O'Reilly blames gays and abortions for war on Christmas

Even on the occassions when O'Reilly said something I agreed with, the way he waggles his finger about as if it somehow backs up what he's saying made me wish I didn't agree with him.

I find him absolutely sickening.

Secularists aren't at war with Christmas.

They're at war with the homophobes and prohibitionists and other authoritarians who have declared personal ownership of the holiday... like Bill O'Really.

I also note from the quote that for folks who feel every action of the human species needs to be judged against some set of rules supposedly defined by a non-human, they're awfully quick to throw around the misanthrope label. What's more misanthropic than the belief in original sin?

As for the heathen atheist label, make me up a tee-shirt.

Just for grins, the bolded is open to debate.

Shadow Dragon said:

Video taken from Bill's show:
http://youtu.be/3lxmQATcWb8

Relevant part:
Bernard McGuirk, Imus in the Morning executive producer: "If you ask me, in addition to some misanthropic heathen atheists, ..."

Click to expand...

Thank God! Going by the thread subject line, I was thinking atheists are so low thesedays we don't even rate a mention, but it's good the word is being used on cable TV or whatever venue this is.

Shadow Dragon said:

Is it just me, or is Bill starting to sound more and more insane as time goes by?

Click to expand...

I figured his ratings must be falling.

Don said:

... like Bill O'Really.

Click to expand...

I'm stealing this.

Don said:

What's more misanthropic than the belief in original sin?
.....

Just for grins, the bolded is open to debate.

Click to expand...

It depends. If it translates into "nobody's perfect, so give your fellow human beings a break," it's actually philanthropic.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Before I take you up on the debate, I'm curious if any other atheists are bothered by the heathen epithet. The word as generally defined means uncivilized or barbaric. Is the implication that civilized atheists would not behave this way or is it that all atheists are uncivilized?

Anyway. Rather than dig too far into the doctrine of original sin, I will point out that it puts all human beings on an equal footing (We are all sinners).

Thus it is less misanthropic than the doctrine of predestination which creates two categories of humans (most of whom are essentially subhuman).

It is also less misanthropic than racism, sexism, or homophobia which create categories of humans and subhumans.

Thus original sin's fundamental egalitarianism makes it less misanthropic than many other ideas.

Click to expand...

"Misanthropy is the general hatred, mistrust or disdain of the human species or human nature."

The belief that we are all born sinners falls squarely under "mistrust or disdain of human nature" any way I can possibly read it.

I understand your "least of many evils" rationale, although I'm no fan. I generally find it's mostly useful for justifying and excusing the status quo.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Before I take you up on the debate, I'm curious if any other atheists are bothered by the heathen epithet.

Click to expand...

No, it's a word I use to self-describe, albeit with my tongue in cheek.

No war on Christmas, originally Pagan festival appropriated by Christians, Winterval was a myth, etc etc.

RichardGarfinkle said:

I'm not disputing that the doctrine is misanthropic. You asked "What's more misanthropic than the belief in original sin?"

I think the examples I gave are more misanthropic than original sin.

Click to expand...

"Misanthropy is the general hatred, mistrust or disdain of the human species or human nature."

The others are aimed at subsets of the human race, while original sin is aimed at everyone... nobody gets a pass, not for any special reason at all. Human nature itself is disdained, not some specific component of nature that someone has because of their membership in that subset.

That's about as "general" as you can get. The others are more specific.

Don said:

The belief that we are all born sinners falls squarely under "mistrust or disdain of human nature" any way I can possibly read it.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, imo. Many people who believe everyone is a "sinner" don't interpret it the way you are. The faulty assumption is that being a "sinner" makes a person evil or worthy of disdain or untrustworthy.

It can also mean we're only human, imperfect, and we make mistakes.

And if one is so inclined, it can mean that one relies on God for forgiveness, support, help, unconditional love.

Chrissy said:

Not necessarily, imo. Many people who believe everyone is a "sinner" don't interpret it the way you are. The faulty assumption is that being a "sinner" makes a person evil or worthy of disdain or untrustworthy.

It can also mean we're only human, imperfect, and we make mistakes.

And if one is so inclined, it can mean that one relies on God for forgiveness, support, help, unconditional love.

Click to expand...

It says "mistrust or disdain of human nature" not of individual humans.

The original sin argument is that human nature is of itself sinful, for we are born having sinned by virtue of nothing other than having been born as humans. Human nature is guilty until proven innocent. That screams mistrust or disdain to me. YMMV.

(... and don't get me started on lectures from the pulpit about how we are all flawed and must rise above our "base, animal nature" and resist our natural desires (read "temptations") to be worthy of salvation. I grew up listening to sermons that dripped with disdain for human nature.)

I don't mind being called a misanthropic heathen atheist. I am generally misanthropic, I don't know which spoons or forks to use at a formal dinner, and I am an atheist. When I was younger, my dad would call his kids (jokingly) little heathens.

I, however, draw the line at sinner.

Wait, wait, wait.

I thought gays and abortions were responsible for Hurricane Katrina and 9/11?

Now they're destroying Christmas, too?

They've gone too far this time! They must be stopped!

