On O'Reilly Factor, Goldberg compared "liberal media" to Ku Klux Klan
SUMMARY: On the August 16 O'Reilly Factor, Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg asserted that "news executives ... don't seem to care very much about intellectual diversity of opinion." "[T]hat's why journalists can boo ... cheer ... bash Christians, and they're not afraid of what will happen." He concluded: "[T]his isn't that much different from how the Ku Klux Klan operates." O'Reilly responded: "I think it's even beyond that, Bernie." As Media Matters has documented, O'Reilly has repeatedly compared Daily Kos to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.
During the August 16 edition of his Fox News television show, Bill O'Reilly hosted Fox News contributor Bernard Goldberg and Gemma Puglisi, an assistant professor of public communications at American University, to discuss three examples of what Goldberg called "liberal bias" in the media. Goldberg asserted that "news executives ... don't seem to care very much about intellectual diversity of opinion," adding, "[T]hat's why journalists can boo ... cheer ... bash Christians, and they're not afraid of what will happen." He concluded: "[T]his isn't that much different from how the Ku Klux Klan operates. The morons in the Klan felt very comfortable with their bigotry because they knew all the other morons in the Klan shared the same bigotry. Journalists in American newsrooms are very comfortable with their biases. They really don't have a problem. They don't even try ... to hide their biases because they know they are among friends." O'Reilly responded: "I think it's even beyond that, Bernie." As Media Matters for America documented, on the July 19 show, while criticizing JetBlue's decision to provide several travel vouchers to organizers of the YearlyKos convention, O'Reilly repeatedly compared the Daily Kos website to the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan.
During the "Talking Points Memo" segment of the August 16 program, O'Reilly discussed a column by SFGate.com's Mark Morford that asserted that "the thing that modern Christianity seems to do best" is "splinter and divide and segregate. To exclude." Puglisi stated: "I'm a Christian and I was not completely offended by what was written. And I think that people know -- he's a journalist. And he's going to write about something. It's an opinion piece. And that's what he said. He wrote an opinion piece." O'Reilly replied: "I wasn't in tears either, and I'm a Catholic," adding, "[B]ut I know hate when I see it, and this was hate off the chart."
O'Reilly's examples of "liberal bias" included MSNBC's Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough's August 16 assertion that, on his first day at MSNBC, members of the news staff booed during the 2003 State of the Union address. On his August 16 show, Scarborough was discussing the disclosure by The Seattle Times that several staff members had cheered in a meeting after Karl Rove's announcement that he will be leaving as the White House deputy chief of staff on August 31.
As Media Matters has noted, an Indiana University study found that "O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the ['Talking Points Memo'] editorials that open his program each night."
From the August 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right, Bernie, I don't even know what to say anymore, you know? I -- those are three -- and they all fell in our lap today, all of them: the NBC thing, Seattle Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. What say you?
GOLDBERG: Let me make sure I have this right, Bill. The San Francisco Chronicle is a left-wing newspaper that bashes Christians and compares Americans to Muslim terrorists. At The Seattle Times, they openly cheer when they find out Karl Rove is out. And at MSNBC, which is a part of NBC News, they boo in the newsroom when George Bush delivers a State of the Union speech.
I'm shocked -- liberal bias in the media? I mean, I can't believe it.
O'REILLY: But isn't this more than it was when you were at CBS? Isn't it now way over the top?
GOLDBERG: It was like -- I could give you examples from the old days too, but here's why it happened to some degree then and why it's happening more now: because there's no diversity of opinion in the newsrooms. No matter how much news executives go on and on about diversity, about ethnic and racial diversity, and how much they say that we need that to give the full story about things, they don't seem to care very much about intellectual diversity of opinion.
And that's why journalists can boo, they can cheer, they can bash Christians, and they're not afraid of what will happen, because they know they're amongst like-minded people. Listen, Bill, this isn't that much different from how the Ku Klux Klan operates.
The morons in the Klan felt very comfortable with their bigotry because they knew all the other morons in the Klan shared the same bigotry. Journalists in American newsrooms are very comfortable with their biases. They really don't have a problem. They don't even try --
O'REILLY: But I think it's even beyond that, Bernie.
GOLDBERG: -- they don't try to hide their biases because they know they are among friends.
O'REILLY: Right. All the pretenses are gone. But, Professor, I think it's even further than that. If you're the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, you make decisions about what goes on the op-ed page, which columnists are used. And when you get a hate column, like Morford's column that basically says, not one Christian or two, not Jerry Falwell or this, that, and the other thing, all Christians are hateful, are destructive people, bad people.
You don't print that. That's irresponsible -- because you wouldn't print a diatribe against any of the others, blacks, Muslims, Jews, that I named. Am I correct?
PUGLISI: Well, I just wanted to comment on the NBC thing in terms of how things are --
O'REILLY: No, no, no, no. You gotta go with the San Francisco Chronicle first --
PUGLISI: Well, I just want to --
O'REILLY: -- then you can do the NBC thing. Go with the San Francisco.
PUGLISI: I would just -- I would just say that he brought out certain things about the story and he wrote about them. And I just think that, as an editor, there's certain things that you have to be careful of what goes in the paper. I'm a Christian and I was not completely offended by what was written.
And I think that people know -- he's a journalist. And he's going to write about something. It's an opinion piece. And that's what he said. He wrote an opinion piece.
O'REILLY: Again, it was hateful piece. You may not have been offended --
GOLDBERG: What --
O'REILLY: -- but you're pretty --
PUGLISI: And some people -- and you're right. Some people may have been offended. You're right; but some people were not.
O'REILLY: As a journalist, you're jaded. Look, I wasn't in tears -- wait a minute, Bernie. I wasn't in tears either, and I'm a Catholic, OK --
PUGLISI: Right, right, but some people may be.
O'REILLY: -- but I know hate when I see it, and this was hate off the chart. And it wouldn't have been directed at the San Francisco Chronicle by -- at any other group but Christians. That's it, OK? That's it.
What pure garbage. The media or anyone for that matter don't bash christians for being christians. They bash christians who are bashing others. And Bill, as for you knowing hate when you see it, well buddy, it takes one to know one.
And almost forgot - what liberal media?
"the thing that modern Christianity seems to do best" is "splinter and divide and segregate"
How can you possibly defend that quote? The editorialist was bashing Christianity as a whole, not simply conservative Christian leaders.
The pope himself said that you're either with us, or you don't go to heaven. How is that not divisive? It's the very nature of religion to divide them from us, and in some cases convert them into us.
That's simply what the Bible says. "Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through me." Any religous leader who rejects the basic truth of the Bible is a false teacher.
>>Any religous leader who rejects the basic truth of the Bible is a false teacher.
Thanks for proving what Mark Morford said "[link to www.sfgate.com] title="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/15/DDG5RIAFE.DTL&hw=morford&sn=003&sc=368"> that "the thing that modern Christianity seems to do best" is "splinter and divide and segregate"
You think that anyone who doesn't believe in the bible is a false teacher, and then you wonder why articles criticize Christianity as devisive. (Moderate Christians aren't devisive, by the way.)
What Rino Hunter (and many others) doesn't seem to understand is that Jesus didn't mean that he, personally, was the only way. The "I am" sayings have been around for eons, and they never meant that that Christianity is the only way when Jesus said that.
Nope, that's wrong. Any religious leader who rejects the basic truth of the Koran is a false teacher.
Oops, seems I spoke too soon. I've been informed that any religious leader who rejects the basic truth of the Torah is a false teacher.
Geez, bear with me here. After further research, apparently any religious leader who rejects the basic truth of the vedas is a false teacher.
You're still wrong. It's the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. My Bishop told me so.
Okay, we either have a lot of false teachers out there, or there are a lot of different aspects of truth.
Does anybody have any independently-based second references to any of these holy tomes to help me iron out the real truth? I'd like to clear this up before Scrubs comes on tonight.
Kenny, Cartman, and the gang found out that Mormanism is the one true way.
No you're wrong. Anyone who doesn't believe in Santa Claus is an infidel.
Boy, is my face red. Especially after finding out that any religious leader who rejects the basic truth of the Pali Canon is a false teacher.
Oops, how about "Dianetics"?
Okay, a virgin birth, miracles, and resurrection are one thing. But descendents of spacemen? How gullible do you think I am?
It was worth a shot.
Isn't Xenu your homeboy?
Gosh, you're still wrong! If you aren't following the flying spaghetti monster, you will burn in a fiery meatball hell!
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Aaaaargh!
