly’s position to create faux-facts like this, spewing it out to his millions of listeners who unfortunately take him at his word.
This despite the fact that every year story after story of the overhwlming turnout at various gay pride parades suggest that O’Reilly is self-inflicting yet another wound to his seriously damaged credibility.
And remember people, this is the same O’Reilly who decided to bash Brittany Spears’ parents for letting Brittany’s sister get pregnant at the age of 16, but then turned around and praised Gov. Sarah Palin’s parental abilities for supporting her unwed underager’s pregnancy.
It seems that the religious right’s power to fight for a cause is turned on and off like a faucet, used whenever the healing power of the water is needed for one of their own.
But I digress.
The point is that we have gotten to the point where O’Reilly, dissemenator of news and a very popular one at that, told his listeners that 80 percent of gays “hate,” and I repeat, “hate” gay pride parades.
You can be opposed to gay marriage and you can have all of the religious views necessary to support your reasoning, but please never let yourself get to the point O’Reilly is at. He has become a man that is so bitter in political defeat (though he claimed on his show that he never supported McCain over Obama, he was staying nuetral) that he has segregated the “Gay Pride Parade” into the minority — 20 percent who support the GAY PRIDE parades — and the majority — the 80 percent who “HATE” gay pride parades.
Now I could write for hours on how careless O’Reilly was to use the word “HATE” when talking about this issue, but I will spare readers of further rantings on this topic.
But, as always, I would love to hear what you have to say.
I find it interesting you posted this when you should be commenting on the specific article. If you disagree with a radio host then you should not be using other articles to post your opinion. By choosing to attach a radio host who is not part of this article, you seem to be more bitter than him and with a lack of objectivity. I do not know if any gay person hates such parades or not. I actually do not care. This is the reason you selected as the ONE to have Bill out of the air? Are you serious? I wonder how many others should be out then if we are so picky…
You say that O’Rielly dosen’t have the right to say his Views on talk Radio. He has as much right to speak out as all the gay activist have the right to march and disrupt traffic. Christianity is under attack because Gods word speaks against Homosexuality. One little old lady was trying to stand up for God today by holding up a Cross. She wasn’t causing any trouble and she was attacked by a large man and the Cross was trampled to the Ground. Since when did the 1st amendment only apply to gays and none Christians. I will speak out. I am sick and tired of all the Christian bashing that is going on. The Christian ideals are being tampled to the Ground just like the Cross was. I don’t tell anyone that they don’t have the right to speak and you shouldn’t either. It is out God given right.
By all means, O’Reilly deserves his voice (so the title of this blog post misleads). But his credibility as a reporter of fact is called into question when he suggests that 80 percent of gays do not support gay pride parades.
This is, without a doubt, a religious issue. It is my personal belief that if God does exist, he would not want to see the old lady and her cross be trampled on just as much as he would not want to see someone like O’Reilly suggest that 80 percent of gays do not like GAY PRIDE parades. Sure, some of the stuff that goes on within the parades is not appealing to some gays, but the overall message is “I’m proud to be gay.” To suggest 80 percent are not in favor of that message, with no facts whatsoever, is irresponsible.
Certainly, opposite sides are not going to agree on the issue of homosexuality. But it’s important to talk about our personal opinions and not trample the opinions of others, just as the gay activists must have done in your example.
However, O’Reilly used his power to issue a personal opinion in the form of faux-fact. People listen to him, and they believe him. His radio show continues to offer important facts for its listeners, but those facts are continuously called into question when he generates false statistics for his listeners.
Christian ideals are alive and well, they are just continuously being pushed outside of the political realm. You can think that’s a good thing, or you can think that’s a bad thing. I choose to believe that’s a positive thing for society.
But I understand I’m in the minority.
I’m with Anna.
Why, Matt Perkins, do you believe that Christian ideals being pushed aside are a positive thing for our society?
Are you saying that when I hold my heterosexual, Christian pride parade, you ain’t commin’?
I won’t come, Jennine. We certainly do not have the same belief systems, as I do not believe in God.
