Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Bill O’Reilly Says Richard Dawkins Is A “Bitter” Atheist

Reported by Priscilla - April 18, 2010 -

The DSM defines the narcissistic personality disorder as a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy." Those with the disorder are “prone to exaggerating and padding their accomplishments.” Based on the above criteria, the DSM IV should have photo of Bill O’Reilly next to the diagnosis! In last week’s “Is it Legal” segment, Bill, once again, engaged in his trademark “grandiosity” to which he added a machismo touch. But that’s not surprising given that he has bragged about his muy macho manly attributes! (Number 37) Bill, not a combat veteran, couched his grandiosity in fighting terms which would suggest some fantasies around pugilistic issues or perhaps a vestige of his pugilistic father (page 14. But enough of my virtual diagnosis! One of the discussions, during the segment, was about that nasty, bad atheist, Richard Dawkins who, along with Christopher Hitchens, is seeking legal advice on the feasibility of having the Pope arrested when he visits England. Bill, not an atheist fan, agreed with Kimberly Guilfoyle, also not an atheist fan, that Dawkins is crazy. Hmm, a little “projection,” on Bill’s part, but I digress….

Bill moved into grandiosity mode immediately with his introduction: “Richard Dawkins, atheist guy, been on this program a couple of times. I had the pleasure of slapping him around. Verbally.” He then added that Dawkins wants the Pope arrested when he visits England. Actually, Bill, the last time he appeared on your show, it was you who made a fool out of yourself by claiming that Jesus was responsible for evolution and that teachers who don’t teach this are “fascists.” Dawkins was quite articulate – you, not so much. After his introduction, Kimberly Guilfoyle said, “I mean really.” She continued with her personal attack against Dawkins. She said that “he’s an idiot and mentally unstable.” She added that she is a Roman Catholic. She claimed that on legal grounds there is “absolutely no shot” and cited Papal diplomatic immunity because the Vatican is considered a sovereign state recognized as such by international law and Italian law. O’Reilly said Dawkins just wants publicity. Kimberly agreed and ranted “that’s all it is, it’s grotesque. Was he neglected as a child? I don’t know what his problem is he seems to crave attention?” Bill validated her commentary by saying that “he’s certainly bitter towards anybody who’s in organized religion.” Bill used right wing Pope protecting vocabulary when he said that the “NY Times is pounding the Vatican and the Pope for failing to act aggressively” about the “pedophilia stuff.” Wiehl cited the letter that the pope signed off on that could be “concealment of a crime.”Bill said that a letter isn’t going to put you away. Lis said that a letter isn’t going to make the case for “crimes against humanity. Bill claimed that Dawkins wants to indite the entire Roman Catholic Church. Kimberly, in referencing the Pope’s arguably damming letter, said that it was in 1985 when he did that. Bill affirmed with "that was way back." He claimed that “we have been very aggressive in going after Cardinal Law (that was “way back," Bill) and added that he didn’t agree with Law’s having been rewarded with a post in Rome. He asserted that he wasn’t coming at this to protect the church “even though I am a roman catholic and remain so.” He said that “You both agree that this is a “cheap publicity stunt by a man who just hates organized religion” and both attorneys agreed.

Comment: While Kimberly Guilfoyle’s CV is impressive, it is much less so than Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist who is an Oxford grad and has professorial positions at the University of California and Oxford. Kimberly touts her Roman Catholicism; but I do wonder if she had her Catholic marriage to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom annulled before she remarried her second husband from whom she is now separated. Without an annulment, I believe that she’s considered to be in a state of sin. But whatever. I know she’s a smart cookie; but she obviously doesn’t know that there is precedent for what Dawkins is doing. I found it interesting that she dismissed the Pope’s 1985 letter which was part of a long, drawn out defrocking of a hideous pedophile priest. I also found it interesting that they spent all their time attacking Dawkins and not mentioning any of the other cases that the Pope might be tied to. But the bottom line here is that this attack of Dawkins could be said to be a “cheap publicity stunt by a man who hates atheists.” Nuff said.

Addendum: Fox sycophant and huge Bill O'Reilly fan, Mark Koldys (aka "Johnny Dollar") informs us that Bill was very critical of the Cardinal Law situation and provides a number of links to back up Bill's claim. And that's great. As I consider Law to be no better than a common pimp, I commend Bill. But that doesn't mean that Bill isn't a narcissist with delusions of grandeur. His track record on accomplishments can be a little overblown (saving Christmas in Vermont?) so can you blame me for being skeptical? Put it another way (and I can say this) - Bill is the product of "lace curtains," (from day one despite what he says); but his obnoxious bloviating is just sooo "shanty."