His "noodly appendage" can be sought at: [link to venganza.org]
You mean like protestants? They rejected the teachings and broke with the church so they could create a different version of the bible.
The only difference between the Catholic Bible and the Protestant Bible is that the Catholic Bible has two or three extra books. But the overall message is the same in both. And also, what's the point of being a Christian if everybody goes to heaven anyway? You and others are basically saying that Jesus died for nothing.
>>And also, what's the point of being a Christian if everybody goes to heaven anyway?
Wow, you are really proving Moford's assertion that Christianity is exclusive. You are saying it woujld be much better to have a religion in which only a select number of people were happy, and the rest were tortured forever.
You are defending the dogmatic teaching of a religion that states you must agree with me or you will be damned forever, and then you wonder why people accuse Christianity of being devisive?
My point is that there wouldn't be any point of having any religions if everybody just goes to heaven anyway. Every religion believes that their religion is the way to get to heaven. It's simply a slap in the face to other religions like Islam and Judaism to say that everybody goes to heaven anyway.
>>My point is that there wouldn't be any point of having any religions if everybody just goes to heaven anyway.
Yes, what would be the point of having a religion if everyone was saved? What an awful religion that would be!
You are trying to doge the issue by bringing up Islam and Judiasm. Nice try. You, like the Pope, believe that those who don't accept Jesus are "false teachers." We non Christians are wrong because we don't believe like you. How much more devisive can you get?
So Moford was correct in his article.
There really is no reasoning with you, is there? You're not even trying to be serious. Every religion claims that their religion is the only way to get to heaven. Are they being "dividers" as well? You're simply attacking Christianity because you don't like the morality involved with it. I'm simply pointing out that the Bible clearly says that Jesus is the only way to be saved. You and others can reject the Bible if you wish. You're entitled to your opinion.
Yes, of course, it is my reason that is wrong!
You think I am that easily fooled? You continually bring up other religions, which can also be devisive. I don't think that is exactly a secret, unless you think religious wars are a historical fabrication.
You keep posting devisive comments and then claiming that Christianity is not devisive. In your quote you assume that I am not a moral person because I am not a Christian. You state that Jesus is the only way to be saved. You imply be other posts that we are not going to heaven.
Then you claim that Christianity is not devisive and exclusionary, exactly as Moford said it was.
By the way, I am in no way attacking Christianity. I am attacking those who practice it in a dogmatic way.
"By the way, I am in no way attacking Christianity. I am attacking those who practice it in a dogmatic way"
The entire basis of Christianity is that we are all sinners and are seperated from God because of sin. The Bible teaches that the only way that we can bridge the gap between us and God is by accepting Jesus' free gift on the cross. So yes, when you attack those who believe that Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross is the pathway to eternal life, you are attacking all Christians. Your bigotry is quite evident.
Bingo!
You show yourself as a bigot by accusing me of the same.
If I don't accept your dogma--that Jesus died for our sins--then I am attacking you!
That is the essence of dogmatic Christianity, and it proves Moford exactly right, by your own posts. Let me explain again. I don't believe that you have to agree with my view of the world. If you reject it (as you obviously do), I don't accuse you of attacking my beliefs.
But if I say that I think it is wrong for Christians to say I am a "false teacher" and damned forever, then I am attacking yours.
This epitomizes the whole Christian persecution complex. If the media doesn't accept Christianity, we are attacking it! If we accuse those who bring their religious beliefs into the political discussion of being devisive, then we are attacking them!
Yes, your own posts have proved more than anything how devisive dogmatic Christianity is.
"If I don't accept your dogma--that Jesus died for our sins--then I am attacking you"
No, you're attacking all Christians by saying that Christianity is divisive and those who believe that it's the only way to heaven are dogmatic. I'm not attacking you for not believing in Christianity. I respect your point of view. And how many times do I have to explain that I wasn't talking to you when I was talking about false teachers? You're not a priest are you? I was talking about Christian religious leaders who preach that all religions lead to heaven. I wasn't talking about non-Christians like yourself.
>>No, you're attacking all Christians by saying that Christianity is divisive and those who believe that it's the only way to heaven are dogmatic.
No. I'm attacking dogmatic Christians, who happen to believe their way is the only way. It is pretty silly to claim I am attacking them for pointing out what they believe.
If person X says that his theory on flight is the only theory, and that if you don't believe in it you are going to be punished by god; and further calls you immoral and starts bringing in his theory about flight into political debates; and if I then say "Hey, person X, I have no problem with your theory on flight, but why do you think I have to think like you?" In that scenario, am I attacking person X, or am I pointing out that he is devisive.
Regarding the false teacher thing, this is the first time you have actually said that it only applies to priests or clergy or religious teachers. In context at the beginning of this thread, the implication was that it was about any one who was not a Christians.
"No. I'm attacking dogmatic Christians, who happen to believe their way is the only way"
Yes. You're attacking Christians who believe in the Bible. I completely understand.
Yes, you do understand, but you won't state what it is you understand, that to claim that all those who don't believe like you do, and then to start basing policy on that, and trying to force others to believe like you do (by restricting works of art and certain scientific theory) you are being exclusionary and devisive.
And at the same time you are saying "Hey, don't blame me, I'm just following what is in the bible, or how I choose to interpret it, and if you don't agree with that, then you must be a bigot.
I think you do understand.
Moford was right.
I don't base my political views off of my religious beliefs. If I did that I would want extra-marital sex to be illegal, sodomy to be illegal, pornography to be illegal, etc. But I believe that all these things should remain legal even though I disagree with them.
But other religous leaders do. As you know.
And you further think that I am damned because I don't believe like you.
But you claim to not be devisive.
You are. And if you represent Christianity, then Christianity is devisive.
rino, the bible also says don't eat shellfish or pork because god doesn't want you to. ......wait, what's that i hear someone saying? oh, that's the old testament law. so you just pick and choose whatever you think enforces your belief. i have said before i have no problem with the golden rule christianity of do unto others.... other than that i'm not going to accept the words of people who wrote down the various myths and fairy tales of the day.
Well those laws became obsolete, even though it's the literal word of God who knows all and sees all.
So he changed his mind...and yet somehow remained a perfect being.
He was talking to the Jewish people of that particular time. Those foods were thought to be unclean and unhealthy. You could probably apply those passages to today by staying away from some of today's unhealthy foods and drinks.
Twinkies are an abomination?
rino, thanks for making my point. no doubt that is why those foods were to be avoided. but why is that the "literal word" of god? should a big mac be forbidden as a sin? the point is that eating those things was a sin. it's not.
RH,
Being called divisive is not an attack. It simply means that the belief separates people. Every religion is divisive in some way.
Sorry, I disagree. The editorialist and those on this forum who are defending him obviously meant "divisive" as an attack. "Divisive" isn't a good term. And they're calling Christians divisive for simply believing in the book that Christianity is based on.
No. As you know.
We are calling it devisive becasue they think their way is the only way and others must believe their way and that if they don't they will burn in hell forever; and because they then start limiting the teaching of a scientific theory based on their belief.
That is why.
You have already admitted that Christianity is indeed divisive, now you appear to just be disagreeing with the tone of the remarks or that the author didn't mean it in the nice spin that you seem to accept. This is just silly. Game over. You lost.
Hey Rhino,
You keep talking about the "Book." At last count there were at least a couple hundred different versions. Which one is correct and which ones are incorrect?
The Mormon version says that people who have black skin are cursed by their Creator. Is he racist or what?
"So yes, when you attack those who believe that Jesus' sacrificial death on the cross is the pathway to eternal life, you are attacking all Christians."
But yet, you always insist that attacking Liberalism is not the same as a personal attack. You're so lame sometimes.
Political views and religious views are innately personal matters. To attack the belief is to attack the person. And don't confuse criticism with baseless attacks. I know blurring distinctions is your bread and butter, but I think you're clear headed enough to give it a go.
I don't care if you claim that Christianity isn't true. That's your opinion, and I respect it. What I don't like is when people call those who believe in the Bible "homophobes" or divisive" or whatever else. I criticize the liberal ideology without calling people names. I think that liberals have good intentions, but I just don't think that liberalism has good results.
What a strawman argument. As if my criticism of you was the same as my saying "because you believe in the bible, you are a homophobe."
Talk about grasping for straws.
If you believe that I am damned because I don't believe like you do, then your version of your religion is devisive. I am describing your beliefs, almost exactly.
I was talking about others who have called me a homophobe for pointing out that the Bible condemns homosexuality. I wasn't referring to you.
No, but you compared the smear of "homophobe because you believe in the bible" to my calling you devisive.
