Like his fellow Fox Christians, the devout Catholic Bill O'Reilly has no qualms about making sure that his audience knows that terrorism, perpetrated by those with a radical Islamic worldview, is "Islamic" terrorism. He used the Charlie Hebdo massacre to, once again, make that point. But it's ironic, don't ya think, that when Christians commit crime in the name of their god, O'Reilly sings a different tune?
O'Reilly, who wages his own personal jihad against anybody who doesn't subscribe to his "traditional" Christian views, has been speaking out against those who don't use the adjective "Islamic" in any discussion of terror perpetrated by those whose political views have been informed by a radical interpretation of Islam. In 2010, he painted all Muslims with the same brush with his comment that the world has "a Muslim problem" (not a radical Muslim problem). O'Reilly even sent out his smarmy stalker Jesse Watters to ask students at Columbia U. if there is "a Muslim problem."
After Jon Stewart called out O'Reilly's religious stereotyping, during O'Reilly's 2013 appearance on The Daily Show, O'Reilly used one of his "Tips of the Day" to defend himself. In 2013, while discussing the Boston Marathon bombings, he made sure to note that the alleged perpetrators were Muslim and made the absurd claim that liberals were disappointed that this was the case.
So it was not unexpected that O'Reilly would use the Charlie Hebdo massacre to, once again, set the terms for defining terrorism - Islamic terrorism, that is. Wednesday, he wasted no time in reporting about the attack by "Muslim killers." He made the hyperbolic and bogus claim that "every country on earth is impacted by the jihad." In reacting to Pres. Obama's comment about "the senseless violence of the few," he claimed that "it isn't a few." In attacking former Gov. Howard Dean's "dumb" comment about how the Paris killers did not represent all Muslims, he claimed that Dean is "in denial."
He continued his jihad last night when he reminded his aging, Christian barcalounger brigade that "we're not just dealing with a few people here" and that "extreme Islam has taken root and is at the source of ultra-violence around the world." He mocked those who say that we shouldn't "demean Muslims or create Islamophobia" because these same people weren't, dammit, offering a solution for "how to combat the jihad." Making sure to work in a right wing anti-Obama talking point, he accused the President's "rhetoric" of being "soft on Islam." (Obama is a secret Muslim, winky, winky) He claimed that "a substantial minority" of Muslims are "evil" and - wait for it - "the faith can be used to condone violence." He repeated his message from five years ago with the added perk of an attack on the President: "There is a problem in the Muslim world. And, sadly, among those not getting that is President Obama."
So Islam can be used to condone violence. That's interesting because, in 2011, Anders Breivik, who described himself as a Christian who was acting on behalf of Christianity, killed 72 adults and children in order to "save Norway and Western Europe from a Muslim takeover." So did O'Reilly excoriate Christianity and demand that Norway do something about Christian terrorism? No, he had a total hissy fit that Breivik was described, by the mainstream media, as a Christian because - wait for it - "no one believing in Jesus commits mass murder." Obviously, in O'Reilly's playbook, Muslims are not put in the same category.
When Ralph Lang, a devout Catholic, was convicted of plotting to kill abortion clinic workers, I don't recall that O'Reilly said anything about this thwarted act of domestic terrorism. And speaking of abortion clinic violence, all of which is motivated by an interpretation of Christianity, we have the murder of Dr. Tiller, clearly another act of domestic terrorism which occurred in a climate of hate aided and abetted by O'Reilly's multi-year jihad against the abortion provider. (Talk about "evil.")Tiller was murdered by a "pro-life" Christian. Did O'Reilly excoriate all Christians and say that Christianity was used, in this case, to condone violence? While he did say that Americans should condemn this act, he didn't say anything about how Christianity was "used to condone violence." He didn't call for a solution to radical anti-choice (and anti-gay) Christianity.
We have a Bill O'Reilly problem and he's not getting it!