"Culture Warrior" O'Reilly, who chided Dean over Book of Job misidentification, says Revelation "was written -- what? Five thousand years ago?"
On the November 13 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, while discussing the "secularists" and their refusal to acknowledge the "holy war going on," Bill O'Reilly cited the Book of Revelation, the final scripture in the New Testament, saying, "This was written -- what? Five thousand years ago?" But the Book of Revelation, which addresses the end of the world and the return of Jesus Christ, was, according to the book itself, written by "John" on the Greek isle of Patmos, after receiving "[t]he Revelation of Jesus Christ" (who was born about 2,000 years ago). The next day on his Fox News show, O'Reilly distorted actor/director George Clooney's comments on religion, claiming that Clooney is a "vivid example" of "the far left that is putting all of us in danger right now."
On his radio show, O'Reilly instructed a caller to "go to Revelations in the Bible and look at the prediction for the end of the world," telling him, "It's fascinating, because it does involve the Middle East, and it does involve the clash of cultures." O'Reilly continued: "I'm not trying to convert you to be a Bible-thumper. I'm just saying it's an interesting read. This was written -- what? Five thousand years ago? I mean, this is really interesting." O'Reilly concluded: "Nobody knows what's gonna happen, but there is a holy war going on, and the ACLU and the LA Times are simply not willing to fight it in any effective way. That's the truth." But, according to the book itself, the Book of Revelation was written by "John" after receiving "[t]he Revelation of Jesus Christ." From the first chapter of the King James translation of Revelation (verses 1 and 9):
The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
[...]
I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
In a December 30, 1999, article, The New York Times reported:
Every generation has embraced some degree of apocalypticism. Doomsday cults have a special affection for dates, like those hidden in mystical texts or astrological calendars. But even when dates are not significant, evidence of an impending cataclysm has been found in everything from the Protestant Reformation, England's civil war and the French Revolution to this century's world wars, the atomic age and, most recently, the specter of environmental self-destruction.
It is doubtful that St. John had any of this in mind when he was writing the Book of Revelation on the Greek island of Patmos around A.D. 90, not least because its original Greek title, Apokalipsis, means ''unveiling'' and not the end of the world. Rather, he seemed to be reassuring early Christians that their persecutors would be punished. The beast destroyed in the Battle of Armageddon is now thought to be Rome's self-proclaimed God-Emperor, Domitian.
O'Reilly previously mocked Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean when he incorrectly identified the Book of Job as a scripture in the New Testament, when, in fact, it is an Old Testament book. During the January 5, 2004, edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated: "[E]verybody's going to remember that Howard Dean didn't know that Job was in the Old Testament." He later added: "Even the ... Lieberman Democrats, the Edwards Democrats. They're traditional. They don't want this big shock, all right, and they want their people to know that Job was in the Old Testament." Two days later, responding to Fox News commentator Dick Morris' claim that then-Mexican president Vicente Fox won his country's presidential election in part because "he won on a pro-Catholic thing," O'Reilly stated: "Howard Dean's even trying to do that now, if he can figure out where Job is in the Bible." Morris then said, "It's sort of my nightmare. You're trying to brief a candidate running for president, and you have to tell him where Job is," to which O'Reilly replied: "That's why I don't think Howard Dean is as solid as you think he is and some others."
On the November 14 O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly read an email from a viewer who claimed: "George Clooney was right. One of the reasons the English came to America was to escape religious persecution. How about a signed 'Kids Are Americans Too'?" O'Reilly replied: "Can't do it. ... Clooney said America separated from England because of religious fraction -- dead wrong. No book for you." O'Reilly later asserted: "When we separated from England, it was because of taxation and a bad king. Jesus had nothing to do with it." In fact, Clooney did not claim that we "separated" from England. According to a quote attributed to Clooney that O'Reilly read and showed on-screen during the November 13 edition of his TV show, Clooney said, referring to Rudy Giuliani: '[He] might end up winning the nomination from the Christian right. That tells you the rest of the country is a little bit moved away from the idea of this 'Jesus is right about everything' kind of mood. I'm not knocking religion, but there was a reason that we left England." O'Reilly then asserted: "Of course, that reason was taxation without representation -- nothing to do with Jesus, George. Just setting the record straight."
