Jen Kuznicki
Thousands of public officials across this great land put their hand on the Bible in January swearing to protect and defend the United States Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.
Why?
Because our nation was founded with the belief in representative government that is answerable to a Higher Power.
Shall we cast that tradition out, because it gets in the way of progress?
Totally absurd.
Charles Krauthammer appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s TV show and defended Bill’s comment about Bible-thumpers as “right to say.�?
O’Reilly: Were you offended when I said you have to use more than the Bible to win the gay marriage debate? Did that offend you, Charles Krauthammer?
Krauthammer: I think you were right to say it.
He did admonish O’Reilly on responding to the criticism else he will be mired in it, but Krauthammer, in his agreement, subordinates the belief-system of millions of Americans.
If not for the wisdom of the ancients, as Burke reflects upon, what is liberty?
“But what is liberty without wisdom, and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint.�? – Edmund Burke
“All that’s necessary for the forces of evil to win in the world is for enough good men to do nothing.�? – Edmund Burke
“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.�? – Edmund Burke
If Burke is the Father of modern conservatism, I’d like Krauthammer to describe how we take the Bible out of the national conversation, and then describe how Burke was a Bible-thumper.
Further, let’s decide right here and now if the Bible is not part of history. Did the freeing of Jews from slavery not teach us that God is on the side of liberty? And if God is on the side of liberty, are we going to sidestep His word in America, the Great Nation that puts a would-be slave in charge of his slavemaster?
Isn’t that what America is quintessentially about? Citizens in America are obliged to direct their governors and are empowered to do so through many avenues determined at our founding prior to and following a war of Independence?
Is it in line with conservatism, to take the Bible out of ANY discussion then?
Every part of American life is influenced by media, State education, and government policy. Without God’s word and the teachings of the Bible, where would we be?
Isn’t the real issue described as whether we replace our dependence upon God with dependence on government?
“If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a nation gone under.�? – Ronald Reagan
21 Responses to Krauthammer: O’Reilly was right to use the term, “Bible-thumpers�?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Follow Me On The Web!
A nation gone under. Unfortunately when the ass end of a mighty ship goes down it pulls the bow down with it.
OReilly and Krauthammer would be best advised not to throw the Bible thumpers over board just yet. But, In O'Reilly's case I'm sure he can walk on water.
Think O'Reilly jumped the shark a year or so ago. He's parodying himself. Fox needs to revamp and bring more shows like The Five.
For the record, I like Krauthammer when he writes about international affairs, terrorism, etc. When it comes to issues of faith, I cannot agree with him. Not sure where Krauthammer stands on matters of faith, i.e., atheist, agnostic, believes something out there, etc. I do recall him slamming Mel Gibson about 11 years ago when "the Passion of the Christ" came out. That said, you can see why he claims O'Reilly is right. Maybe now those of us who are driven by our faith will be more cautious when we adopt the views of O'Reilly and others at Fox.
Rich Bradford
He is an athiest I believe.
Krauthammer is of Jewish descent but is an atheist, being a critic of intelligent design.
Being a brainiac has its blessings and its curses; the curse typically being that they're "too smart" for God.
It is not in line with faithful Christianity for a Christian to take the Bible out of their conservatism. It is in line for conservatives of other faiths to take most of the Bible out of their conservatism. Unless the only way to be a conservative is to be a believing Christian. That would be news to conservative Jews and reformed Muslims who believe in God.
Bible-thumpers is a term used to directly slam Evangelical Christians.
I know. I am one. I was raised as one in the Bible belt in the hills of east Tennessee. Therefore, I understand the different ways the term is used, having had it directed at my 'clan' so many times over the years. In this case, it was meant to mean trying to force others to accept an argument based on the Bible. It doesn't work on others and can be self-defeating. I took it from O'Reilly as being disrespectful, but not necessarily as denigrating my faith- just the approach.
see, I don't think we are seeing this whole episode the same. O'Reilly 's initial comment and the discussion with Kelly, pitted the proponents of gay "marriage" against everyone on the right, but said that all we on the right are doing is thumping the Bible. Clearly, that is wrong, and is perhaps because all he has seen is people staunchly opposed to gay "marriage" speaking out using their belief system. Then, as I wrote today, he said he was just playing to policy, and said that if we use the Bible in our policy argument, we will lose. I'm pointing out the fallacies of his argument, but in a bigger sense, the fact is, we are not in a policy argument, nor a campaign. We are debating an issue that may change the fabric of society in the hands of 9 people. My main argument in all of this, is that O'Reilly is a phony culture warrior, a phony when it comes to the creeping of secular progressivism, and now, it's pretty obvious from the reaction to his comment, that he's not looking out for the folks, at least not the Evangelicals, and last I saw, they make up a large percentage of the right, and a good percentage of the nation at large.