There is a big difference in the arguments there.
Actually, as I recall it, you've been called a homophobe because of the things you say about homosexuals. That you get your fear of homosexuals from your own interpretation of the Bible is your bidness.
Like it or not, many Christian churches are liberal.
Not all Christian churches believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.
Not all Christian churches believe that only Christians will be saved.
A lot of Christians believe in liberation theology.
Many right-wing, fundamentalist Christian churches preach that unless you are born again, you will not be saved.
That means that those Christians believe that Catholics will not be saved because they do not believe in being born again nor do they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible.
So please explain how that's not being divisive.
Any religion that claims that it's the true church and the only path into heaven is clearly divisive.
If that's the case then every major religion is divisive. We all understand that you hate religion. You don't have to state it over and over again.
I just don't care for organized religion. And I was just answering your question, if you didn't like the obvious response then you should have thought a little bit before asking it.
Yes, in a way you are right. But many Christians aren't dogmatic about their faith. They believe that they must believe in Jesus and follow his example to get to heaven, but they accept that they don't understand everything, so others may also go to heaven.
They also accept that because not everyone is a Christian, they won't use their beliefs to determine things like text book selection or who owns what lands.
"They believe that they must believe in Jesus and follow his example to get to heaven, but they accept that they don't understand everything, so others may also go to heaven"
That's basically what I've said. I believe that Jesus is the only way to get to heaven, but there's always a chance the Bible could be wrong. It could be that there really isn't a God and that we'll all just go back in the ground when we die. My point is simply that Christian religious leaders are preaching the book that Christianity is based on. It wouldn't make sense for them to try to refute the book that their own religion is based on.
But that's not the point of any of this. You can teach whatever you want, but if what you teach is inherently divisive, then what's wrong with calling it that?
Again, it's an observation, not a judgment. Judging people is your thing.
WRONG.
If that's the case then every major religion is divisive. We all understand that you hate religion.
Actually, that's exactly what I said in the post that started this thread. By its very nature, religion is divisive. You're one of us, or you're not. That's just an observation. No judgment attached. You're the one who has made the word "divisive" into "hate."
" Every religion claims that their religion is the only way to get to heaven."
All of them except for Buddhism. Then there is Paganism. Also, I don't know for sure, but I don't think the Druids tried to pivatize a persons entrance into the hereafter. There's plenty of other religions that don't lay claims to such exclusivity as the one and only truth.
So, no.
Not every religion professes exclusive rights to eternal life. Just the judgmental religions.
Not that judgmental religion is all bad, it just segregates applicants based on loyalty oathes.
" Every religion claims that their religion is the only way to get to heaven."
There is no African religion that makes this dtupid claim.
No every religion does NOT claim that. For instance in the Old testament Cyrus the Great was called beloved of God even though he would NOT have been a Jew but a Zoroastrian as all of the Achemeniad dynasty would have been. Islam says that the people of the book that is Jews and Christians have nothing to fear from Allah in the day of judgement. Bahai teaches "Know thou, of a truth, that if the soul of man hath walked in the ways of God, it will, assuredly return and be gathered to the glory of the Beloved," Your assertion is baseless.
All the great world Teachers speak from Christ Consciousness (or call it what you will); they are sons/suns of God and call everyone to this Way, Truth and Life.
Unlike the theologians and right wing pundits, Buddha and Jesus, Zoroaster, Moses, Lao Tzu and Mohammed I am sure must have a wonderful harmony with one another. I would like to listen in on their conversation.
I agree and I would also love to sit in on such a conversation.
Personally, I've heard enough of Jesus, Moses and Mohammed forever. I'd like to hear what Orunmila, Shango, and Yemoja have to say.
It's simply a slap in the face to other religions like Islam and Judaism to say that everybody goes to heaven anyway.
Who said everybody gets to go to heaven anyway? I though the dispute was that some religions claim their method is the ONLY way to get to heaven. Maybe there are multiple paths. Any sensible rational creator would embrace that methodology. The exclusivity notion is surely a human trait.
-ML
"But the overall message is the same in both."
Eh, say what? I thought the Bible was the literal word of God. How can you cut out a few books, or add a few books, and have them both be the literal word of God?
there have been "books" of the bible rewritten and deleted and added since the beginning of the christian church. and who decided what and was not the literal word of god? that would be men.
You need to read the EULA that's tucked inside the shrink wrap of every bible. When you agree to get a new release, you have to throw away the old bible.
I know that might come as a surprise, cuz those EULAs are in tiny print and in Latin.
The message in both is that the Council of Nicaea picked a lot of crap and threw it together in a lump and used the power of the Roman army and church bureacracy to go "worship that".
>>Any religous leader who rejects the basic truth of the Bible is a false teacher.
Thanks for proving what Mark Morford said that "the thing that modern Christianity seems to do best" is "splinter and divide and segregate"
You think that anyone who doesn't believe in the bible is a false teacher, and then you wonder why articles criticize Christianity as devisive. (Moderate Christians aren't devisive, by the way.)
"You think that anyone who doesn't believe in the bible is a false teacher"
How can anyone claim to be a Christian at all if they don't believe in the Bible? What do they believe in? Do they just create their own Bible that is more suitable to their worldview?
You are joking, right? For one thing, every sect interprets the bible their own way.
But more importantly, not everyone is a Christian (including myself). Does that mean I am a false teacher? Does that mean I am wrong in my beliefs, as the Pope and many Christians, including yourself, assert?
It doesn't mean that you're wrong. I respect your opinion. My point is that anyone who claims to be a Christian should believe in the Bible. They should believe Jesus when he says that he is the only way to salvation. That's simply being true to a religion; there's nothing divisive about it.
Except you are missing the whole point, I think intentionally. The Pope has said that if you accept Jesus, you are wrong and will be damned forever. That is what was said way back.
That is devisive.
"That is devisive"
That's what the Bible says. It's the pope's job to preach the Bible. You can disagree with the Bible if you wish, but you shouldn't criticize the pope for simply doing his job and quoting out of the Bible that the Christian religion is based on.
If that's the pope's job, maybe he needs to find a new one. That doesn't mean he is not being devisive just because he is doing what he thinks is his job.
If some fanatical religious leader in Suadia Arabia quotes the Koran to justify oppressing women, do you just say he is doing his job? I wouldn't think so.
"If that's the pope's job, maybe he needs to find a new one. That doesn't mean he is not being devisive just because he is doing what he thinks is his job"
It's becoming clear that you just have a problem with Christianity in general, just as the editorialist does. You should have a problem with every religion, since every religion teaches that their religion is the only way to get to heaven.
No, I have a problem with your line of reasoning, if you can even call it that.
You stated that anyone who does not accept Jesus is a false teacher. Those are your words.
As a non Christian, I don't state that anyone who doesn't believe like me is a "false teacher." That is the difference. Your brand of dogmatism states that others are wrong, and therefore damned.
Comically, you don't see that as devisive or exclusionary. It is. And if you represent all Christians (which I know you don't), Moford is right in his article.
Your post is so ridiculous it almost seems like satire. You keep twisting everything. My point is that any CHRISTIAN religious leader who claims that every religion gets you into heaven if contradicting the Bible. A religious leader like that would simply be substituting their own personal opinion for what the Bible says. You don't believe in the Bible or God, and I respect that. My point is simply that it's the job of every Christian leader to point out to Christians WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!
The only posts that sound like satire are yours.
>>My point is simply that it's the job of every Christian leader to point out to Christians WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS!
The bible says many things. If a religious leader uses it to say that those who don't believe in it are going to hell, or that we need to not teach certain scientific theory, then he is being devisive. Almost by definition.
You can huff and puff all you want and pretend I am being obtuse, but you won't face the obvious issue, that when Christians use their religion to call others who don't agree with them immoral, or when they use it in political debates, they are being devisive.
I don't care if that is their job or not.
That's what the Bible says. It's the pope's job to preach the Bible. You can disagree with the Bible if you wish, but you shouldn't criticize the pope for simply doing his job and quoting out of the Bible that the Christian religion is based on.
So the Bible says there are those that will go to heaven, and those that won't. That "divides" people into us and them. Hence, divisive.
So what's your problem with that word other than its accuracy?
Maybe you and others should just become Christians so that way we won't be divided. Why is it that our side always has to give in? Why can't you guys give in for once? You guys are making this just as divisive as we are.
Huh?
Do you really want to argue that its all those damned (literally, according to your dogma) non-Christians who are really the dividers for FAILING TO CAPITULATE & GIVE THEIR MINDS OVER TO YOUR SET OF BELIEFS? The rest of the world is being divisive by not embracing YOUR faith?