From the November 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: Jim Sebastian, Kansas City, Kansas: "George Clooney was right. One of the reasons the English came to America was to escape religious persecution. How about a signed 'Kids Are Americans Too'?"
Can't do it, Jim. Clooney said America separated from England because of religious fraction -- dead wrong. No book for you.
And Sheryl Smith, Houston: "Bill, you were great on 'The View'. Thanks for saying parents have to set boundaries and for telling kids that in your new book."
Well, I'm sending you Kids Are Americans Too, Sheryl, because you deserve it more than Jim. OK? When we separated from England, it was because of taxation and a bad king. Jesus had nothing to do with it.
From the November 13 edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: And it is the far left that is putting all of us in danger right now, opposing every anti-terror measure and demonizing those with whom they disagree.
Here's a vivid example: Actor George Clooney is about as radical left as they come. Clooney sees himself as a great statesman, a perceptive thinker. In a recent interview, Clooney continues to denigrate conservatives and says a number of very interesting things.
Quote, "During the Salem witch hunt, the liberals thought there was no such thing as witches, and the conservative view was that '[t]hey're witches and they all have to die.' "
Wow, who knew that conservatives executed 19 people way back in 1692? George certainly has a long memory.
More Clooney quote: "Anybody who's running [for president] who's gone through the Sixties and didn't smoke a joint, I don't want you for president. You haven't lived at all. What the 'f' is wrong with you?"
That's right, cannabis consumption should be a litmus test for the presidency. Right on, George.
Finally, Clooney weighs in on Rudy Giuliani, quote, "[He] might end up winning the nomination from the Christian right. That tells you the rest of the country is a little bit moved away from the idea of 'this Jesus is right about everything' kind of mood. I'm not knocking religion, but there was a reason we left England."
Of course, that reason was taxation without representation -- nothing to do with Jesus, George. Just setting the record straight.
Now, I'm mocking Clooney, because he is the epitome of far-left lunacy. He despises conservatives. He wants a brave new world. Smoke pot, save the witches. Clooney and others like him do great damage to traditional liberals. Because George has a platform, some Americans believe all on the left think like he does. They do not.
From the November 13 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: Waco, Texas, Jim. What's goin' on, Jim?
CALLER: I admire you enormously, and I totally agree with your assessment out there in Los Angeles. I'd like to plant a seed, and you may or may not be willing to entertain it, but your book, Culture Warrior -- I haven't had a chance to read it, but I've heard you discussing it many times -- talks about the major issues, and I think that's what's at play here; that, you know, it is the forces that celebrate life against forces that celebrate death.
Look at jihadism, and you'll see that they celebrate death, and the same thing goes here; that, you know, the Bible, 2,000 years ago, talked very specifically about the final times -- the End Times -- and it's going to involve Israel. It's gonna involve Armageddon, that whole region -- and the fight is going to be between life and death.
O'REILLY: Well, you know, it's true, and it's -- anybody who wants an interesting read -- and send Jim a copy of Culture Warrior -- go to Revelations in the Bible and look at the prediction for the end of the world. It's fascinating, because it does involve the Middle East, and it does involve the clash of cultures, as Jim pointed out.
Now, a lot of people think that's superstition, nonsense, all of that. The secularists reject it out of hand. And I'm not trying to convert you to be a Bible-thumper. I'm just saying it's an interesting read. This was written -- what? Five thousand years ago? I mean, this is really interesting. So, I don't know. Nobody knows what's gonna happen, but there is a holy war going on, and the ACLU and the LA Times are simply not willing to fight it in any effective way. That's the truth.
We'll be back.
From the January 5, 2004, edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: And then he says I like Jesus. I'm a big Jesus supporter.
And then he says, you know, and then some guy asks him -- which is why he won't come on the Factor -- he said, "Well, what do you like about the scripture?" And Dean doesn't know what he's talking about. He puts Job in the New Testament, OK?
Now, this is a joke. This is a -- you know, he's a secularist. And he's a leftist right now. I don't know what he's going to be two months from now. But [former Clinton White House counsel] Lanny [Davis], you're never going to -- everybody's going to remember that Howard Dean didn't know that Job was in the Old Testament. He's a phony -- that he's running on the left because that's where his traction is. He's not going to be able to come back. He's not. Go ahead.