But I support you if you want to hold a heterosexual, Christian pride parade. And, I most definitely will not go on radio and tell millions of Americans that 80 percent of heterosexual, Christians do not support your pride parade if it’s not a fact.
Now Christian ideals being pushed aside in politics and government is a good thing. As a whole, I will not judge and welcome those believers to continue believing. I’m not one of those non-believers who attempts to mute the voices of the faithful. But we cannot and should not govern based on religion. There are ideals that match up, I’m not doubting that, but we are a nation of diversity and one group’s ideals are not the ideals of others.
In this case, we are talking about homosexuality. Now if you’re with Anna, you’re with this statement:
“Christianity is under attack because Gods word speaks against Homosexuality”
Now, I believe Christian ideals are under attack politically, and that political arguments structured around religion are often times going to be considered unfounded arguments — much like this statement.
The gay community argues that homosexuality is under attack because of Christianity, and to turn that statement around and say that Christian ideals are under attack because of the gay community, well, if that’s what you believe it’s what you believe.
All I can say, again, is we do not share belief systems.
Matt,
When you say “There are ideals that match up, I’m not doubting that, but we are a nation of diversity and one group’s ideals are not the ideals of others.” what exactly do you mean?
I understand on the one side you are referring to “Christian Ideals” but I’m not sure what you are matching them up against – Matt’s Opinion perhaps?
You are all for shoving “Christian Ideals” to the side and replacing them with what exactly? You reject God’s Word as a foundation for any argument and yet it seems you are proposing that we accept Matt’s Word as the foundation of these ideals you are promoting.
“Christian Ideals” have been the cornerstone of much of Western civilization for the past 1,700 years and you are now advocating that we abandon that in favor of “Matt’s Opinion”?
What exactly does “Matt’s Opinion” have to show for itself?
What is to prevent “Matt’s Opinion” from changing day to day?
How do you recommend that we re-organize society around these udoubtedly superior but potentially malleable “Ideals” of yours?
These are the things we must ponder before we attempt to re-make man & society in Matt’s image.
Facts are that we are driven, we are designed by our hormones. For the past 50 years we have embraced pesticides that are endocrine disruptors – hormones. These are estrogenic or female hormones, gender benders. For those of you unfamiliar with Silent Spring, the recent research of Louis and Elizabeth Guillette graphically pointed out their effect on wildlife, sterile males and females with the inability to reproduce. Humans are part of the same food chain and we should capable of understanding that we are affected the same way; that these gender benders would alter sexual differentiation before, during and after conception. AND the result would be offspring that may appear outwardly as male or female but the hormone imbalance would alter their sexual preference.
Next add soy products to the hormone stew. Legumes, with soy at the top of the list are estrogenic. Boy and girl babies fed a soy based formula get the equivalent of something like 30 birth control pills every, that is every day. Many girls are developing breasts and pubic hair as young as 9 years old yet by the time they reach their twenties they have difficulty with conception because spontaneous abortions are common. Boy babies are showing the same physical qualities as a chemically castrated steer – accumulation of fat, lack of interest in physical activity and infertility.
What does this have to do with a ‘gay pride’ parade or legislating for or against gay marriage? When babies under our tender care are fed hormones that alter their gender what can we expect when they get older and exhibit these preferences? We made them that way so how can we judge their behavior as wrong? We can make all the laws we want prohibiting homosexual behavior, it can’t change what we have made them. When WE take responsibility and clean up the food supply, any of these laws will become moot because people can ‘be fruitful and multiply’.
Not sure if that was a productive comment, M.J., because I never suggested the world revolve around “Matt’s Opinion” (although I love the caps, I must keep the caps on that and refer to God as god from now on).
Come on, now.
“You reject God’s Word as a foundation for any argument.”
Now, where does this maliciousness come from? I never said that, and nor would I ever. Like I said, we don’t need any more O’Reilly’s.
We must work on acceptance in this country. Oftentimes, I feel like I am not accepted for being an agnostic. I do not say grace at family meals, I do not pray before bed and I don’t go to church on the Sabbath. Does this make me a better or worse person than you? NO!