Really?
You may want to think this one through a little bit more.
Just a suggestion, Rino.
That was quite possibly your stupidest comment ever. Just go along with what we preach, and there won't be any problem!
Wow.
Rino, the Bible also says:
Jesus says you must hate your mother and father and brother and sister if you're going to follow me.
Do you want to take that literally? Does that mean I have to hate my parents to follow Jesus?
No. It just means that you have to love Jesus more than your parents. That's what the verse was getting at. The Bible also says to honor your father and your mother.
That's *your* interpretation of that verse. If we are supposed to take the bible literally, then why shouldn't we really hate our mother and father, or why shouldn't we think the bible contradicts itself?
You can think whatever you want. My point is simply that Christians aren't "dividers" for simply believing what Jesus said in the Bible about the way to be saved.
Yes they are, when they become dogmatic about it. You yourself stated that those who didn't accept Jesus were "false teachers."
From dogmatic Christians, including those who get involved in politics, we continually hear that non Christians are bad for the country and evil. We also hear these dogmatic Christians condemn science, homosexuality, and art, using the bible.
That is pretty devisive.
I will admit that it is not the moderates who cause this division, but the so-called extremed, or dogmatic Christians.
"You yourself stated that those who didn't accept Jesus were "false teachers"
Any CHRISTIAN leader who doesn't accept Jesus obviously isn't a Christian. The whole concept of being a Christian is the belief that Christ died on the cross for your sins. Without belief in Christ you can't be a Christian, which should be obvious enough.
You continue to dodge the issue.
No kidding that you have to accept Jesus if you are a Christian.
But if a Christian leader uses the bible to say those who don't agree with him are wrong, that is devisive.
Stop dodging the issue. If a Christian says his way is the only way, and bases policy (such as text book selection) on it, and demonizes those who don't agree with him as evil, that is devisive. Yes or no?
"If a Christian says his way is the only way, and bases policy (such as text book selection) on it, and demonizes those who don't agree with him as evil, that is devisive"
I don't know of any Christian leader who demonizes those who don't agree with him as evil. We're all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. There are many non Christians who are moral good people. But that doesn't mean that they're going to go to heaven. The Bible says that even the good things we do are like filthy rags in God's eyes. Jesus says in the Bible, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through me." He takes away our sins. Every religious teacher who teaches that Jesus is the only way to heaven is simply teaching the Bible, which is what they are supposed to do. You should simply come out and say that the religion of Christianity is devisive and not simply Christian leaders. The Christian leaders are simply quoting the Bible, which is what they're supposed to do.
>>I don't know of any Christian leader who demonizes those who don't agree with him as evil.
Oh really? you are joking, right? Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, to name just a few?
>>There are many non Christians who are moral good people. But that doesn't mean that they're going to go to heaven.
Thanks. Of course, your religion is not devisive. I am not going to heaven; I am going to burn in hell forever because I don't believe like you do. But hey, Christianity is not devisive.
You know why it is not? Because Christianity is just using the bible (which is infallible), so why blame us?
If you really think it is okay to condemn people who don't believe like you, why do you have a problem with Moford's assertion that Christianity is devisiive? Haven't you proved it?
"Oh really? you are joking, right? Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, to name just a few"
Please provide an example. I'll be waiting.
And the point of religious leaders telling non Christians that they're not going to heaven isn't to condemn them and make them feel bad. Those of us who are Christians simply want to save people from going to hell. Nobody wants people to go to hell, and we want as many people to be saved and go to heaven as possible. If Christians wanted people like you to go to hell, we would just tell you that you're already going to heaven and you don't need to become a Christian. But Christians like myself and others care about you and want to see you in heaven.
Pat Robertson: "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights among woman, it is about a sociialst, anti-family movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism..."
Robertson calls for the assasination of Hugo Chavez.
I found those as just about my first two hits with a google search.
But these quotes aren't devisive, are they.
>>And the point of religious leaders telling non Christians that they're not going to heaven isn't to condemn them and make them feel bad. Those of us who are Christians simply want to save people from going to hell.
And you don't see how ignorant and bigotted this is. You are just trying to save me! It is funny, but if I made the same claim, and tried to dissaude you from your Christianity, you would be screaming how I am attacking your beliefs. (Which I would be.)
But of course, your Christianity is not devisive. Only, you think you are so right that you can tell me I am going to hell and then claim you are just trying to help me--so long as I think like you do.
Dude, you are good at this.
Actually, I'm telling you that because I love you just like I love everybody else. I don't want to see you or anybody else go to hell. I want everybody to accept Jesus' free gift.
That may be your point, but not only have your not supported it by any reasonable argument, you have actually undermined it by your own posts.
Yes, Christians are devisive if they believe those who don't believe as they do will be damned. That is almost the definition of division. (I am so right I will live forever in happiness, whereas you will be tormented forever.) It is especially devisive when Christians bring their religion into politics, basing public policy on their beliefs. When a Christian says that this scientific principle shouldn't be taught because my beliefs say so, that is being exclusionary.
"When a Christian says that this scientific principle shouldn't be taught because my beliefs say so, that is being exclusionary"
I don't know of any Christians who don't want evolution taught in schools. Most Christians simply want evolution scrutinized more thoroughly and taught as the theory that it is and not a fact. Science teachers shouldn't tell kids that evolution is a fact that can't be refuted when it's simply a theory.
You don't know any Christians? You are being really dishonest.
And you are being doubly dishonest by stating evolution is just a theory. That is the rhetoric of dogmatic Christians.
Yes, evolution is a theory, but so his thermo dynamics, and flight, and relativity, and, well, *everything* in science, pretty much, except the few laws, like gravity, which actually is wrong. (Einstein had to revise what Newton did.)
Talk about dishonesty. The reason you want evolution scrutinized is because of your religion. Evolution is as sound a theory as you are going to get.
But you want to use your religion to cast doubts on it--because of your *religion* which is devisive.
Evolution is an extremely flawed theory that can be taken apart. The reason why you don't want it scutinized is because you know it would fall apart in the face of scrutiny. You would rather just brain wash people without letting them hear both sides of the story and let them think for themselves.
Wrong. Completely wrong.
You are showing your Christian bias.
Evolution is scientific fact, accepted by science.
Evolution is an extremely flawed theory that can be taken apart. The reason why you don't want it scutinized is because you know it would fall apart in the face of scrutiny.
Evolution is scrutinized - and has been scrutinized - every single day. Every time a new fossil is found, evolution is scrutinized. Every time a botanist discovers a new plant, evolution is scrutinized. Evolution theory has been around since the mid-1800's and surprise, Darwin wasn't the only one of his time to recognize it. Are you familiar with the name Alfred Wallace? Look him up, I think you'll find his credentials are impressive. Note that both men worked independent of each other.
What do you know about evolution? Very little, I'm pretty sure. Don't look toward your crowd of evolution deniers - you're not likely to learn anything from them.
I've learned a lot from "evolution deniars." Go take a visit to the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky sometime. You'll learn a lot and open your mind.
Isn't that where they have an exhibit of a dinosaur with a saddle on its back? Don't they claim that dinosaurs & people existed at the same time... just a few thousand years ago?
Understand, Rino, that for your religious beliefs concerning the creation of the universe to be true, then not only is evolution wrong, but so is geology, biology, oceanography, genetics, & even physics... along with just about every other scientific discipline in existence.
Like all other scientific principles, evolution has always faces rigorous internal scrutiny. It is the application of the scientific method that has allowed these dramatic advances in human knowledge & our understanding of the universe. Unlike your belief system, it rejects the imposition of blind faith & dogma as a basis for arriving at its conclusions. Scientific theories are based on finding the best, the clearest, & the simplest explanation for the available facts. As new facts are introduced, they invariably serve to alter & amend that theory.
Pseudo scientific theories such as creationism, however, search for whatever facts that can be found that support a preexisting belief. Facts that serve to contradict or weaken such beliefs are either ignored or attacked... as are those people who also dare to contradict those beliefs. The Global warming 'debate' is another good example of both science & scientists coming under relentless & vicious (& often personal) attack by pseudo scientific deniers.
So, my point is that when you seek undermine & deny objective scientific knowledge be disseminated to young minds because such knowledge doesn't conform to your religious beliefs, then yes... you are behaving in a highly divisive manner.