DAVIS: All right, thank you. Number one: I think any Democrat, including Howard Dean, is going to beat George Bush because of a concern about the way the Iraq situation continues to cost American lives. And a lot of Americans are asking themselves, "Why should that continue?"
[...]
COMSTOCK: And you're right. The press will prop him up, and that will help. But I think the American people have this common sense that I think you often try to highlight --
O'REILLY: Yes. I mean, look, at this juncture --
COMSTOCK: -- and point out to people that when they hear him, they will understand.
O'REILLY: Here's what I have. Here's what I have for you. At this juncture, all right, if things stay the same next November as they are January 4 -- January 5, 2004, Dean carries eight states. That's what he's got, eight.
He won't carry anymore than that, if things get better in Iraq and the economy continues to improve because, as you said, American people don't want a huge change in this country. They are basically a traditional people. Even the Democrats are.
Even the -- you know, the Lieberman Democrats, the Edwards Democrats. They're traditional. They don't want this big shock, all right, and they want their people to know that Job was in the Old Testament.
They want that, all right. They don't want a secularist.
COMSTOCK: Very good point, Bill.
From the January 7, 2004, edition of The O'Reilly Factor:
MORRIS: And, you know, Vicente Fox was my client in Mexico, which is not why I'm saying this. I don't work for him now. But he won on a pro-Catholic thing. He went to the Virgin of Guadalupe, and he changed the tradition of secular governance in Mexico --
O'REILLY: Well --
MORRIS: -- to make it link to the --
O'REILLY: Howard Dean's even trying to do that now, if he can figure out where Job is in the Bible.
MORRIS: That's right. Actually --
O'REILLY: A little arrow here.
MORRIS: It's sort of my nightmare. You're trying to brief a candidate running for president, and you have to tell him where Job is.
O'REILLY: Yes, Job. But, look, his --
MORRIS: It's not in the debate handbook.
O'REILLY: That's why I don't think Howard Dean is as solid as you think he is and some others.
This is just a silly thread. So now its posted, and tonight Keith Olbermann will use it to mock and name OReilly worst person in the world.
You mean to tell me there is not bigger fish to fry than Bill Oreilly? I thought Olbermann said that.
As for having Morris on his show, well that explains why he says stupid things. The world would be a better place if Dick Morris was not on TV or Radio.
Again with Olberman.
Is there a thread that you can't bring him into?
No disrespect, but jeez.
That's right, Sue - O'Reilly is no big fish. In fact, he is becoming more and more irrelevant as time progresses, soon to fade out into complete insignificance. Yet here you are once again defending him by denigrating this thread.
Were you not the complete whack-job that just about everyone on this site knows to be completely off your nut, you might understand that by continuing to point out all the things O'Reilly is not (reliable news source, historian, medical authority, fair, etc.), Media Matters continues to ensure O'Reilly's steady obsolescence by his own inanity. Olbermann simply helps by sharing these O'Reillyisms with a larger audience, so drop it already.
Pathos, thy name is Sueeld...
Oh sue, did you see who olbermann awarded the bronze to on Wednesday?
No, you're not obsessed with Olbermann.
By my count, this is about the fourth time in a week that Sue has brought up Olbermann in a thread where he was not mentioned either in the article or by any other poster.
Get over Keith, Sue. He's just not that into you.
It's too bad a person can't just choose not to watch Olbermann. That way they could maybe focus on the people actually being discussed here.
I'm thinking Sueeld has a timer set for the start of Countdown. In case she's still putting on her makeup and Sunday dress when the show's starting.
BIBLICAL FACT CHECK- HBL
Oh, BTW, Sue, I caught KO tonight, and he did indeed name BilldO WPITW. But the part you'll love is this; Olberman said Christ died 2007 years ago, when that is actually the birth date we started counting from.
I have to call this one for the Baby Jesus, and against KO for forgetting His birthday.He was 3 millennia closer than BilldO, but off by 3 decades or so.
Do I detect the influence of Sister Ignausia Ann there? Spot on, of course, Lefty, as usual.
Sue, not silly at all if you give it thought. O'Reilly decries us secularist without mentioning that we are a "secularist" state by our very constitution, something we're trying to establish in the middle east and retain in places like Pakistan and Turkey.
It shows his hypocrisy, arrogance and bias. He is certainly no smarter or patriotic than Dean but has implied he anti-religious, stupid and even crazy!