I have never, and will never, argue otherwise.
Some churches have chosen to accept homosexuality. If you want a neighboring example, look to Little Falls at http://www.motherflash.com/oursaviours/
Or look to the north at http://www.uccbrainerd.org
Now, are those churches “shoving Christian Ideals to the side?”
Just think about it. No need to try to turn this into a Matt’s Opinion vs. God’s Opinion argument, instead, let’s discuss what you think are “Christian Ideals” versus what other Christian churches think are “Christian Ideals.”
Matt,
There was no maliciousness intended at all. I guess I interpreted your comment:
“…arguments structured around religion are often times going to be considered unfounded arguments”
as representing your view as well, perhaps I unfairly jumped to that conclusion. Considering you are an agnostic it would be somewhat surprising that you would consider an argument founded on scriptural truths to be convincing.
Would you say that as an agnostic you give a great deal of credence to what scripture has to say about what is right and what is wrong? what is truth and what is error?
If you do not, my question was and is what is the basis or foundation for your “Ideals”? What beyond your own opinion are you relying on as a foundation for truth? on what exactly are you planning on basing your politics and government in the absence of “Christian Ideals”?
I did not mean to imply that you think the world revolves around your opinion, but rather that your world revolves around your own opinion. That is to say that you and others like you are not submitting yourselves to any objective source of truth such as revelation but instead retain for yourself the right to be the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree that you and I are of equal value in God’s eyes. In the absence of God however I’m not so sure we can say that. In the absence of God I might think I’m a whole lot better than you and who’s going to prove that I’m not? In the absence of God there aren’t any right answers, there isn’t any truth. In the absence of God it all boils down to opinion Matt.
If we don’t believe there is any objective Truth, the best we can hope for is that we can build a majority consensus as to how we are to act. Our justification for punishing those who chose to act in ways contrary to the consensus is simply majority rule. Might makes right.
I think this most certainly is an argument about “Matt’s Opinion” vs. God’s Truth if you are able to view yourself as a symbol for Man in general.
With regard to the views of the two churches you mention, it was not my intent to get into a denominational apologetics conversation.
My main point was that there is no foundation for the “Christian Ideal” free politics and government that you have declared good. No foundation beyond majority opinion which is not very stable and frequently can be tyrannical.
I think the problem is not so much whether homosexuals are allowed to marry or not. It’s that the term marriage is being used in all of the arguments. It’s not that homosexuals want to rewrite the Bible, Koran, etc. They just want the same rights with their partners that they would receive from the government if they were a married heterosexual couple. I think that’s pretty reasonable.
Marriage is a spiritual union recognized by the church. Yet it’s also recognized by the government is where the problem lies. That whole division of church and state thing isn’t quite getting applied here.
I think they just need to make a civil union of sorts that would allow homosexuals to receive the same benefits as they would receive in a normal marriage. Then they could just call it something other then marriage.
Nothing needs to change in regards to a traditional marriage.
Better understood.
Please remember there are many gay Americans who love God and love someone of the same sex. I believe, without God as my witness, that gay men and women should be allowed to marry each other in God’s church. Who is to say they shouldn’t, God, or you?
Also, M.J., we must discuss those churches I have mentioned if we are to understand “God’s Truth.” What is God’s Truth? Who defines it?
I base my actions and decisions on moral values. If you are suggesting I do not have a sound values system simply because I do not believe in God, then apparently you are not a better person than I. That’s disrespectful.
You are defining God’s word, picking and choosing what to believe and what not to believe from the bible? Do you believe that Jonah lived inside a fish for three days and nights? What that fictional story teaches you — patience and obedience — is the importance of the church. If you believe it is a true story, that is your belief. I will certainly choose not to believe the same thing as you.
In conclusion, my world does revolve around my opinion, in the sense you speak of. I form my own beliefs and do not let the church do it for me. Parents, school, books, friends, media… these are all the things that help form an individuals belief system. We all are uniquely defined, scientifically, to create our own value systems (consider value theory).
