The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Outrage

August 5, 2005 | 18 Comments

The lack of religion is responsible for the success of terrorism, according to Bill O’Reilly. “Terrorist acts are routinely justified and accepted by people who feel little for their fellow man,” says Bill, wagging a finger at all of us heartless atheists. And it all started when we began tearing down the courthouse nativity scenes:

The relentless attack on public displays of spirituality and religion by progressive secularists has been extremely effective worldwide. Church-going in Western Europe, for example, has collapsed in many countries. Harvard professor Niall Ferguson calls the decline of Christianity in Europe “one of the most remarkable phenomena of our times.” Ferguson cites a Gallup Poll that shows barely 20% of West Europeans attend church services at least once a week.

What he means by “public” displays isn’t clear: does he mean government-sponsored displays, or members of the public expressing their religion by wearing crucifixes and erecting Christmas trees on their property, etc.? Perhaps the secularists were objecting to the former, but nobody was stopping private citizens from acting stupidly. So maybe the lack of public displays of religion was due to the public not believing in all that silly nonsense any more. That’s probably also the reason they stopped going to church, unless O’Reilly is suggesting that the secularists were blocking the cathedral doors. Or is he suggesting that the government should force people to go to church? Who knows. In any event, the consequences of this lack of religio-spirituality are dire:

In Britain, only ten percent of those polled said they would be willing to die for their religious beliefs. And guess who loves that statistic? Can you say the Islama-fascists?

“Only” ten percent? Whoa — you’ll never see me in London. I thought suicide bombing was the problem, not the solution. I may believe that Coke tastes better than Pepsi, but I’m not willing to strap on fifty pounds of explosives to prove it. And my soda thesis is a true, or at least coherent, sort of belief. Is O’Reilly seriously suggesting that the world would be a safer place if the majority of fundamentalist Christians were amenable to blowing themselves up? (Hmmm, maybe he’s on to something).

As to making the Islama-fascists happy, do we really care whether they smile or frown at statistics? They’re crazy. And more than likely, they’d love it more if the holy war involved millions of big explosions. Allah likes fireworks. Anyway, apart from making us unwilling to self-immolate, the lack of religion is turning us into perverts:

In America, the anti-religious forces are led by the ACLU and activist liberal judges who are aided by an increasingly secular media. It is no accident that we have thousands of child sex offenders running wild in this country. The crime of child sexual abuse used to be second only to murder. Now the ACLU defends the North American Man-Boy Love Association in court, claiming their free speech rights are being violated.

Certainly, there’d be no child-abuse scandals if priests were running the country. Put another way:

Well, if I took you down there then I’d want to take a shower with you right away, that would be the first thing I’d do…yeah, we’d check into the room, and we would order up some room service and uh and you’d definitely get two wines into you are quickly as I could get into you I would get ‘em into you… maybe intravenously, get those glasses of wine into you…

You would basically be in the shower and then I would come in and I’d join you and you would have your back to me and I would take that little loofa thing and kinda soap up your back… rub it all over you, get you to relax, hot water… and um… you know, you’d feel the tension drain out of you and uh you still would be with your back to me then I would kinda put my arm — it’s one of those mitts, those loofa mitts you know, so I got my hands in it… and I would put it around front, kinda rub your tummy a little bit with it, and then with my other hand I would start to massage your boobs, get your nipples really hard… ‘cuz I like that and you have really spectacular boobs…

So anyway I’d be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda kissing your neck from behind… and then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I’d put it on your pussy but you’d have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business.

Oops, sorry, that wasn’t in the essay

Comments

18 Responses to “Outrage”

  1. BC
    August 5th, 2005 @ 1:58 pm

    “Is O

  2. Tenspace
    August 5th, 2005 @ 2:04 pm

    I’Reilly said, “In Britain, only ten percent of those polled said they would be willing to die for their religious beliefs.”

    RA said, “I thought suicide bombing was the problem, not the solution.”

    O’Reilly suggests that religious people should be willing to die for their religion. RA disagrees. Who’s side are you really on?

    Tenspace

  3. docjmcg2
    August 5th, 2005 @ 2:35 pm

    Not to be cliche, but consider the source. This man O’Reilly is a blithering idiot. How does he miss the fact that we atheists are really really averse to the whole death thing because after all, it really is the end. It’s just a tool to avert our attention for the real causes of islamo-fascist terrorism (political and financial). Osama does the same thing-uses religion to stir up fervor and recruit suiciders so that his political goals can be reached. else he would have long ago strapped on a dynamite tuxedo

  4. Delta
    August 5th, 2005 @ 3:20 pm

    Uhhh, O’Reilly is truly a sick and stupid human being. It is very depressing to know that many Fox viewers really look up to him and think he’s “telling it like it is”.

  5. Daniel
    August 5th, 2005 @ 3:35 pm

    What exactly does O’Reilly want? The Inquisition? (“Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!”) If he were in a morally repressive regime like he seems to be advocating I doubt he would survive.