So how come he doesn't know what most school children know (except in the bible belt)? The earth is indeed round, not flat. Jesus lived about 2000 not 5,000 years ago.
I'm a secular humanist, the type that he decries, but I know this Sue.
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye"
I'm glad MMFA posted this. Everybody knows when the Book of Revelations was written. O'Reilly lampoons "secularists" and then he proves himself an idiot. It's perfect.
Here's something else if you're not happy- O'Reilly also condemned the 'Redacted' movie-- and then had them on as a sponsor yesterday. Satisfied?
The O'Reilly always seem to think he is much smarter than us mere mortals. I would like to ask O'Reilly what is his favorite Bible passage ? I like to read Ecclesiastes myself.
He'd probably say that his favorite Bible passage is "the one with the boat" and he is also fond of the one where Jesus gives the lepers fish sandwiches. "But it's hard to pick a favorite part really, because it's overall a really really good book."
SueEld
Yup, this is a silly thread. But MMFA has a quota to fill, so just about anything goes.
Imagine how much whining MMFA would do IF there was a "conservative" MSM, instead of the liberal/left MSM that actually exists!
Sue, you're getting backup from a troll. Wake up time?
---"But MMFA has a quota to fill"---
Oh you mean the "Pompous Right-Wing Troll" quota? Rest assured you're doing a fine job of helping fill that one.
If I looked at the gusto with which most of you approach arrogance, I'd have to guess MMFA is way over its pomposity quota.
And if I looked at the gusto with which YOU parade your stupidity I would have to say you are WAY above YOUR quota
Greatjob,
With gusto, I do say I see the irony in your name.
Dave-
GreatJob doesn't say WHAT he's great at...
Another worthless troll post by justatroll. Lying about a liberal media that doesnt exist, regurgitating the same old tired hivemind propaganda.
Justice
There is no "quota". If you have a fact to back up that statement I would suggest you show it now.
Bill O'Reilly is not descended from apes ---he is a baboon who can speak.
The guy is a phony, a liar, a rabble rouser, spook chaser and an idiot...tooo bad that he has the venue to spew his hatred, bigotry, idiocy and xenophobic, homophobic, persecution complex rants.
The world would be a better place if Dick Morris was not on TV or Radio.
Actually, the world would be a better place if Dick Morris was not on the planet.
This one, to me, is hilarious! The guy who said there was a "War on Christmas" is getting some of the easier math in the Bible wrong? WOW! Maybe the "Culture Warrior" needs to return to Sunday School.
I know there are bigger fish to fry, but MMFA, thanks for the laugh!
aw, Noah would have rolled it up, stuck it in his front pocket and convinced mrs Noah he was happy.
Jesus H. Christ, Bill. If Revelation had been written 5,000 years ago, it would have been lost in Noah's Flood! Everybody knows that!
I don't think Christians look to O'Reilly for any biblical scholarship.
The politicians trumpet their "faith" right around election time. Bill just pointed out the obvious: that they only pretend to care about religion so that Christians will vote for them.
There's a lot of criticism over what Romney believes as a Mormon, but I hear very little about what Clinton or Obama believe.
You can't be serious. Oh, wait, I forgot! You watch fox. According to them, Clinton is a secular satan warshipper and Obama went to a madrassa school and is a practicing islamofascist.
Perhaps you should post your question over at fox news instead of wasting text here wondering the obvious reason why.
1) I don't watch Foxnews. I don't even have cable.
2) I didn't even ask a question
3) (now a question) What media outlet has delved into what Clinton's or Obama's religious beliefs are?
Actually, you did pose a question. Saying you don't know what they stand for is a form of question because it implies you wonder what their position is. But enough with the technicalities, cause the answer is you won't hear anything on any news channel because contrary to belief, there are few liberal news stations these days. If you really want to know what a Democrat believes you will have to do a little research on your own. Hope that answers your question.
I didn't say I don't know what they stand for. I have read many reports on the what some politicians believe, just not in the liberal press. I have a good idea what they stand for.
What I have seen is many articles questioning Romney on what he believes as a Mormon, including a feature in TIME on the subject. There have been a few commenting on Obama's church and even fewer on Hillary's (if any).