Matt,
Here is the question. Is there such a thing as truth or isn’t there?
If there is truth, are we not obligated to seek it? Does reality not necessarily correspond with truth? If there is truth and we ignore it or oppose it are we not destined ultimately to fail?
If there is truth, where does it seem most plausibly to be found? In the institutions and writings that have been guiding men’s lives for millennia or in the advice of our friends, schools & the media?
We do possess a free will, we do have the power to choose.
We will all have to live with the consequences that follow from the choices we make.
I pray that we all choose wisely.
Seek truth, M.J., seek it with all of your glorious might. Live your destiny of truth and valor!
LOL… what do you want from me here? You believe in “God” and “God’s Word” and “God’s Truth,” and I dont. I can’t be saved… LOL
I will live with the consequences of choosing not to believe in God, M.J. I have for quite some time. I still love. I’m still loved.
Pray that “all choose wisely,” but please don’t think that the choices you believe are good are the only choices out there. You can’t define good any better than anyone else. You just choose to define life through religion, and I choose not to.
If you’re a man that finds yourself attracted to another man… go for it!!! If you’re a woman that finds yourself in love with another woman, marry her!
But, M.J., if you have God in your life, do not assume that others are wrong because they don’t think God exists. Think of yourself as fortunate for believing in your own “Truth.” Because, guess what, I consider myself fortunate for not believing in God.
(Does this mean I won’t be getting a birthday card from the Pope this year?)
Actually Matt, as a moral relativist the advice you are giving me seems more appropriately applied to you.
You are the one who should not be thinking that your choices are the best choices out there since according to your world view as I understand it there is no such thing as a “best” choice.
You are the one who should not be assuming that others are wrong because they think that God does exist since in your mind what is right or true for you may not be right or true for me.
I, on the other hand am obligated to think that you are making poor choices and that you are advising others to do the same.
Precisely because I do believe that God exists and that there is such a thing as Truth I absolutely will believe that others are wrong because they do not believe it.
Do I think them evil because they do not believe? No, I do not.
Do I think they can not be “saved” as you say since they do not believe? That is not for me to determine.
I do consider myself blessed to have been given the gift of faith. Conversely, I can not help but think of you and others in your position as less than fortunate even in the face of your vociferous disagreement.
No doubt this all sounds like the height of arrogance to you, but if in fact as I believe there really is such a thing as Truth and there really is such a Person as God, would it not be rather selfish and negligent of me to not try and help others to recognize this fact?
Your world view does not require a whole lot from you or others. Live and let live as they say. My world view obligates me to try and help others especially in cases where they really aren’t all that interested in being helped.
I can see why you may find this a bit annoying, but the prevalence of your world view today really only serves to demonstrate how much the world is in need of this help.
Matt, I do want to say that while I do not agree with you, I do respect your right to make your own choices and to define your own beliefs.
As I understand things, God absolutely respects it too.
I thank you for the dialogue Mr. Perkins and I wish you well.
I don’t find this annoying, at all. I find this enlightening (pun intended, but perhaps it doesn’t work).
Continue to come back and participate in discussion, M.J., your opinion counts as much as mine and it’s nice to have that balance.
For everyone interested, come back next week when I expect to blog on Obama’s quote “air raiding villages and killing civilians.”
“Precisely because I do believe that God exists and that there is such a thing as Truth I absolutely will believe that others are wrong because they do not believe it.”
MJ…to believe that others are wrong just because they do not believe as you…especially on such a personal subject matter as God, is just plain wrong. It also is not up to one individual to decide who is “blessed” or not because of their “faith” beliefs. I do not think that you sound “like the height of arrogance”, but perhaps you are just a touch (maybe more than a touch) angry and unwilling to beleive that any way but your way of thinking is right (and I am guessing it is not only on the topic of religion/”faith” that this might apply to your kind of thinking). Perhaps you should have “faith” that even though others do not specifically agree with you in this area, that they do have a belief in the good of mankind and in being good people.