  6. hermesten
    August 5th, 2005 @ 4:00 pm

    O’Reilly may be one sick puppy, but he’s not a blithering idiot. He’s a superb puppetmaster who knows just what strings to pull to get the sheeple to bleat in fear and approval and put a coin in his pocket.

    What should worry everyone here is the particular strings the puppetmaster is pulling. Apparently, he thinks this message will be well received by the idiot herd –and he’s probably right. The basic principle at work here is the demonization of everyone who isn’t sufficiently “Christian” –though he would probably allow a devout Jew into the fold. The thesis is that the “good” people are religious, and they are suffering because of all the “bad” people –where “bad” is defined as “anti-religious” (which suggests anyone who won’t kiss the ass of people like O’Reilly, and includes atheists, agnostics, deists, unitarians, muslims, hindus, buddhists, liberals, democrats, libertarians, communists, socialists, et al).

    Demagogues like O’Reilly and Limbaugh get rich by sensing the mood of the masses and appealing to their fears, their vanity, and their emotions. They say what sells. Apparently their market research is telling them that scapegoating and demonizing the unfaithful sells. These guys get an instant fix on what works via their ratings and advertising revenue. If this message wasn’t working he wouldn’t be selling it. This is a hint of what to expect as the religous nutters gain more power in this country.

    And BC, I disagree that RA made a “bonehead” comment. I know a lot of Christians, and spite of the early opportunity to sit next to Jesus up in Heaven, the vast majority would much rather kill, than die for their beliefs. I also don’t believe there are many Christians in this country who would die rather than renounce their beliefs. For the most part, the ones who would rather die than “renounce their beliefs” are the same kind of fanatics that strap on explosives and blow themselves up in subways. And what on earth makes you think that Christians don’t want to kill the infidels? I’ve heard these evil motherfuckers tell me to my face such things as we should kill every man, woman, and child in Afghanistan and nuke Iraq. I’ve also heard a handful even suggest that atheists here in the good ole’ USA should be killed. My son has even heard this sentiment expressed at college.

  7. GW
    August 5th, 2005 @ 4:03 pm

    European attitudes toward religion seem to change inversely to the United State’s. Or, maybe it’s just that in America the quacks are hell-bent on power, which explains the manipulation of the media, and politicians.
    One London gentleman, after the first subway bombing, stated that he was “Lucky, really, really Lucky” to have been two cars behind the initial blast due to being slightly behind schedule. Compare this reaction to what the world sees when Kansas is devastated by a tornado, or Florida by hurricanes … Thank god we’re still alive … blah, blah, blah. Of course that’s what the media chooses to show.
    Great post RA .. keep up the good work.

  8. hermesten
    August 5th, 2005 @ 4:20 pm

    GW, about 80 years ago, Mencken said you couldn’t throw an egg from a Pullman car in the US without hitting a fundamentalist. Now you’d probably hit two. The country seems more religious to me than it did when I was younger, but I’ve moved from more secular to more religious areas of the country, so it’s hard for me to tell.

    At the same time there is more “freedom of expression” and influence from secular forces. For example, I don’t think the religous nuts could prevent someone like Bertrand Russell from teaching at a US public college today. However, they’d sure like that power, and they are working on getting it back. I think the apparent religiosity of the US today is more a function of the political power the religous nutters have acquired than a broad religious revival. But at the same time, while the number of those who are anti-religious has probably increased, their power has decreased, and the number of hard-core religious fanatics has probably increased. I’m afraid we may be witnessing Yate’s “Second Coming” where the “best have lost all conviction, and the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

  9. hermesten
    August 5th, 2005 @ 4:25 pm

    Oops, I meant “Yeats.”

  10. boywonder
    August 5th, 2005 @ 6:33 pm

    I understand O’LIElly plays to the emotions of morons, but does he hope to gain anything other than ratings by making bigoted remarks like these? Apparently he doesn’t care what the consequences are of his lieing on national television. I understand it’s Fox, but how can no one be held accountable for their actions there by anyone else? O’Reilly saying the media is becoming an increasingly secular establishment is the most infuriating part, in my book. I’m tired of people saying the opposite of reality and having it unquestioningly consumed by the masses. I don’t see any way around this problem. Assholes like O’Reilly know and count on blatant lies going over well with the masses. And they are proven correct every time. It is past the point now where there is confusion about things these people say. It is to the point where it is accepted fact that the media is liberal and that atheists are evil.
    I thought O’Reilly was done after his perverted sex scandal, but I should have known better. Limbaugh led the way with drug addiction after saying all druggies deserve to rot in jail. You know if a liberal/atheist/democrat talked out of his/her ass like these fuckheads, they’d be tarred and feathered. One of the few gratifying observations I’ve made about O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, and many others is that I am young enough to survive them all and I will RELISH the deaths of my enemies.
    Sorry you folks had to hear that. I’m normally a pretty easy-going guy. My hatred is reserved for those select few that deserve it.