Snoopy's right. DIS-ENGAGE . . .DIS-ENGAGE . . .DUMB QUESTION. SORRY DOG -- NOT PERSONAL. . . .
What is this "liberal press" you speak of?
Deeznuts, I hope you weren't staying up waiting for an answer to that one. It's like "love" and "magic" and "miracles". it just "is".
Again, you CAN'T be serious? Obama's religious background has been thoroughly dissected by every media outlet out there. From trying to imply that he is an Islamofacist to having his church in Illinois turned into a "white-hating" secret society of some kind.
And Clinton's faith is constantly questioned as being "real" or some kind of politically motivated "show".
Now that I've pointed these things out, I am sure you will respond by saying "Oh yea, you're right. I was wrong" My whole argument is based on a complete misunderstanding of reality because I have listened to right wing propaganda and bought it all hook line and sinker.
Dogrun, ask the Republican women who along with Hillary choose to conduct prayer meetings in private during the Monica period. According to Chris Matthews they love having her as a part of their group. Religion is not a badge that your wear nor is it something that you preach, IT"S PERSONAL! I don't care to hear your beliefs, that's between you and whom ever you choose to worship.
"There's a lot of criticism over what Romney believes as a Mormon, but I hear very little about what Clinton or Obama believe."
Then you haven't been paying attention, Rinty, or you've been out of the room at unfortunate times. Clinton seems to be a reasonably religious Methodist, which means to "values voters," she's godless.
Obama can't let a day go by without shooting down the canard that he's a Muslim named Hussein.
Right on conchobhar. As one o'conchobhar to another, though, I don't understand why anyone even allows him or herself to elevate the likes of billo' as a center of discussion with so much wrong with the world today. Cast a cold eye on his likes and just pass them by. Eight-0
darn, stuck it on the inciorrect comment
aw, Noah would have rolled it up, stuck it in his front pocket and convinced mrs Noah he was happy.
It's kind of hard to write anything when you're trying to herd the dinosaurs into your ark!
Don't forget that Soviet Scientists drilled into Hell. They were conducting deep hole drilling experiments in Siberia and broke through the earth's crust at more than 14 kilometers. They found it unusually hot at that depth (2,000 degrees F). As a part of trying to listen to movement in the earth's crust, they drop a microphone into the drilled hole and were horrified when they realized they were hearing the voices of millions of people crying out in torment. Terrified, they decided to abandon the project. So don't forget there is scientific proof of the existence of Hell and you are going there. Want proof? Billybob wrote the story for the Russian newspaper Argumenty Nedeli and here is the translation. Billybob never lies and he is never wrong. And never forget that the earth is only 6000 years old. And oh yeah, Darwin repudiated evolution and accepted Jesus before he died, the earth is flat, there is no global climate change, and the book of Leviticus rules. Good job Justanother troll (Billybob). Billybob is really Bill O'Reilly isn't he? Too bad his parents didn't read Daniel 2:43.
Keith wont have to work hard tonight.
we do not want to be associated with bill ever again
signed box of rocks
Me, too.
Signed,
Bag of Hammers.
No word from Doornail Local #433 yet.
Us too,
signed,
Sack of S__T
The holy war is so bad that the secularists even have Bill confused!
So, Bill thinks the people who hanged the Salem Witches weren't Conservatives?
Zzzzzzz....
Well, it's clear that Bill not only slept through history lessons, he musta been dozing during Catechism too.
Maybe he's a latent Secular Progressive?
O'REILLY:"... go to Revelations in the Bible and look at the prediction for the end of the world. It's fascinating, because it does involve the Middle East, and it does involve the clash of cultures..."
Unlike the rest of the Bible, which seems to revolve around the Texas panhandle, and the peaceful comingling of different groups.
BilldO may be getting as stoopid as his fans.We're sending him a Factor Drool Cup®.
Just in time for the "Holidays"?
How secular of me.
Naw, he's helping to ensure the end of times. It's important for the right wing to prove revelations in our lifetime if it kills them to do so.
O'Reilly makes his own history lessons up.
"Of course, that reason was taxation without representation -- nothing to do with Jesus, George. Just setting the record straight."
I think Bill has bigger worries than George Clooney when it comes to setting the record straight.
Could Clooney be referring to the Pilgrims?
My own basic understanding about the Pilgrims was that they were separatists seeking to break ties with the church in England.