Matt, thank you for starting this particular blog. In following all of the back and forth I have gotten the chance to read, digest and accept (or simply to shake my head at the stubborness of a few) other points of view. I may not have piped in until now, but I did enjoy the back and forth between all parties.
CamperSunset,
Please pause for a moment and listen to yourself.
“MJ…to believe that others are wrong just because they do not believe as you…especially on such a personal subject matter as God, is just plain wrong.”
Are you not contradicting yourself within this very sentence? Are you not telling me here that I am wrong because I do not believe as you do on the personal subject matter of God?
You are doling out advice here that you are not making use of yourself.
Moral relativists like to think of themselves as being very open minded but they have their own Dogmas that they adhere to whether they recognize them for what they are or not.
I don’t have any doubt that “others” who do not agree with me in this area have a belief in the good of mankind and in being good people.
What I guess I don’t understand is, what does that mean in the absence of any real standard of good? What does “good” mean in God’s absence?
If you remove God, Truth and Moral Absolutes as measuring sticks – what are you left with besides your opinion? In that case your “good” and my “good” could be entirely different from each other so much so as to render the meaning of the word “good” to be nothing beyond that which we desire.
A government based on this viewpoint could be capable of just about anything.
I’m sorry if you think that my disagreement about these matters is due to me being angry and stubborn. For someone who claims to be for tolerance and acceptance of all points of view, you seem rather eager to pass judgment on me.
In this entire exchange Matt never once accused me of either of these things, nor did I accuse him of them… but now that the voice of tolerance has piped up I stand condemned.
MJ…ever play the game Twister? (You sure are good at twisting things.)
I did not “accuse” you of being angry and stubborn…I merely suggested you might be (hence the use of the word “perhaps”, not “are”).
I never claimed to be “the voice of tolerance”, you can “stand” down.
I’d say Matt is a pretty non-biased journalist and I appreciate that quality. Thank you Matt.
CampersSunset,
If I were to “suggest” that you “might be” a liar, but then when called on it turned around and claimed “well, I never technically called you a liar, I merely suggested that you might be a liar”, would you take great comfort in that?
Technically, you haven’t “accused” me of being angry and stubborn but “merely suggesting” it amounts to nearly the same thing, it differs only in matter of degree.
If any one is twisting things here it would be the person who runs around “suggesting” that others have less than admirable qualities and then is taken aback when those people take exception to the “suggestion”.
While it is true that you did not make the statement “I, SunsetsCamper am the voice of tolerance”, your advice to me in your previous post is pretty much a paean for acceptance and tolerance of others views regardless of whether I believe them to be right or wrong.
If I actually have the temerity to suggest that someone else might be wrong then I “..might be a touch (maybe more than a touch)angry..”. That to me sounds like what has become the modern day voice of tolerance.
If you would like me to “stand down” I might suggest that you cease posting negative “suggestions” about the character of others whom you know little or nothing about in an effort to try and discredit their arguments.
I can not agree or disagree with your comments on Matt as a journalist since I have never read a news article that he has written.
It is clear that he is a quite biased blogger but that is fine because he is not under any obligation to try to be objective in this forum.
This blog is about opinion. I’m sure that has always been made clear. I believe CamperSunset is referring to a previous post in which I pointed out that social conservatives and Republicans were dumb enough to suggest that my credibility as a journalist is called into question when my political and religious beliefs do not match their own. I would invite everyone to read that post again, because it’s absolutely irresponsible to ever attack a journalist’s professional integrity simply because they do not believe in God. That is beyond irresponsible, it’s mean spirited. Fortunately, I was not raised to be that kind of person, and I’ve made the decision in my young adult life to never become that kind of person.
I invite everyone to express their biased opinion in this forum, so that we can discuss and better understand the other side of the argument. In the back and forth between M.J. and myself, I think it was successful. I didn’t change her, she didn’t change me. but we opened up the discussion and can better understand where both sides are coming from. I believe that “God’s Truth” is fictional, and M.J. believes that without “God’s Truth” it is impossible to define Truth.
So I’ll refer to Dr. Suess’ Star-bellied Sneetches for moral guidance, and she will refer to God’s Bible.