It is one thing to spontaneously blurt out "bible thumpers". It is whole other thing to actually defend the ludicrous comment as his response to legitimate comments several days afterwards.
Right, we are talking past each other. I’m not addressing the Supreme Court case, but the Justices need to see us out there making articulate arguments that do not directly draw on religion. I agree totally with your main argument regarding O’Reilly. I have watched the video and read the transcript, each twice.
Here’s what I’m saying. You are right about O’Reilly. But O’Reilly is correct: The compelling (read quickly, superficially convincing) argument is on the side of gay ‘marriage’ advocates. This is self-evident in the large shift in public opinion, in spite of the media bias at play. It is evident in the difficulty our side has in articulating a comprehensive defense with anything other than tradition and the Bible, no matter how important WE think those reasons are. Making biblical arguments in the heat of the moment on a particular topic to nonbelievers, repeatedly, is the innocuous definition of bible thumping. These people are being swayed the other way precisely because we, as a nation, have been abandoning faith-based teachings for decades. We need to get onto that long-term project right away, also. We need to think, fight, and act on more than one plane.
It is important to hammer the likes of O’Reilly and others in the media. I had him figured out five or six years ago and do not watch him. But we better heed his admonition. We had better develop better arguments NOW that will convince the more secular voters NOW. Do we want to win the argument today and preserve marriage, or do we want to go down in a blaze of glory ‘clinging to our guns and religion?’ We do not have time to be distracted and expend energy on insults. We’d get better results in the fight by improving our arguments and making them in the media and to citizens that haven’t heard them.
There are convincing arguments that address all the traditional marriage objections raised by Kelly and O’Reilly. These are arguments that reflect God’s model for marriage developed by believers in God’s model, but they are formulated to appeal to the secularists and the wishy-washy. Learning them is not easy. Learning how to articulate them in a concise, understandable way to secularists is not easy. I would be happy to share them with you.
I agree. there are more than the Bible argument and for someone who is supposed to be fighting against progressives there is no opposition to the weakening a cornerstone of a strong and moral country…The family. Then to double down on an insulting comment is just sad. Words mean something we started loosing the meaning of marriage when we let the progressive redefine what is a family and marriage….O'Reilly lost me with his words. No way I will read his new book.
I agree that our nation was founded on the belief in a Higher Power, and that we will prosper by allowing ourselves to bend to God's will. Imagine you were arguing the case for marriage in front of a jury of 12 atheists, agnostics and shaky 'believers.' Today is the last day of the trial, and it's your closing argument. You would first have to convert them, make true believers out of them, for your faith-based argument to have any resonance whatsoever. Otherwise, you will lose the case for sure, for they will close their minds and hearts to your argument. We cannot convert them in the short run by shoving a hose down each of their throats and pumping them full of faith. Only God can soften their hearts and make them receptive. A better choice is to make an argument to them that will sway them today (for they will be voting again soon) while we pray and work for their conversion as a separate track. Their is a compelling argument for the marriage model based on Christ's teachings, and it can be taught to and accepted by non-believers. So let's reform the non-believers Burkean style- one prudent step at a time.
I disagree with the premise of the imaginary circumstance you give. First of all, why are we arguing the point at all? Is it because we hope to influence the Supreme Court justices? I believe the media, in their insistence on framing the argument from the beginning, that gay "marriage" receives wild popular support, is done precisely to influence the justices. With a starting point such as that, it is clear that the proponents feel they have the upper hand in the national conversation. We do not, nor could we, pull them away from their stance. What is happening is simply that people are defending their stance, and yes, a lot of it has to do with their beliefs. Bill is saying we won't win the argument using the Bible. If we take the Bible out of the public sphere entirely (which is the stated goal of Communism) our natural progression will be Communism.