  11. Daniel
    August 5th, 2005 @ 8:30 pm

    I can understand the anguish people have in having morons like O’Reilly and Limbaugh on the air. But please don’t pretend that all people with liberal slants are saints:

    “You know if a liberal/atheist/democrat talked out of his/her ass like these fuckheads, they’d be tarred and feathered. ”

    Personally, I think Howard Dean talks out of his ass all the time. And when you hear asinine things like, “No Blood for Oil” or saying that any minority who is a Republican must be stupid and a traitor to his/her race, gender, etc. as I’ve heard said by Randi Roads (?) on Air America, please don’t pretend that only the right is filled with idiots.

  12. Jason Malloy
    August 6th, 2005 @ 12:14 am

    Jesus, what an idiot. Such a confused, meandering and incoherent screed – religious fundamentalists are destroying civilzation and its the fault of . . . the nonreligious.

    In America, the anti-religious forces are led by the ACLU and activist liberal judges who are aided by an increasingly secular media.

    The media is not “increasingly secular”, thanks to the Internet and the free market, “the media” is less consolidated than ever – which is exactly why slimy bitches like O’Reilly have such a cozy podium to paradoxically denounce this mythical anti-conservative beast “the media”. And I seem to recall the last “activist judge” that had anything to say about religion was one Ray “fuck the federal government, the 10 commandments stay” Moore. Oh but Bill *liked* that activism:

    The moral guidance provided by The Ten Commandments constrains bad behavior; that’s why the Commandments appeared in Scripture. But, now, the secularists insist there is no place in the public square for the Commandments. There is no place for constraints that may offend. Think it over. If every human being chose to set up his or her own moral program, there would never be a consensus of what is proper and what is not. There would never be universal outrage over terrorism or terrible crimes.

    This is such idiot authoritarian bullshit. The 10 commandments aren’t a “moral compass” they’re a completely typical ancient grocery list of superficial religious pseudo-laws, a meaningless religious artifact like the Shroud of Turin or that window stain of the virgin Mary, that power-hungry assholes like o’Reilly use to stuff their own opinions into the frightening mouth of “god”.

    True moral anarchy is conflating moral reasoning (which people *must* do no matter what the liars insist) with moral relativism, allowing demagogues to use what is nothing but the argument from their own authority, dressed up as something higher or more morally grounded, when in fact it is just the opposite.

  13. Tim
    August 6th, 2005 @ 7:50 am

    “only 10% … ” – exactly what section of society was being polled?
    I doubt if even 10% of Londoners are even vaugely religious in the first place.

  14. musashi
    August 6th, 2005 @ 9:18 am

    One thing that really gets me is that if you were to play/read/show that telephone transcript to a really hard core O’reilly fanatic, you’d notice an immediate case of cognitave dissonance. It’s the same thing that keeps people believing that Iraq has/had/hid weapons of mass destruction, almost as if being wrong is way better than admitting inconvenient facts.

  15. a different tim
    August 6th, 2005 @ 12:36 pm

    OK, new to this site, first post, sorry if I’m saying anything that has been said before….

    Didn’t Jerry Falwell say something similar after 9/11? Something about it all being the fault of atheists, liberals and people who like to have sex or something…..as opposed to being the fault of armed religious nutters. I’m sure I remember that. You know us atheist liberal sex fiends, we blow up aeroplanes all the time.

    I’ve never seen why fundamentalist Christians have a problem with Osama and co anyway. They both hate gays, they both would like women to stay in the home, they both would like to take us back to pre-enlightenment times…..if they ever stop arguing over the trivial details of their insane belief systems the rest of us are screwed, basically.

    Off the subject a little…..That stuff that GW and Tim said about Europe (and the UK) not being religious is true right now, by the way, but our glorious leader here in the UK has no problem with creationisim – oops, I mean intelligent design – being taught in our state schools (public schools for you in the US, but I’m afraid the term public school means private school here). And our next head of state (you may be surprised to hear that our inbred royals are technically our heads of state, not the prime minister) sees himself as “defender of faith”. Reading his pronouncements on science etc it is pretty clear this means “faith…as opposed to reason”.
    Fortunately we get very few Bill O Reilly types here and when they do appear nobody much listens to them. I’d like to put this down to how smart we all are but I suspect it’s because we threw a lot of our puritans out in the seventeenth century and sent them to….America. Doh!

  16. Evident Enigma
    August 6th, 2005 @ 11:04 pm

    Religion and the blind faith that goes with it will be the doom of us all.

    e.e.

  17. Richard
    August 8th, 2005 @ 2:56 am

    Mr. O’Reilly is full if sh!t; but we all knew that already.

  18. hermesten
    August 8th, 2005 @ 9:36 am

    “Apparently he doesn’t care what the consequences are of his lieing on national television.”

    I don’t think this is true. He lies for the purpose of obtaining those very consequences.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links