The History Channel, citing Funk & Wagnalls, has a similar take:
"The Colony of New Plymouth, colony founded in the New World by the Pilgrim Fathers. The foundation of this colony was one of the major events in the early history of the American colonies. In the reign of Elizabeth I, queen of England, one of the sects of Puritans known as Brownists separated from the new Protestant Church of England and after much persecution took refuge in the Netherlands. They finally determined to immigrate to America."
I'm looking around at other sources, and they seem to pretty much say the same thing.
I'm still not sure if I'm barking up the right tree here. Am I missing something?
Oh, wait a minute...
Clooney said "there was a reason we left England."
I took "left England" to mean, "boarded a ship and crossed the Atlantic."
I'm guessing O'Reilly took this to mean Clooney was talking about the American Revolution, which was born out of taxation without representation.
I think you had it right the first time.
It's more natural to interpret "left England" as "left the island of England" than as "declared independence from the British Empire."
Nonetheless, even if O'Reilly interprets it in the latter way, he doesn't get to claim Clooney is "wrong" unless he can prove that Clooney didn't mean it the former way.
If you go claiming someone's wrong based on your misinterpretation of what they said, that makes you a pompous, arrogant a$$.
(I know--I've been a pompous, arrogant a$$ myself on occasion.)
i think clooney was clearly talking about the pilgrims and their fleeing from persecution in england. of course, the same thing started happening here to people they did not like.
"... go to Revelations in the Bible and look at the prediction for the end of the world. It's fascinating, because it does involve the Middle East, ..." Gee, I wonder why a guy who lived in the Middle East about 2,000 years ago would reference the Middle East in his writings. What a dicktard.
Anyone who does not know by this time that Falafel O'Reilly is a 5-watt bulb, is a 5-watt bulb.
Is that Compact Fluorescent or Incadecent?
LED.
I vote for LED. Current flows only one way
The only problem there, there is more lumens (brightness) in a LED of a given wattage. I vote for incadescent (a really dim bulb at 5 watts).
Clooney: "I'm not knocking religion, but there was a reason we left England."
O'Reilly: "Of course, that reason was taxation without representation -- nothing to do with Jesus, George. Just setting the record straight."
Actually, Bill (may I call you Bill?), the original forefathers (and mothers) who left England left not because of "taxation without representation," but for the freedom to pursue religion as they saw fit. (They were called "Pilgrims.")
Just setting the record straight.
(Well, actually, the first white permanent settlers weren't the Pilgrims; they were in Jamestown, VA, and I don't think they were excaping either taxation or religious oppression. But the Mayflower and its Pilgrims get much more press, and they're doubtless the folks Clooney was talking about.)
Actually, the 1st settlers were the republicans - I mean vikings. They named Greenland for it's ice, and Iceland for it's green. Which explains their position on global warming...
I said "permanent" settlers. Though there are anecdotes of Viking descendants who lived in the New World until the 17th century, I don't think there's any evidence of the Vikings having formed a permanent settlement. (I could be wrong.)
Actually, the first permanent European settlement was St. Augustine, Florida. Founded in 1565, my namesake city has be inhabited by Eruopean decendents continously since then.
the taxation withour representation was related to the church of england just taking money from their subjects. that is what germinated the thought of separation of church and state. Pass the beer and celebrate the constitution.
It's evolved into "the pilgrims came here for Freedom of Religion" over time for a couple of reasons. First is our determination to dumb-down American History- of course the "pilgrims" traveled for religious reasons, that's why all Pilgrims travel. Second, we like the idea of white people establishing permanent settlements on the East Coast for the first time for religious "freedom" more than we like the idea of them coming here to avoid taxes, or to search for wealth, etc. And so even today, I hear callers to CSPAN'S Washington Journal pretty much every morning tell me that the USA was started by people who sought freedom of religion. What's never stated is that almost all of the people who came here for religious reasons had NO INTEREST in Freedom of Worship for ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES. The Calvinists who founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony forbade the practice of Catholicism and Judaism. In Maryland, Jews could be imprisoned, exiled or executed (none were put to death, to my knowledge.) In almost every colony, citizens were required to pay taxes to the Established Church, whether they were members or not. Even the Constitution only forbade the establishment of a NATIONAL Church- the states were still left free to discriminate between religions. So this "We were founded as a beacon for Religious Freedom" is really just another American Myth kept alive by the ignorant and self-righteous.