"Understand, Rino, that for your religious beliefs concerning the creation of the universe to be true, then not only is evolution wrong, but so is geology, biology, oceanography, genetics, & even physics... along with just about every other scientific discipline in existence"
That's simply blatantly false. Most people who believe in creation except the theory of natural selection. We believe in "the survival of the fittest." We believe that God created all animals with the ability to adapt to their surroundings. We just disagree that animals actually change into other animals. Their have been absolutely NO fossils found of animals in a transitory stage of evolution. If human beings really did evolve from apes, we would see ape like humans that are in the midst of evolving into full humans. But of course there's no such thing. There are only humans and apes and nothing in between. Apes are not evolving into humans, and they never did. You have to have a lot of faith to believe in a theory as ludicrous as evolution.
If human beings really did evolve from apes, we would see ape like humans that are in the midst of evolving into full humans.
Which proves my point that you know nothing about evolution, nor can you learn anything from evolution deniers.
Evolution theory claims that humans did NOT evolve from apes. We simply have a common ancestor. Also, your term "full human" is laughable. As we are constantly changing, there is no such thing. And there are fossils showing gradual changes in species over the last 500 million years.
Your creation museum is not based on facts - there have never been any dinosaur fossils found in the same geological layer as human fossils. That should be your first clue that you're being snookered by the denialists.
But since you're so keen on scientific evidence, maybe you can answer this question: What proof do you have that the bible is NOT a collection of fables created by several different authors over a couple hundred years as a metaphor for what they deemed ideal social order?
Science and Religion are not necessarily mutually exclusive. So long as religion is willing to change, adapt to our growing knowledge of the world. In other words, to credit the laws of aerodynamics to God rather than simply believe according to the guy sitting next to us that God is holding up our plane.
Rino
Your reply to my post was deeply dishonest. Faith is simply not a component of the scientific method. You totally ignored my argument, & merely slapped a completely bullsh*t response, pretending again that the use of random, disjointed, & totally incoherent assertions can serve as an argument.
This is the sort of response that I'd expect from Tommy.
I had higher hopes for you.
I, therefor, am forced to repeat what I've already said, in hopes that it will force you to deal with it in a logical manner.
For your faith-based beliefs to be true, then it would require you to also assert that virtually EVERY OTHER SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE IS WRONG! It requires you to assert that the fossil record is wrong. It requires you to assert that God created the universe in six days, & that God... that zany trickster... masked his work in a way that would certainly lead the smartest & most analytical thinkers among us to make fools of themselves. Now, that wouldn't be just Darwin... but also Newton, Einstein, Kepler, Copernicus, & Galileo. They've all invested their minds & their work into developing the scientific method that you so cavalierly & snidely reject.
So... we can accept your belief that real science is bullsh*t... that an angry, bearded, & invisible man created everything that stands in one day short of a week... that the Flintstones (as Solon quipped) are a documentary... or we can rely on the overwhelming evidence arrived at by logical & verifiable means as our basis for understanding existence.
Man... it must really suck to hold your dogmatic position... to carry the weight of existence on your shoulders, without even the advantage of Archimedes scientifically-arrived at lever to give you an edge. Your back must really hate you.
I hope you don't forget to stretch before posting here.
Wrong. I don't reject the scientific theory or any other part of science. I simply reject the theory that man evolved from apes and the entire universe suddenly combusted from nothing and worked in perfect clockwork fashion. Some accident. Fortunately, the vast majority of the American people reject this flawed theory.
If the universe didn't work in "perfect clockwise fashion", how would it exist at all? Or at least, how would we be here to discuss it?
That's exactly my point. Everything couldn't work so perfectly if it all just happened by accident. Everything is so neat and orderly that someone had to have a hand in the process. There's no way that something so complex and orderly could've happened by accident.
Neatness and orderliness are defined within the parameters of the world itself, as is complexity.
It's like the "beauty" argument. How could something as beautiful as the desert or the aurora borealis or a seaside sunset exist if not for a divine being? Because what we decide is beautiful is relative based on all we see. If you were born to a world where every woman was grossly fat, pimply, and deformed, there would still be beautiful women. It's all relative to what you are accustomed to seeing. Similarly, it's difficult to ascertain some cosmic standard of orderliness, based on the limited view we have of the universe.
More to the point, the workings of nature are always going to be...natural. If something in it didn't make sense within the concept of the system itself, then how would it naturally occur? It doesn't prove a thing, since the concept of the alternative scenario is hard to imagine. What qualifies as "complexity"? The amount of organisms that interact with each other? If any one of them can come about through a natural process, then all of them can.
What I was really driving at is that the "order" seems to be based on the fact that we have intelligent life as the end result. If there was no intelligent life, would the consistency and perfection of natural processes still be proof of a superior being?
Actually, Brabantio, the truth is that the universe DOESN'T operate with a clock-like precision. The evidence suggests that the universe is a chaotic, violent place where destruction & lifelessness is far more the norm, & that life clings precariously & intensely on in spite of the miriad catastrophic threats that constantly menace it. The deep craters that blanket the surface of the Moon well attest to this chaos. The extinction of the dinosaurs as the result of a comet or a massive meteor slamming into the Earth are further evidence.
The so-called Intelligent Design movement... the deceptive pseudo scientific front group for the Creationists... has argued that a Supreme Being is the only rational explanation for the perfect symmetry of the universe... that the existence of a perfectly operating clock is evidence of the existence of a clockmaker.
This argument falls flat on its face when you accept the fact that the relatively safe, tranquil, & steady conditions that we are currently experiencing are exceptions to this universe's rules, & that this apparent unity is always merely a shrieking, cataclysmic blink of an eye away from being blasted out of existence by the huge chunks of rock & ice that are hurtling chaotically & randomly all about us.
I realize, of course, that you're not arguing this sort of bullsh*t position, Brabantio. You're obviously far too intelligent for that, & I strongly respect you. I'm simply pouncing on the opportunity that your words offered to once again point out the irrationality of these regressive, Bible-thumping, anti-progressive Creationists who seek to impose their authoritarian beliefs on the rest of us.
Of course, and I'm just curious as to what alternative to a symmetric, orderly universe (by our relative standard) is conceivable. I agree with what you're saying.
I do actually like the theory of intelligent design, if presented merely as an alternative to creationism. Presented as science, of course, it's utter garbage.
As usual you dont know what you are talking about. Evolution NEVER taught that man came from apes. Why bother arguing something you obviously know NOTHING about? Evolution teaches man and apes have a common anscestor. As for the big bang I never heard it described more beautifully than "And God said let there be light and there was light" Before you argue against a theorty it might help to have the slightest understanding OF that issue.
Wow, those were some pretty long days back then. Since God rested on the 7th day I guess that means that Adam and Eve lived to be about 800 million years old.
You can think whatever you want. My point is simply that Christians aren't "dividers" for simply believing what Jesus said in the Bible about the way to be saved.
Rino, true Christians are not dividers but you cannot say that there are not some who “call” themselves Christian and like nothing more than to divide. Pat Robertson is suppose to be a “Christian”. He is “suppose” to believe that we are all gods creatures and therefore deserving of life however he has no problem calling for the murder of Chavez. If we are all God’s children why would Falwell, Dobson and other express such hate for gays?
Please don’t say they hate the sin not the sinner cause that’s not what their out there preaching.
Rino, we will not agree but let me say I appreciate the fact that you are willing to debate. Thanks
You have a legitimate point. But the editorialist and others here are criticizing Christianity as a whole by saying that those who preach the Bible are being divisive. But I respect your opinion and agree with you that people like Robertson often go too far and can be divisive and make Christianity look bad.
Sure, we will learn the Flintstones was a documentary
The Smoking Gun
Jesus himself said he did not come to bring peace, he came to bring division, to set people at variance with each other (Matthew 10:34).
No. It just means that you have to love Jesus more than your parents. That's what the verse was getting at. The Bible also says to honor your father and your mother.
Rino you just help make my point. Christians do no have to believe in the Bible to be a christian. The Bible is open for interpretation, just as you choose to interpret the phrase I gave you. The problem with some religious conservatives is they take certain portions of the Bible versus and interpret them in ways that suit their argument. Other people can take the same verse and interpret it another way.
But what other interpretations can their possibly be when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the father except through me."
The real interpretation, given the usage of that phrase "I am" for centuries before Jesus used it, maybe?
It doesn't mean the person. It means the way that person acts.
The path you take to get to heaven can vary greatly. Jesus does not have to be the path you choose. It's the intention to be on a path towards that goal that matters.
I'm scratching my head trying to figure out what you're talking about. When Jesus said "No man comes to the father except through me," that's pretty clear. You can't really spin that one.
