I don’t watch Bill O’Reilly mainly because (and I know some people will laugh at this) I think he’s a squishy.

People often take his loud mouth to mean he’s principled. But it’s just a loud mouth. I sometimes admire his logic but when it comes to abortion he gets awfully squirrelly. Get a load of this illogical statement as reported by Catholic Online:

The No-Spin Zone is once again in need of some actual truth. I tuned in on Friday night to hear Bill O’Reilly read a letter from a viewer in New York who asked him why he keeps referring to the fetus as a “potential human being.” This viewer reminded Bill that as a Roman Catholic, he should know better! How absolutely correct. O’Reilly, however, responded this way:

“I’m absolutely factually correct when I say a fetus is a potential human being and no one can deny that. I respect your opinion but until you become a Supreme Court Justice, it remains your opinion, your belief. I can’t run this program based upon my religious beliefs, so I try to put up arguments based on facts and I believe we are successful in doing that.”

Factually correct? Does Bill O’Reilly somehow believe that religious beliefs are somehow different than actual facts? Does he compartmentalize reality and religion?

Seriously, what is he talking about? Where in the world of science does the term “potential human” come into play? And does O’Reilly believe that Supreme Court justices are arbiters of truth? Because I’m pretty sure I’ve heard O’Reilly disagree with the Court on occasion.

So just to be clear O’Reilly seems to be choosing the “truth” of the Supreme Court over the truth of his Catholicism. Seems like a pitiful dodge to me. Truth shouldn’t be compartmentalized. You can’t say that you believe that the unborn are human unless you’re on television and then all bets are off and you’re somehow required to repeat the talking points of the Supreme Court.

It’s a pretty sad evasion. But sadly, I fear it’s a pretty darn common one.