Don said:

It says "mistrust or disdain of human nature" not of individual humans.

Click to expand...

A dinstinction without a difference, I say.

The original sin argument is that human nature is of itself sinful, for we are born having sinned by virtue of nothing other than having been born as humans. Human nature is guilty until proven innocent. That screams mistrust or disdain to me. YMMV.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I get it. Just... that's not how everyone defines it. Like Richard said above, the original sin concept can also simply be a way to put us all on equal footing. No one is inherently better or worse than anyone else. We all have faults. We all have weaknesses. Therefore, "Judge not...." that sort of thing.

(... and don't get me started on lectures from the pulpit about how we are all flawed and must rise above our "base, animal nature" and resist our natural desires (read "temptations") to be worthy of salvation. I grew up listening to sermons that dripped with disdain for human nature.)

Click to expand...

I can see why you'd feel the way you do, with that kind of experience. I went to churches that said there was nothing I could to do to be worthy. I had to ask Jesus to come live in my heart and change Teh Evil Me and save from the everlasting Hell I deserved (at age 7, do you realize how hard it can be to detect another person living inside of your heart?) I rejected those messages.

I just like to keep the good parts.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Before I take you up on the debate, I'm curious if any other atheists are bothered by the heathen epithet. The word as generally defined means uncivilized or barbaric. Is the implication that civilized atheists would not behave this way or is it that all atheists are uncivilized?

Click to expand...

I saw it as using heathen in a religious context, meaning, often disparagingly, someone who isn't religious. In this case, it's completely redundant since obviously atheists are not religious, so I'm going with stupid insult.

As for the belief in the original sin, I do understand how and why some Christians believe in it and don't see it as a negative thing. And I understand that some people merely take it to mean that humans aren't perfect and we all have our flaws, which isn't a bad message. However, my experience with the doctrine has been that people will use it to criticize other people's lives without realizing that they're doing so. They will say that they're okay with gay people, for example, because "we're all sinners and equal before God." They don't realize that they're taking the basic assumption that being gay is a sin for granted, or how offensive this is to gay people.

I don't believe in the original sin, and while they may mean well, having people tell me that my "sins" are equal to theirs makes a lot of assumptions about how I view "sin" and morality.

I think BillO is still in shock from the outcome of the election. He was dreadfully wrong in his predictions going into it, dreadfully wrong about thinking all the polls were dreadfully wrong, and seems to have been genuinely baffled when things didn't go the way he thought they would. He hasn't yet recovered, and is just flailing, trying to find some new issue to generate fervor among the ardent Foxies who watch his show.

caw

blacbird said:

I think BillO is still in shock from the outcome of the election. He was dreadfully wrong in his predictions going into it, dreadfully wrong about thinking all the polls were dreadfully wrong, and seems to have been genuinely baffled when things didn't go the way he thought they would. He hasn't yet recovered, and is just flailing, trying to find some new issue to generate fervor among the ardent Foxies who watch his show.

Click to expand...

Or maybe his opinions will be enough to reverse the outcome and we'll be inaugurating Romney next month...

(... and don't get me started on lectures from the pulpit about how we are all flawed and must rise above our "base, animal nature" and resist our natural desires (read "temptations") to be worthy of salvation. I grew up listening to sermons that dripped with disdain for human nature.)

Click to expand...

This is why I so despise the 'hate the sin, love the sinner' mantra I hear from so many people masquerading as 'tolerant' Christians (disclaimer: actual, real tolerant Christians do exist. I've met a few.) They usually use it in reference to gay people, or people having the kind of sex they disapprove of (outside of marriage, not for procreation, etc) and it bugs the shit out of me because sex is natural, love is natural, the gender of the person doesn't matter a whit and the idea that any kind of love, or any sexual activity between two consenting adults is a 'sin' just seems perverse and arbitrary to me. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is just a polite euphemism for 'you seem nice, but what you do in your private time is disgusting'.

I think "hate the sin, love the sinner," might have been coined with good intentions. For example, the WBC literally hates whomever they deem as sinners.

Take something most people believe is wrong or "a sin": murder. You can hate/disapprove of murder but not condemn the murderer... i.e., you can still love the murderer enough to pray for him, rather than judging him and hoping he burns in hell.

Unfortunately, like Richard said, it's a way to give oneself permission to continue to judge other people's behavior, all while saying one loves the person and is not judging them.

But Jesus said, "Judge not." Some of the best advice he ever gave, imo. And pretty simple, methinks. He didn't say, Judge the sin, not the sinner. He just said, Don't judge.

Christianity, in it's more traditional forms, did more to change Christmas for me than anyone else ever did. Nothing quite like meeting people who believe that 2/3 of the worlds population are going to be tortured for all eternity to put you off a religion.

Believe me, my gay friends make me happier about the state of humanity than realising people are okay with their god doing that, because they're so sure they will be spared.

As for 'I am a sinner' - I find that powerful only if in the same conversation/assumption there's no such thing as hell and everlasting punishment at the end of this life. Most of the people I know and love are agnostic or atheist, and the idea that a god would punish them simply for not believing when there is no evidence? It definietly doesn't make me want to be joyful at Christmas time.