It would help if you identified the premise you perceive as coming from me, otherwise we may be talking past and around each other. I was not approaching the topic of the Supreme Court.
The “jury�? consists of American citizens. More specifically, each state has its own jury that decides its state marriage law. The people, the “jurors,�? that need persuading are not our fellow faithful believers. The jurors that will decide each state’s case are the non-believers and the not-very-faithful. That is our audience.
They will be voting again in 17 months. There will likely be more marriage propositions and amendments on the table. We lost what? Four more states last November. Time is of the essence.
We do not persuade non-believers or the faithful-in-name-only with Bible based arguments in the short-term. In fact, we will turn most of them off completely and remain unconvincing to the balance. That is the innocuous definition of Bible-thumping in a self-defeating way. This all seems to me to be a common-sense acknowledgment of human nature.
The objective is to save traditional marriage NOW where we can, then try to revive the nation’s faith starting NOW on a separate track. If we fail in the short-term on the former, more states will be lost. If we fail on the later, we will continue to lose the battles on marriage, abortion, virue, the size and power of the federal State, etc. over time as the country becomes less and less faithful. It is the latter, larger effort where the Bible teaching can be effective, not in the heat of today’s argument over marriage with non-believers. For the former, for today, we should use the powerful secular form of the marriage argument which, in fact, reflects the structure of God’s marriage.
The Supreme Court has no business determining state marriage law. If they overstep their bounds yet again, we may as well start looking for real ways for a large group of states to nullify or separate. The words of the Declaration become more and more relevant to today. The other choice is to simply submit and say goodbye to the set of ideals that is/was America.
If I had to to defend marriage from the perspective of a secularist or atheist I would have no more difficulty than defending the institution from a religious perspective. Marriage draws its significance and its necessity from the nature of man via biology and/or religion and it has but one purpose… progeny. Religion and biology dovetail and so does religion and secularism for what is secularism but a belief that the wisdom of a controlling government should prevail erstwhile religion is the belief that the wisdom of a higher power should prevail. Thanks to the first Amendment we don't worry about the latter but when secularism replaces the latter and itself has become like a religion it has then effectively done a 360 and bypassed the establishment clause and in the process our sphere of liberty, as a people, is reduced. No one is forced to either marry or not to marry but if you do there are requirements and constraints created and fortified by both religion and secular law and up until now they were both going in the same direction. Using the establishment clause the way it is now being used to defend same sex marriage pays zero respect to the history of the clause and to the history and purpose of marriage.
America as we know it…going, going…
[...] [1] /2013/04/krauthammer-oreilly-was-right-to-use-the-term-bible-thumpers/ [...]
Although I admire Dr. Krauthammer tremendously for his intelligence and the enormous odds he's overcome in view of his disability, my opinion of him is diminished for this. During the Obamacare debate he claimed we had a moral obligation to provide medical care to everyone, which sent up red flags then. The fact that he's agreeing with Billbag O'Wind, tells me that he's more moderate than he wants people to perceive him as being.
One must excuse O'Reilly when he seems contrary to Biblical truth. Through no fault of his own, he was taught (brainwashed) in Roman Catholic school, that much of the Bible is allegory. Actually there is just ONE place in the Bible, N.T. that mentions allegory. Bill says he has trouble with the Noah story and many others. If he only believe the parts he can accept intellectually, he is lost to the fullness of God's Word.
If you have kept up with O'Reilly's reaction and responses to his "thumpers" remark (I recently watch the show just to check this out) you will have noticed that Meagan Kelly and Bernie Goldberg have also joined Krauthammer in defending the remark. Apparently all of them know that he supports traditional institutions and that his book "Culture Warriors" proves it. So what?
The above may be true but does not diminish the fact that he used the wrong words to make a point and dissed "The Folks" who are often hard working, blue collar workers who watch his show. So now he blames conservatives as having an agenda based upon jealousy and the fact that he is a middle of the road pragmatist that is to the left of most conservatives who dislike him for a plethora of reasons. He and we do know that is true but again so what? Sometimes he does get it right however we feel that, more often than not, lately gets it wrong. But sicking to this one issue "for the record" it should be apparent that he is all over the map in order to discover defenses when in fact he need only apologize, not for what he believes is rational but for the language he used to make his point. The Folks should not have to read his mind to understand; he should be reading theirs.