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.
January 11, 2011 at 11:54 pm
I think he was once described with two words……….Ted.Baxter.
That was uncharitable…..to Ted. Ted was only a pompous windbag, a harmless buffoon.
January 12, 2011 at 1:44 am
I never watch O'Reilly either, because he constantly interrupts his guests and talks over them. He's a true know-it-all and blowhard.
January 12, 2011 at 2:10 am
Don't know him, don't follow him. Just another Catholic-til-it's-inconvenient. He doesn't know real science any more than the pro-aborts do. Pray for him.
January 12, 2011 at 2:16 am
Bill O'Reilly says he went to a Catholic school but he seems to be very ignorant of many of the basic truths of his faith. I wish he would stop claiming to be a Catholic.
January 12, 2011 at 2:29 am
I watch O'Reilly all the time. Mostly he's pretty darn good but sometimes he irritates the sherbet(you know what word I want to use)out of me and I, too, picked up on his dodge when he made it. I even emailed him about it but got no reply. I often think he is so obsessed with being "fair and balanced" and getting guests from "both sides" on his show that he will rationalize anything to that end. Hence his abortion dodge. But I also think that calling him names like a squish (whatever that means) serves no purpose…rather get on his show and debate him.
Okay, Cheers.
January 12, 2011 at 3:53 am
I'm ashamed to say that Mr O'Reilly went to the same Catholic high school as I did (he many years before me). I don't believe he ever mentions the school by name – so I won't – but he did once come out of the closet to attend a function related to that school when, I guess, he saw an opportunity to expand his celebrity to one market he'd been ignoring. He's nothing more than a self-absorbed shameless huckster.
January 12, 2011 at 11:26 am
Speaking of a no spin zone. Why doesn't Bill tell us what the inappropriate and explicit message was he left on one of his intern's answer machine that he paid her millions of dollars not to be released.
Where is this no spin zone? If you asked him about this do we honestly believe we would get a no spin zone?
O'Reilly is a phony. And no friend to the Pro-Life movement.
Anyone who is capable of the above sleasiness, is capable of anything.
January 12, 2011 at 11:32 am
Where is Father Thomas Euteneuer when we need him.
January 12, 2011 at 2:17 pm
No Campion, O'Reilly…no Southwell, Hannity.
January 12, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Bill O'Reilly says he went to a Catholic school but he seems to be very ignorant of many of the basic truths of his faith
Unfortunately, that may be very true. Going to a Catholic school does not necessarily mean learning anything about the Catholic faith.
January 12, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Hey, don't get mad at Bill O'Reilly. He is a person like everyone else. He has an opinion like everyone else and he does it for one reason. MONEY is the reason for all talk show people. How much he makes depends on people like you who watch or listen to him. Remember what Barnum said: "There is a sucker born every minute". Hello "sucker".
January 12, 2011 at 3:54 pm
If O'Reilly can't make money on it, he's a wimp.
I'm grateful for something other than the status quo in media, but that's all Fox News is, it's not the truth, just something else.
January 12, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Well, what is truth? I believe someone ask Jesus the question. What was his answer? He gave none because truth is self evident and everyone knows the truth. Problem is that we become spellbound by the TV and Internet to the point that we are unable to descern the truth. The solution is simple–don't believe what you see and hear. Be silent and listen for the truth about the things that are important to you and what you are attempting to do with your life. All the world is a stage and you are one of the actors. Find out what God's purpose is for you. You will be glad you did……
January 12, 2011 at 5:15 pm
For that statement, O'Reilly is a Pinhead!
January 12, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I am glad to see, 'Dr. George', that you mention O'Reilly's infamous "pinhead" put down. I do not know how many might recall that microcephalic children (as opposed to macrocephalic) were frequently referred to as "pinheads" due to their incredibly small skulls with attendant severe disabilities. I think O'Reilly's use of the put-down "pinhead" is vicious, shameful, and hurtful to those who have members of their family afflicted by this condition. Someone from the MH/MR professions should call him out out it!
January 12, 2011 at 5:40 pm
sorry…typo…should read "…call him out on it!"
January 13, 2011 at 1:28 am
What I don't understand is how Bill O. doesn't see the inconsistency between his "potential human being" stand & his vehement defense of kids who are abused by adults. I always like to hear him get revved up about that but WHY won't he defend kids before they're born too??
I'm SO tired of CINOs. Sigh.
January 13, 2011 at 2:05 am
In my opinion, Therese Rita, O'Reilly would lose more viewers by insisting unborn children are human beings than he would by 'defending' abused children who are (obviously and manifestly) already born, i.e. visibly 'human' to his audience. His outrage over fiscal matters far far exceeds his outrage (if any) over abortion. Follow the money and there is Bill.
January 13, 2011 at 3:11 am
Maybe, O'Reilly needs to know the difference between potential versus actual.
Pro-choice advocates try to justify abortion by calling a foetus a potential human being. “Potential” means not-yet, only in-the-future, possible, human being. A foetus, latin for unborn baby, is an actual being, here-and-now, presently, really, factually alive and human. Abortion by definition is taking the life of a live and human being. Better right and accurate than pithy, Bill.
(EXPLANATION: A foetus in the womb, to be sure, is an independent, self-contained, live, human being with all the potentials – to be a newborn, a child and an adult. It is as fully, in substance, essence and nature, the same live human being as its future potentials as a newborn, child and adult. It is different from its potentials only in the accidents (in the philosophical sense) of time and place, weight, size, color, location, etc.There is a big difference between an actual human being with potentials which a foetus is, and a potential human being which a foetus is not.)
January 13, 2011 at 8:47 am
A link should be provided so that we can actually hear/read what he said in context. Given his loud, in-your-face style, he's put his foot in his mouth on more than one occasion. However, people should note that on many occasions O'Reilly has argued the anti-abortion stance against pro-abortion advocates. For example he got a lot of heat for his criticism of Mr. Tiller, the Kansas abortionist who specialized in abortions past the point of viability outside the womb. Tiller became more or less untouchable in mainstream media because his murder by a mentally-ill anti-abortion fanatic made him a martyr of the pro-abortion cause.
Also remember that in America, lots of Catholics are Catholics by birth or "cultural Catholics." Most are not formally educated in the faith and few priests teach doctrine during their homilies. As far as I've heard, O'Reilly doesn't couch his anti-abortion arguments in religious terms nor does he claim to speak for the Church.