Snoopy, simply hilarious.
That's hilarious!!! GREAT stuff, and thanks for bringing it to our attention.
What were George Clooney's comments on religion?
Just like Bill to criticize others for not knowing the Bible when he has no clue himself. I am a Unitarian Universalist and I know when Revelations was written.
Jesus was born in 6 B.C. He was crucified at the age of 33. So that means that he died in 27 A.D. Which was 1,980 years ago. So Bill O'Reilly was off by 3,020 years, and Keith Olbermann was off by 27 years.
Jesus was born between the years 6 BC and 4 AD, there is no consensus as to his exact year of birth, though the mention of the Census demanded by Augustus allows us to narrow it down. Biblical tradition states that Jesus "walked the Earth" for 33 years, and we know he died in the reign of Tiberius and during the term of Pilate, but Tiberius reigned from AD 14 to AD 37, and the time of Pilate's term in uncertain. 27 AD is the generally accepted date of Jesus's execution, but it's not set in stone.
If Dionysus Exeguus was correct AND if Luke is correct he said Jesus was born in the 15th year of the riegn of Ceaser Agustus. What he forgot is that he reigned for four years as Octavian before changing his name. So that fifteent year takes us four years further back. It would have been 4 BCE. We cannot be that sure of either thing Everything I have read agrees we pretty much are talking about 4 to 6 BCE.
"Jesus was born in 6 B.C." (hotwings)
That's a whole new class of preemie.
No wonder we're so concerned about fetuses... fetuses are already attending kindergarten!
Keith Olbermann in his "Worst Person in the World" featured O'Reilly for this mistake. Then he went on to claim that "the year of our Lord" or anno Domini was a reference to the year that Christ died and that is when our calendar began. He did so in such a sure and smug fashion that unless you looked into it you would think he was right. In fact, anno Domini refers to Christ's birth (not death). If a person is going to go so far as to refer to a person as the "Worst Person in the World" and then give inaccurate facts regarding such....I don't know, maybe that person needs to look in the mirror and consider themself for that particular award. I don't have a horse in this race, and couldn't care less about O'Reilly, but think about the hypocrisy...
O'reilly pointed out that Dean seemed to be a fake because he didn't know that Job was in the old testament, which if you claim to know anything about Christianity is common knowledge. On the other hand O'railly, who last time I checked is not a biblical scholar, apparently didn't know when the book of revelation was written which is not even in the same ballpark as not knowing what testament a book comes from....way to go mmfa! Thanks for bringing the apples to oranges comparison back to the forefront
So you completely miss the irony of a guy who claims to be a Culture Warrior defending America from the Godless Secular Humanists and defending Old Fashioned Values having NO CLUE as to when the Bible was written? Because it's not as if O'Reilly was off by a century. How about if I presented myself as a supporter of more American History education in public schools and said something like "Kids need to know that, thousands of years ago, our forefathers wrote the Constitution?" You don't have to be a PhD to know that sounds ridiculous on it's face. But you give O'Reilly a pass in believing that parts of the Bible were written "five thousand years ago?"
Your kids must love you- "Hey, I heard your kid the other day mention that he thought that blood was made out of kool-aid."
You- "So what? He's not a doctor!"
I think both of them would deserve a bit of slack. Maybe Dean knew that Job was in the old testament, but in the heat of a speech, he probably just misremembered it. Maybe if O'Reilly had taken a second or two to think about it, he would have gotten the date closer.
The problem is that O'Reilly is the one living in the glass house here. The second he threw a rock at Dean, he made himself vulnerable. Perhaps there is a lesson here.
Oh come on. If he had said 50AD when it is more commonly figured at about 70 AD to 95 AD you would have a point. He missed by three millenia. AFTER the death of Jesus not three thousand years before he was born that isnt a mistake of someone NOT a scholar that is a mistake of someone that knows NOTHING about which he is speaking
Sebastion, excuse me if I misunderstand your post, but are you saying that it's more likely that somebody should know what part of the Bible a particular story is in than to know what year it is?
HBL-
Don't look too far for logic when it's not there.
When O'Reilly appeared on the Colbert Report, he admitted his show was just an act.