Really? Because I interpret that sentence (and the rest of the verse) as "You won't get to see dad as long as I'm standing here. Now shove off! 'Cause I'm one baaaad mofo."
(Not really, but it's not out of the realm of possibility)
Pearl, the bible also says when the third seal is broken the Antipasta lets loose the Four Hors D'oeuvres of the Apocalypse.
RH,
We share core religious beliefs, but doesn't the statement that Jesus is the only way necessarily a divisive one?
This is not to say that its a bad thing, but the statement is divisive.
I think that statement is meant to ultimately unite people. The point of telling people that they won't be saved unless they except Christ is to convince them to become a Christian. We should strive to save as many people as possible and get them into heaven. So I think that people who say that are trying to unite others under Christ and get them into heaven.
The reason I want everyone to be a bokonist is to unite them. And if you don't believe like I do, you will burn in hell forever. You are wrong if you don't believe like I do.
But I am just trying to unite people.
That's simply what the Bible says. "Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through me." Any religous leader who rejects the basic truth of the Bible is a false teacher.
So what about that isn't divisive? You claimed it isn't.
"That's simply what the Bible says. "Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the father except through me." Any religous leader who rejects the basic truth of the Bible is a false teacher."--rino hunter
So then I would have to ask what your problem is with the idea that Christianity is good at splintering, dividing and segregating when you just admitted "That's simply what the Bible says".
Rino Hunter. You're really not very bright are you? Let's apply your logic to others with strong faith?
Jesus said it, so it must be right.
Mohammed said it, so it mst be right.
Moses said it, so it must be right.
Zoraster said it, so it must be right.
Jim Jones said it, so it must be right.
David Koresh said it, so it must be right.
What flavor is your Kool Ade?
Only in your world. Most of us understand that he was referencing the leadership.
We're allowed to bash Christianity as a whole, as we are allowed to bash any religion. We just can't bash the practitioners with clubs or laws. It's just comparative theological discussion. Debating the deeper implications of church orthodoxies in a social context, of any religion out there today. Welcome to philosophy.
Yaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnn.
What Liberal Media?
I am not so sure Goldberg drew any direct comparison between the liberal media and the KKK. Rather, he compared how like minded opinions have a way of rubberstamping each other in newsrooms, and where contrary opinions are not welcome or aspired too.
To read this headline would falsely lead one to think Goldberg says the liberal media and the KKK are comparable in a far more scurrilous way.
I am no fan of O'Reilly suckup Goldberg by any means, but his narrow comparison here has some validity, whether it be liberal or conservative bias in the media.
I am not so sure Goldberg drew any direct comparison between the liberal media and the KKK.
Then you either did not read or did not comprehend what Golberg said.
But, Professor, I think it's even further than that. If you're the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle, you make decisions about what goes on the op-ed page, which columnists are used. And when you get a hate column, like Morford's column that basically says, not one Christian or two, not Jerry Falwell or this, that, and the other thing, all Christians are hateful, are destructive people, bad people.
You don't print that. That's irresponsible -- because you wouldn't print a diatribe against any of the others, blacks, Muslims, Jews, that I named. Am I correct?
I'd say that O'Reilly took what Goldberg meant and distorted it into an actual comparison to the klan which was his goal in the 1st place.
"Rather, he compared how like minded opinions have a way of rubberstamping each other in newsrooms, and where contrary opinions are not welcome or aspired too. "
You ain't just whistlin' Dixie.
"And that's why journalists can boo, they can cheer, they can bash Christians, and they're not afraid of what will happen, because they know they're amongst like-minded people. Listen, Bill, this isn't that much different from how the Ku Klux Klan operates."
And that's why Fox News "journalists" can boo, they can cheer, they can bash Non-Christians, and they're not afraid of what will happen, because they know they're amongst like-minded people. Listen, Bill, this isn't that much different from how the Ku Klux Klan operates.
AMAZING! It makes even more sense now!
Goldberg has been bitter for years because the far more competent Dan Rather was picked to host the CBS Evening News instead of him.
He's been bawling like a baby ever since.
I believe that’s Bill's problem as well. Bill and Bernie were both stalled at the level of field correspondent when they worked with the traditional fact based media. I believe Bernie and Bill think that there non-ascent up the career ladder was because they were being persecuted for their conservatism. (although they call themselves Independents) Boy, if only the “Liberal” media had recognized their genius (laugh laugh) Bernie might not be so embittered and maybe just maybe Bill wouldn’t have become the Liberal hating egotistical megalomaniac that he is now. Boy bitterness and resentment can do serious damage to a human soul.
This one might win for number of strawmen you can pack into a couple of minutes of airtime.
I'm willing to bet a lot of money that they wouldn't be able to find one article in a MSM newspaper, or TV report that bashes Christians for being Christians. I'm sure that it doesn't exist in the US of A. Not at all, but in their mindset, if you criticize people and their actions who happen TO BE Christians, well, then that's hate and bashing Christians.
And of course people cheered when Karl Rove quit. He, aside from Newt Gingrich, might be one of the people most responsible for the divisiveness that our country is now experiencing, and he's an underhanded, lying, and deceitful, and horrible human being.
This is really just another example of the lengths some religious people will go to justify claims of persecution. Quite frankly I'm getting sick of the faithful assuming that their ideas are automatically protected from the same critique we apply to everything else. If the thesis of Morford's article went completely unchanged except in that it targeted, say, conservatives for creating their alternative Wikipedia, no one could reasonably call it a "hate" column. We subject political ideology to criticism all the time. But for some reason people assume that their beliefs about the supernatural should be specially protected, it's getting tiresome.
Carlo, you've just reminded me of an old favorite of mine;
"We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart."-- H L Mencken,
even if it doesn't go both ways. ;0)
here are some more from mencken, I like him!
Great stuff, HBL.
I watched this last night and figured that it would be on Media Matters today. And as usual Media Matters took it out of context. Goldberg wasn't saying that the mainstream media is like the KKK. He was simply saying that if enough people believe something, they can convince each other that they're right. He was simply saying that the tactics are similar. And yes, liberal media bias is alive and well, and polls show that most Americans realize that.
<i>"And yes, liberal media bias is alive and well, and polls show that most Americans realize that."</i>
Unfortunately some people don't seem to realize that arguments from popularity are fallacious, as are bald assertions without evidence.So he wasnt saying they were like the KKK only that they OPERATE like the KKK, a distinction without a difference as for your delusions about the liberal media, we have heard them before, they are baseless repeating them endlessly wont add any credibility to them.
Exactly. Conservative talkers get skewed here every day for their inflammatory words and phrases, but when it's a very own MMFA headline, as this one is, it's a different story.
What's inflammatory about the title? Bernie did indeed compare the Liberal media to the Ku Klux Klan. If anything Bernie is being inflammatory, He’s an educated man and if he believes (and he’s entitled to his opinion) that the Liberal media is biased all he had to say was you know Bill the Liberal media is biased. Bernie’s copying his Bud Bill with this KKK comparison thing, apparently KKK and NAZI comparisons are the latest negative analogies they’ve found to incite the Factor’s elderly audience and RINO into hating Liberals even more if that’s at all possible. I wish Bernie wouldn’t imitate Bill; he really should get his own shtick since crazy Liberal hating man has been done to death; although I think that Bernie’s Bill booty kissing act just might be true gratitude on Bernie’s part for Bill’s attempt to give Bernie a career lift? BTW, Tommy I swear you are becoming more and more anti-MMFA ever day and your bias against them is becoming more well intense. You know you have to admire MMFA they are very big and damn fine Americans since they allow you to come to their house and speak your mind (insult them every day). Clap Clap for MMFA! That said Tommy don’t ever leave, you do keep things lively around
Here's the quote:
"And that's why journalists can boo, they can cheer, they can bash Christians, and they're not afraid of what will happen, because they know they're amongst like-minded people. Listen, Bill, this isn't that much different from how the Ku Klux Klan operates."
That's a comparison. Read the quote again: "this isn't that much different..." Apparently some posters don't understand the difference between comparison and direct attribution, in which you say X is Z. When you say X is like Z, or not different from Z, that is a comparison by definition.
The rest of your post is just an ugly assertion not backed up by any proof.
And yes, liberal media bias is alive and well, and polls show that most Americans realize that.
. . .
He was simply saying that if enough people believe something, they can convince each other that they're right.
That is frickin funny!
I had to think to get it.
Har! Done with elegance, Marv. RH may not get it, but you made a lot of poeple laugh with that one.
