How much of a theocrat do you have to be to consider Bill O'Reilly anti-Christian? You have to be as out of your freaking mind as John Lofton. This actually sounds like something Jeff Foxworthy would say if you changed his famous catchphrase just a bit: If you think the guy who spends countless hours blathering like a moron about the "war on Christmas" is "anti-Christian", you might be an idiot. Or a fanatic. Or both, in this case. O'Reilly spends a huge portion of his time ranting about "secular progressives" trying to undermine traditional Christianity. To a certified nutball like Lofton, that means he's anti-Christian. This guy wouldn't know reality if it crawled up his pantleg, perched on his ass and yodeled the Ave Maria.
Lofton writing in response to O'Reilly: "As one of 'the folks,' I have already decided about you. On this topic, you are a fraud, a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing who is perpetuating the precise kind of dishonest spin you say you are against."
Ed, I think this is an accurate assessment from Lofton's point of view. O'Reilly is a gasbag (something you point out frequently here in your blog). Lofton is noticing this too but from a very different angle.
The bottom line is: O'Reilly will say whatever is necessary to maintain his book sales and ratings. I don't for a moment think he believes anything he says. Lofton has noticed O'Reilly's inconsistent message and is bringing it to light. None of this is to suggest that Lofton is worth listening to either but, as the old saying goes, "A stopped clock is right twice a day."
Wow, even the total idiots are noticing O'Reilly is no good. I never thought I would agree with a fundamentalist over anything.
I don't think it takes a theocrat to dislike O'Reilly's faux "War on Christmas". It's all about the superficial trappings of a religious holiday and nothing at all about the meaning. Anyone who loves Christmas for its religious significance and not its cultural baggage dosn't want any part of O'Reilly's nonsense.
I'm no theocrat -- I'm a progressive Christian -- and O'Reilly is just a friggin embarassment.
Lofton vs. O'Reilly underscores the need for separation of church and state. Both men advocate a greater role for religion in government, but they differ on whose religion it should be. O'Reilly represents a 1950s style civil religion which took an ecumenical "anything but atheism" attitude. O'Reilly seems to think school prayers will be like New York in the 1950s when education officials consulted Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish clergy to draft an interfaith prayer. That's an anathema to Lofton. He's more like a throwback to Philadelphia in 1844 when Catholic complaints about Protestantism in the schools caused a riot. It's too bad that both men can't see how their religious differences undermine their accomadationist beliefs.
But you're missing something, Allen and ruidh. Lofton isn't merely noting that O'Reilly is a hypocrite; that's so obviously true that no sane human being, including O'Reilly's mother, could fail to see it. Loften is arguing that O'Reilly is "anti-Christian" because he's not a theocrat. He quotes O'Reilly as saying that this is a secular nation, which is obviously true, and repeatedly claims that this makes him anti-Christian. That's completely looney.
While I may not like either man on any sort of social (and quite possibly not a personal) level, I have one thing to say in favor of Lofton's argument:
Of the many christians I have known, the "best" were the ones who do not parade their christianity to others, who must avow themselves constantly. This is akin to a man who, in denial in his own mind, must ensure all other people think the same thing. Inwardly, he fears it is true, and must reject it by seeking agreement. If no one agrees, or he is left alone, he begins to totter back to that dark secret, and must eventually face it, or flee forever. Sadly, selfishness of this caliber is the hallmark of many political christians, including the President, who'se constant affirmation is merely to win support to their views. As in Genesis' song, "Jesus He Knows Me," the protagonist is his own antagonist, on the sly trying to make up for actions he cannot admit to. So true for O'Reilly. A true christian, the majority no one hears about, has no need for this kind of public affirmation, since he is secure in both his actions and his faith.
If you haven't seen this great interview, here's Letterman and Bill-O, it is PRICELESS: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Jtica4Q401w (includes the war on x-mas)
How big an idiot do you have to be to think that O'Reilly is anything like a Christian? How big an idiot do you have to be to not see that genuine Christians would legitimately be outraged over the perversion of their religion by the likes of O'Reilly? Ed....?
Of course O'Reilly is a hypocrite about it, but that's not relevant to my argument. That doesn't mean he "perverts" Christianity, it just means he doesn't follow it consistently. But Lofton's argument is that O'Reilly is "anti-Christian" because he's not a theocrat, and that's patently absurd.
This guy wouldn't know reality if it crawled up his pantleg, perched on his ass and yodeled the Ave Maria.
I wouldn't either. That would be quite a disguise.