Bill is not a religious fantatic right-wing lunatic. He just plays one on TV.
No one should be surprised he has no perspective on history in terms of religion.
The one subject Bill cares about or understands is ratings.
The liver-spotted billo is a delight to watch. Nothing is more fun than a nitwit that has no self-awareness. He plows through life as a know it all, while people laugh at him for his ignorance. I know, he's laughing all the way to the bank. But I like to laugh, so keep up the bad work billo, your my favorite fool who thinks he's not.
Bill-O & Co are getting really worried about the 5008 elections.
Hey Falafel Boy, I'm an atheist and even *I* know Revelation was written in the C.E., not B.C.E. And I also know that Job is in the OT. Does that mean I'm acceptable for public office now ? Or does it just mean you're a phony ?
Atheist, I was born Catholic and retired at about 6 or 7 years old. I couldn't tell you if the book of Job was in the new, used, new and improved or old testament.
I have always been under the impression that our calendar went from negative to positive numbers when Christ was born (Before Christ and Anno Domini, have I been completely wrong on that?)
So, I'd think that one fact would be known by those very familiar with the Bible, and the other by those who know what funking year it is.
The funniest part to me is that not only was O'Reilly once a history teacher, but he recently proclaimed that he refused to debate theology with a non-theologian.
So he won't debate himself but he will make a (DemocratIC party symbol) of himself by "debating" others?
Ask professor O'Reilly:
"Tell me everything that's happened so far, professor O'Reilly.""Well, first the Earth cooled, then the Christians wrote the book of Revelations and the dinosaurs came about five thousand years ago, but they got too big and fat, so they died and turned to oil. And then the Arabs started buying Mercedes Benzes..."
The funny thing isn't that O'Reilly messed up on his account, but Olbermann's reply. In fact, Olbermann while slamming O'Reilly on his lack of Biblical knowledge himself made two mistakes. The whole article and video is on the newsbusters website and is very funny.
Both men screwed up, but it's such a tiny thing. Who cares!?! Leave this alone and let's debate the bigger issues.
Bible-babble has become a substitute for the rigorous study of science and math by seekers of certainty who are repulsed by the uncertainty with which every answer science provides raises many questions. They provide a fraud: Intelligent Design, which they seek to foist on our children. Were they willing to live without any of the life extending and business generating advances of sciense they now enjoy but under the conditions that believers lived under when the Bible was written, one could take them more seriously. But those who do they dennounce as cults. America has gone geriatric and, just like the crooked sheperds seeking $$$ thru Jesus, O'Reily and Fox seek to work old fart rage and hate for aging while tintilating their purelent arousal with soft porno footage as if it were outrageous news. That sais it all. It's democracy or a fake Bible-babble anti-Christs predicting His return per the Bible-babble of cash hungry "reverents."
Check this out:http://bigdanblogger.blogspot.com/2007/11/rush-limbaugh-cares-about-torturing.html
Maple, I can understand Rush getting more emotional about the death of cats and dogs than of humans.If he's tracked his demographic by IQ, lower mammals might make up a lot of his ratings.
And as we all learned from the Sopranos, a sociopath who is incapable of feeling compassion toward human beings often expresses a disproportionate amount of emotion toward animals. As both Rush and Dr. Melfi pointed out, animals are "innocents," and therefore the only creatures worth an ounce of compassion.
Don't forget the fetuses.They're innocent Kindergarteners.
But, in Rush's world, actual kindergartners are lazy, foul-mouthed, direspectful brats who need regular belt lashings in order to be kept in line.
So O'reilly claims all this moral superiority all the time as a religious person (specifically Catholic, I think), but he thinks Revelation was written 3000 years before Christ was born!? I'm an Atheist and I knew Revelations was a new testament book, therefore written within the last 2000 years. More importantly he thinks we're in a "holy war", possibly the one predicted in Revelations!? He seems to suggest that Revelations is reliable just because it was written awhile back. Also, did they rebuild the temple in Jerusalem yet? Did that not make the news along with all the other stuff that was supposed to have happened BEFORE the battle of the war in armageddon started. Bill, you're just making it too easy now.
O'Reilly loves the part where Jesus gave his followers tuna sandwiches and cookies after NOVA on PBS.
Once again Bill, the former history teacher, gets a historical fact wrong.