*ZING!*
What about the fact that about 80-90% of journalists are registered Democrats? Is that not good enough for you? Do you think that all of these journalists can remain objective even though they are almost all partisan Democrats?
Be specific, please. Where do you get this figure?
What about the fact that about 80-90% of journalists are registered Democrats?
Do you have any evidence for this claim? 73% of all statistics are made up on the spot and 90% are attributable to urban legends.
Is that not good enough for you?
No, because you don't back it up. You just asserted it.
Rhino Journalism
Rhino was lead editor for Rush Limbaugh's Investigative Journalism division.
This source doesn't mention political affiliation, but it shows that liberals in newsrooms outnumber conservatives about 5 to 1:
http://foi.missouri.edu/mediacredibility/nwsrmconserv.html
From the very article you linked to:
Indeed, the Pew study doesn't prove that news stories themselves are biased - although it found that most national journalists think the media are giving President Bush a free ride.
Some analysts also note that publishers and station owners are anything but icons of the left. "Journalism in general in the United States tends to be fairly conventional and traditional. Even if [reporters] individually see themselves as liberal, the framework in which they work isn't necessarily a liberal structure," says Aly Colón, head of the diversity program at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank.
In addition, only 40 percent of newscasters define themselves either way. A full 60 percent don't give themselves any affiliation. That means that over 2/3 of the media are *not* liberals.
In order to determine if the media is biased, show a trend as MMFA does. This bogus hype about individual reporters bias (which doesn't take into account the biases of the *powerful* people who control the news) means nothing.
He's a conservative?
Does anyone know why Rhino would give us a link to an article that completely refutes his own post?
It doesn't refute anything. They were simply giving their own spin on it. The statistics cited in the link is all that is factual. And also, most Democrats describe themselves as moderates, even if they aren't. Only 16% of Americans describe themselves as liberals, even though about 36% are Democrats. About 34% described themselves as liberals here, which means it's likely that about 80% are registered Democrats.
What a frickin liar!
You are totally making up statistics because you got proven wrong.
The study doesn't even say that the rest of the people describe themselves as moderates. That is your fabrication. You will say anything.
The study shows that over 2/3 of the sample are not liberals. That is all it shows.
Where did that 80% come from? Why the bureau of Rhinos BUTT. The article definitly refuted you. Did you really expect us to take seriously your assertion of amazing mind reading abilities? Would anyone in their right mind say yeah no matter how people describe themselves its obvious that even though HE DOESNT KNOW THEM AT ALL Rhino knows better than THEY do whether they are liberals. Please tell me you are kidding.
It's called math. You should try it sometime. 16% of people describe themselves as liberals, and 36% of people are Democrats. If you take 36/16 you get 2.25. The article said that 34% of journalists identified themselves as liberals. So you take 34*2.25 which is the rate to get 76.50%, to be technically correct. I just estimated the first time.
I'm writing nasty letters to all of my old math teachers. None of them ever touched on that stuff.
Okay. I see. The flaw in your argument is that you believe the ratio of liberals to Democrats in the sample is also directly proportional to the ratio in the general population. What evidence do you have to support that? I would like to see it. My theory is that newspaper liberals are much more likely to be independent than the general population based on the newspeople I have known. It is often true of the conservative newspeople I know as well.
Unless you can explain this assumption behind your apparently sketchy premise, your conclusion is simply unsupportable.
Voting for Bill Clinton does not define your party membership either. Independents may vote for him as well as Republicans. Party affiliation cannot be directly inferred from that data.
While it may be possible to use a poll like Pew's (on a very limited basis - much moreso than what you are trying to do here) to describe journalists' personal political tendencies as a group, it is not germaine to the larger argument of "liberal bias" as it doesn't address at all the actual quality of their professional work. To that extent, the poll results are merely prejudicial and not relevant. I am sorry, but each individual's work should be judged individually. You cannot summarily dismiss the media as "liberal" until you do that. Your current argument is a dead end, though.
You should try having a dim idea what you are talking about and if you EVER aquire the capacity try to perform some logic. You cannot take a specific set of people chosen for any similarity between them and then use a ratio taken from the general population and expect it to have ANY validity. Let me explain suppose you took the percentage of artists in the nation and then compared them with the percentage of artists among the left handed or among lawyers. The very thing that attracted those people into that group could have an effect that skews that percentage. Like lawyers being overanylitical thus less likely to be artists and left handed people being more right brain oriented making them MORE likely to be artists. You should try THINKING some day, I know it will be a new experience for you but it MIGHT make you less likely to keep embarassing yourself this way.
Lets say that everything in that article, an opinion piece by the way, is gospel. It says 7% are conservative and 34% liberal which would leave almost 60% as NEITHER. So the article you point to negates the very point you tried to make.
Most journalists are "liberal" because they tend to be educated and aware of current events.
What about the fact that about 80-90% of journalists are registered Democrats? Is that not good enough for you?
That's enough for me. The fact that 80-90% of those closest to the most and best information have decided that democratic is the way to go certainly has me convinced.
Thanks for showing statistics to prove that us liberals are right.
I think this cause-and-effect, chicken-and-egg mix-up has been explained dozens of times here.Aside from the fact that political leanings don't prove any professional bias, the fact that more journalists (like professors) tend to be liberal is one of the most laughable conservative attempts at revealing bias.
Yes, it's true, a majority of people who read and pay attention and think aren't Republicans. Hmmm....
I know, but I just can't help myself every time it's brought up.
I need help. Is there a support group? They'd have to meet on Thursdays, because Friday is my evolution defenders group, Wednesday is choir practice, Tuesday is Macro-economics, and Monday is of course MNF...
Neon, I wasn't bagging on you for pointing it out, I've been sucked into it enough times. It doesn't seem to have any effect on the True Believers.
I'm trying to imagine how many 18 year old dittoheads decide to major in journalism , or go into teaching, when there's real money to be made with much less work.
What's MNF?
Monday Night Football, you pinko! ;~)
Oh. Man, did I just out myself! My Raider Nation co-workers are going to love this. (I'm a baseball wuss)
Indeed, it's easy to see how 88% of national reporters think homosexuality should be accepted, or only 6% link a belief in God to morality. To believe that homosexuality is immoral or that you have to believe in God to be moral both largely rely on blindly believing what one is taught on faith. Reporters don't work on faith, for obvious reasons. Open-mindedness and an interest in objective truth are key to the job.
So if that sort of thing is really proof of a liberal bias, then there should be a liberal bias in the media.
"So if that sort of thing is really proof of a liberal bias, then there should be a liberal bias in the media"
In other words you believe that there should be an anti-Christian bias in the media. That's nice.
No, in other words those traits and motivations are key to being a professional reporter. Reporters don't take things on faith, they look for their own truth. If that is actually proof of liberal bias, then it should be there.
That doesn't say anything about "anti-Christian" bias. It's just not a "pro-Christian" bias. There is a third option, called "objectivity" or "fairness".
You wouldn't want too many hardcore religious people in the media, because reporters should be looking through the lens of objective reality, without attachments to religious dogma interfering with that. Anyone else, from a moderate Christian to an atheist should be able to treat any story fairly anyway.
After all, I don't want to make anyone give up their beliefs, which is different in nature from people like you who want people to conform to your beliefs because you love them and want them to go to heaven.
In other words YOU dont know how to read. THAT is nice
Rino
Brabantio is simply arguing that good journalists avail themselves of objectivity & logic.
You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that objectivity & logic are inherently biased against Christian dogma.
I have to agree with you on this point.
RINO you remind me of a character from the old In Living Color comedy series. The character was an avid reader of un-vetted material that he further misconstrued. The catch line at the end of the skit was "A mind Is A Terrible Thing To Try To Develop On Your Own”"
RH,
What about the people who own the media outlets? Don't they make the decisions as to what is published and printed or is it the reporters?
This was the talking point on some show that Joe Scarborough was on in the last couple of days. They were talking about how people in a news room jeered Bush. They then suggested that it was inappropriate for newsmen to do that.
I disagree. I think newsmen are people, and are allowed to have opinions. Bush deserves jeers. People who don't jeer Bush are deluding themselves. When they report the news, they should be neutral, but when they're sitting in a newsroom listening to a speech by a partisan politician, they should be able to voice their personal opinions.
You cannot POSSIBLY know how 90% of journalists are registered. Next registered does NOT equal partisan. Zell Miller was registered as a Democrat was he a partisan Democrat? Lieberman? You do realize that you arent very good at this dont you? A baseless assertion by you is not ONLY not a factual finding with your track record I think a betting man would take odds on the opposite of what you say day in and day out.
