For the religious right, public displays of Christianity are the true mark of good character. So, several years ago, as part of its unrelenting attempt to impugn Pres. Obama's character, Fox News expressed concern about President Obama's church attendance. Obama's involvement of church leaders, in health care reform, was considered "disingenuous" because he hadn't selected a church. Fox Nation asked why the president didn't attend church. Fox priest, Fr. Jonathan Morris, who wasn't judging, oh, no, sweetly questioned how Obama could have faith when - wait for it - he hadn't chosen a church. Bill O'Reilly, who was clearly judging, declared that Obama should attend church more often because "seeing" the president in church is "a good thing." Flash forward to 2013 and the divinely inspired Bill, who judges others on the basis of how their standards comport with his, hasn't changed his tune. In what was purported to be a segment about the President's faith, O'Reilly could barely contain his judgment.
O'Reilly's "Impact Segment" was about "President Obama and faith." He wasted no time in reminding us that the president is a Christian (he's not a Muslim?) and "for years was pastored" by Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Bill noted that the president "doesn't worship publicly very much and his theological beliefs are not well known." (Unlike Bill who let his readers know that he attends weekly Mass and who brags about his Catholicism at every opportunity.) He introduced his guest, the Rev. Joshua DuBois who has written a book, " The President's Devotional: The Daily Readings That Inspired President Obama" which is about prayers and readings that Pres. Obama shared with Rev. DuBois.
Bill immediately asked if he was wrong about the president not having "a lot of use for traditional organized religion" - a question which seems to reflect Bill's not so thinly veiled contempt for those who, unlike Bill, don't subscribe to "Judeo-Christan" religious orthodoxy with all its trappings. DuBois described Obama as a "committed Christian" and spoke of how he doesn't "wear his religion on his sleeve." (Like O'Reilly!) O'Reilly wanted to know why Obama "doesn't go to church more often." O'Reilly, looking exasperated, asked DuBois why the president "doesn't go to church more often because that would send a signal to the world that he is a Christian, it may be a photo-op I understand that...but again you know if he's a believer and he wants people to go the path that he believes is worthy, wouldn't it be better if he went out a few times,, more times, to church."
When DuBois tried to say that Obama does attend church, O'Reilly disputed him and claimed that the president "only goes to church six or seven times a year." He added that Obama "were a Catholic, he would be in serious trouble." (For all you non-Catholics, the Catholic Church, in an effort to put the asses in the seats and the money in the baskets, mandates, under penalty of eternal damnation, that Catholics attend weekly Mass).
O'Reilly zeroed in for the kill: "I'm wondering, if he went to church with Jeremiah Wright, almost, a couple of times a month [questionable assertion] he was there a lot, but now he doesn't, I'm not sure, I don't know why." When DuBois cited recent instances of Obama's church attendance, O'Reilly overtalked him: "He doesn't go on a regular basis." Still over talking, O'Reilly asked "you don't see it necessary for him to be a public kind of guy?"
O'Reilly noted that Rev. Wright is an "advocacy preacher" and asked if Obama uses his Christianity to advocate for issues. When DuBois said that Obama "leads with his relationship with Jesus," O'Reilly opined that he's "never heard him say the word Jesus." (OMG) DuBois refuted that claim and encouraged Bill to read Obama's Easter Prayer Breakfast speech. O'Reilly claimed that he "wasn't casting aspersions" on the president's faith. (Fail!)
The conversation became all about Bill. He reminded DuBois that he wrote "Killing Jesus" and asserted that "as a secular broadcaster," he "doesn't proselytize" and "respects all beliefs." (WTF? He hates "fascist" atheists and damns anybody who doesn't say Merry Christmas!) He noted, however, that he "defends" his beliefs. He shouted, "We don't see that kind of defense from the president. For example, we've never seen him say, 'Why don't you knock off the anti-Christmas business? It's really wrong for the nation.' I've never heard him say it."
If only everybody followed Bill O'Reilly's advice, the world would be a better place?!
These cafeteria Catholics at this fraudulent “news” network are full of themselves. They act one way in front of the camera, and another in private.
Billy does not act like a good little Catholic boy, especially when he is battling the boys on the Second Floor, and he knows exactly what we mean.
NOTE TO BILLY
A very “christian” behavior, eh Billy?
Hell, the term “War on Christmas” was coined in a passage advocating eugenics against minority immigrants. “Alien Nation” by Peter Brimelow, if you don’t believe me. And God, would I love to ask O’Reilly to his face why he’s promoting a concept started in a promotion of eugenics.
Of course, living in the South, I also remember seeing a number of grown men in the congregation glancing at their watches during the Sunday sermon—especially during football season—to make sure they were going to be able to make it home in time for whatever kick-off they were looking forward to. Just because your body was sitting in a church pew didn’t mean your mind or spirit was there performing the function either of them was supposed to do. I also remember a number of men who you’d see going to Sunday School, but were never in a church pew listening to the minister—at least not until football season was over for the year (including the Super Bowl—since the Super Bowl was typically broadcast during the Eastern and Central time zones early-to-midafternoon until the 90s).
Now, I don’t know which particular version of the Bible he reads (as the “Good Roman Catholic” he is*), but here are three translations of a passage he might want to refamiliarize himself with. The verses are Matthew 6:5-6.
“When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners so that they may be seen by men. Truly I say to you, they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, close your door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees what is done in secret will reward you.” (New American Standard Version)
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.” (King James Version)
“And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward.” (New Revised Standard Version)
There’s an article at religioustolerance.org (I know—probably NOT a site that O’Reilly would care to frequent) that offers some BIBLICAL insight into Jesus’s views on the nature of prayer—including some that might appear to contradict the above verses from Matthew but the article explains the “contradictions” and how they’re not quite as contradictory as they might appear at first. The link is http://www.religioustolerance.org/prayer.htm
I wasn’t completely aware that there’s not a *single standard Bible used by Catholics (obviously, I’m not thinking in terms of “worldwide” since the Bible is translated in thousands of languages and dialects—or just parts of it, at any rate) until I checked around. An entry at the forums/message boards at Catholic.com on the topic has one respondent noting that he uses 6 different versions (depending on his “mood” at the time) although I’m not certain how many of the commenters there are “professionals” (ie, Biblical researchers, priests, seminarians, etc) and how many are just “civilians.” I can’t imagine owning a Latin or Greek version solely for its greater “authenticity” unless I had a deep understanding of either language by which I could fully understand a passage and know that the verb being used indicated present indicative usage or past subjunctive usage and was the first person singular or the third person dual forms without having to rely on my “Google translate” function. (It’d be like having a copy of “Don Quixote” in Spanish or “Les Miserables” in French or Goethe’s “Faust” in German simply because I studied one of those languages for 1 year in high school. All it would really show is a touch of pomposity; unless, of course, you’d bought the work at a used-book sale for less than a dollar, looked inside once and realized you didn’t have nearly enough knowledge to understand the language—without relying on Google translate.)