We just recently found out that something like 92% of talk radio is regressive.
And the ownership of major media in this country is overwhelmingly regressive. Those are the people who make the decisions of what is reported, not the reporters.
Since there's no such thing as "regressive" your post is both invalid and idiotic.
By regressive, I think he's referring to those radio hosts who seem to want to return to the "good" old days, where white, christian, anglo-saxon men not only had all the power, but were not questioned or challenged about their power.
Sorry, RH. Just like evolution ,regressive exists, whether you're aware of it or not.
Maybe this is the problem we have here with regressive thinkers.Like the toddler who covers his eyes and thinks everybody's invisible, the 30%ers think that ignorance of facts is an effective rebuttal to those facts.
Lol. And to think Rino just called someone an idiot --while being completely wrong! Oh that is priceless.
Maybe Rino should have done a little research before writing something so stupid.
I wonder if Rino still thinks there is no such word as "gullible" in the dictionary either.
I didn't mean that the word "regressive" doesn't exist. My point was that there is no political ideology that is regressive. That's simply an attack on conservatives. And I didn't call him an idiotic. I said that his post was idiotic. Smart people say stupid things all the time.
Is that supposed to be an argument? Please, he didnt say that 92% of those on talk radio VOTE regressive he said 92% of talk radio WAS regressive. That is a description. So YOUR post was STILL the idiotic one
That's still false. There's no political ideology that embraces this label. The only factual labels would be conservative or Republican.
Since there obviously IS such a thing its pretty clear that YOUR post was idiotic
RH,
I am not sure you want to use polls here as dispositive. If you do, I think you would be for the impeachment of Dick Cheney, withdrawal from Iraq etc. If the standard is "most Americans realizing something," the Republicans better wake up quickly!
I think there is a corporate media bias for what its worth. By the way, the last time we went back and forth you asked about Hannity being defended by the ACLU and some posters found the information for you.
"I think there is a corporate media bias for what its worth. By the way, the last time we went back and forth you asked about Hannity being defended by the ACLU and some posters found the information for you"
What thread was that exactly? I forgot. Do you have the source as well?
Listen, Bill, this isn't that much different from how the Ku Klux Klan operates. The morons in the Klan felt very comfortable with their bigotry because they knew all the other morons in the Klan shared the same bigotry.
I for one am sick and tired of "conservative" media comparing KKK, Nazi and lynching with ANTHING related to what they call journalism or the "liberal" media. The actions of the KKK, Nazis and lynching can in no way shape or form compare to the groups or their actions. To continue to do so not only make them ignorant but lazy as well. Here we have groups who during their time could pull innocent people from their homes or off the streets and kill them. Plain and simple kill them. If the so called liberal media operated like these groups I would not have to hear from Bill, Sean, Hannity, Savage nor Goldberg AGAIN.
I have said it before and will continue to say that there are events in our history that have NO comparison and should not be used by "conservative" media to make a point.
Good point Pearl...
The Cons control the microphone, and they are free to say anything. They can fill our airwaves with filth and sewage at will.
This is the America we live in now.
Sounds like to me Goldberg and co. are doing some projecting..
and can someone please give a definitive answer to the question, what exactly is this "liberal media"?
Is it defined by the workers or is it defined by the ownership/management.
I mean, is it a crime to be a journalist and a democrat at the same time?
I presume most check their political ideology at the door (except if you work for FNC)
i dunno, someone please enlighten me
"I know hate when I see it, and this was hate off the chart"
Yeah, because an opinion piece talking about the divisive nature of the politically active modern Christian leadership is so comparable to pamphlets describing how the Jews steal children and sell them or how the black man will slip into your house and impregnate your daughters against their will and how all those deviants in San Fran want to turn your son into a dress wearing queer. That is what groups like the Klan do, not write debate pieces.
Or does Bill just use some sort of hate chart with a scale so small that everything other than polite acquiescence is "hate off the chart?"
The KKK believes in Jesus. So did the Nazi Party in Germany. They may have bastardized the teachings, but they considered themselves Christians. They are examples of far right wing hate, not far left. Rupert Murdoch in his minions are trying to appropriate the language of the left.
The thing that's admirable about O'Reilly is that at least he has guests like Puglisi on his show--those whose viewpoints differ from his. The same can't be said of MMFA's butt buddy Keith Ubermensch. Now liberals in unison:
1) Ubermensch's show is a news show and O'Reilly's is opinion so he doesn't need guests with differing opinions (I could never figure this one out)
2) O'Reilly just has guests on his show to use as punching bags (like that docile white man's bitch Al Sharpton)
Come on now, don't disappoint!
In reply to your post I must say one thing:
Ice cream is delicious.
Sorry to disappoint :)
Amen to that! Pralines and cream??
The dean of the Democrat Party in Washington was a KKK Kleagle during World War II. That's right. When other young men were putting on military uniforms and serving their country, Robert Byrd donned a hood and sheet. Nuff said.
There is no Democrat party there is a DemocratIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party. Since you arent bright enough to even know the NAME of the party nothing you say can be taken seriously
Haha, good one Solon.
Geeze. You get all bent out of shape for leaving off two letters on the end and then you go and change the entire word of the Republican Party. Nice one Solon.
Sorry that I cannot stomach the idea of continually dumbing down my posts to a level that you will understand what is going on. You are going to have to learn to live with the fact the set of things, like that post, that you dont understand would fill large libraries and just live with it.
The current Pope was a Hitler Youth at about the same time. Anything in the last 60 years got your goat, Kevin?
I believe that in Nazi Germany the choice was join or die. That, to my knowledge, was not the case in the USA with regard to the Klan.
Good point, IO.Jesus sacrificed his life for the sins of mankind. The top cat in the Catholic church joined the Nazis to save his own ass.
Why do you hate the Pope?
We'll be interested in your producing a list of young Germans who were executed for failing to join the Hitler Youth.
That argument has been repetitiously used in defense of those Germans who committed war committed war crimes. Those proponents of this bullsh*t defense have so far been able to document a single case of a German being executed for FAILING to commit an atrocity.
Just because a Hitler Youth became Pope doesn't mean that we have to set the bar THAT low!
Your response?
Your lack of historical insight is disturbing. The Nazis did not produce lists of people that they murdered. The SA and SS dragged political opponents from their homes in the middle of the night and sent them to concentration camps if lucky or to secret locations and executed them. While not EVERYONE who failed to commit an attrocity was executed, many were.
If I remember correctly, and I do, the Good old KKK boys were very much a 'CHRISTIAN' organization that was sure "GOD' was on their side!!
Come to think of it, there are a lot of similarities between the KKK and the Bush administration.
Then again the Bush administration is very, very similar to Hitlers 'NAZI' party! Prescott lives on!
I love it when someone plays the 'Bible' card. Why would anyone think that what is in the bible, as we know it, is correct? Try and trace the origin of the books of the bible. Who was so well informed that they 'knew' what books were considered proper and to discard the rest?
ALL religions have been corrupted by man to further their own interest.
Try reading philosophy and think for yourself! Socrates, Plato, and Msarcus Aurelius ~~ would be a good start.
Bernie and BillO showing outrage over bias in the media...on Fox Noise.
You can't make this stuff up.
Man, where would political discourse be in this country without the KKK or the Nazis to compare the other side to?
The very premise of the conversation with Goldberg and O'Reilly is so warped that it makes a mockery of Christianity. Whatever it is they believe, they are not practicing Christianity. Very few people who shout about their beliefs have a clue what their religion is all about.
Isn't Goldberg Jewish?
You're right. Odd then, he was so worried about Christians being abused in the press.
Some good advice for him from Isaiah 57:
“If you remove the yoke from your midst, the pointing of the finger and the speaking of wickedness, and if you give yourself to the hungry and satisfy the desire of the afflicted, then your light will rise in darkness and your gloom will become like midday and the Lord will continually guide you and satisfy your desire even in scorched places.”
Why should the "top cat in the Catholic church" be held to the moral standard of Jesus if you do not apply that same standard to any other individual on this planet?
While most people were disturbed by the revelation that the current Pope served in Hitler youth, conversing on this discussion board made me realize something. Liberals were THRILLED by that revelation because it gave them ample defense of Robert "KKK" Byrd--"hey, if the Pope (an obvious Republican) was in Hitler Youth, you can't criticize us for having a former Klansman." Face it guys, before that, you were absolutely defenseless against the "KKK" Byrd attacks. Now, you have something to fight back with. Wow, the liberal mindset is so...fascinating.