O'Reilly and the Hard Right's Naked Intolerance

Just last month Bill O'Reilly was livid that he had come under fire over his Sylvia's comments. He claimed he ment no disrespect when he said "No one was asking for their M-Fing Ice Tea." He claimed his comments were misquoted and taken out of context by the "far left" who simply wanted to smear him.

In fairness to O'Reilly when you do take all of his and Juan William's comments in context one could argue that he wasn't saying what many claimed he was saying. He wasn't surprised by Sylvia's, he was praising it. But underneath even that view is the truth that what he was saying is that the problem with Black America - is that it isn't just like White America

Y'see Black Americans just haven't been perfected yet, that's all.

But in his more recent statements specifically endorsing intolerance toward gays, O'Reilly can no longer claim to have been misquoted or taken out of context.

His own words are damnation enough.

For O'Reilly, Sylvia's should be lauded because it's an example of "Good Black's" who behave "the same as (white) people in any other restaurant." and aren't culturally "dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg." Yay, for them. What a revelation that is for "some people", somewhere...

But not O'Reilly. He claims he knew this was "possible" all along and was simply happy to share this information with his audience - which I suppose he felt couldn't conceive of such a thing.

But when responding to the revelation by Harry Potter Author J.K. Rowling that one of his her lead characters, Albus Dumbledore is gay old Billo displayed something completely different.

Video from MediaMatters.

From The Fact with guest Dennis Miller"

O’REILLY: Here’s — you can talk about this on your radio show tomorrow. There are millions of Americans who feel that the media and the educational system is trying to indoctrinate their children to a certain way of life, and that includes parity for homosexuals with heterosexuals.

And that’s what this Rowling thing is all about, because she sells so many books. So many kids read it, that she comes out and says, “Oh, Dumbledore is gay, and that’s great.” And this — it’s another in the indoctrination thing. That’s what the belief system is among some Americans.

MILLER: I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think you can indoctrinate a kid into being gay. You might indoctrinate him into trying it once and him going, “I guess I’m not gay.”

[crosstalk]

O’REILLY: No, but tolerance. It’s — you know, he’s not going to be gay, but it’s tolerance of it.

It's not the problem that this character is gay (and this wasn't even mentioned or discussed in any of the books), it's the idea that this might promote the Tolerance of people who are gay simply because Dumbledore is a highy respected and admired character.

The view is that Homosexuals should not be on parity with Heterosexuals. Our children are being indoctrinated into this idea.

Pardon me but I thought that particular form of indoctrination began with All Men are Created Equal and are endowed by their creator with certain Inalienable Rights - which included Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I may be a bit old fashioned but I tend to think that explicitly endorsing intolerace tends to impede someones Liberty, their Pursuit of Happiness and sometimes their Life.

Now Dumbledore is admittedly just a fictional character and nothing to really get up in arms about - but this type of view as expressed by O'Reilly isn't rare. Just last week he stated he would do if he were to witness any gay (or someone in drag) attempting to accept communion.

TalkPoints Memo October 12th.

O'Reilly: Two Gay Militants in bizarre dress took communion in a effort to demean the proceedings.

During a later segment on this subject O'Reilly claimed that if he had been a witness to this proceeding he would have staged an "Intervention".

O'Reilly: I'd be like Jesus with the money changers - you understand what I'm saying?

Two years ago a similar situation occured in Minnesota, only the parishioners in that case weren't gay, they were simply showing their solidarity with gays as oppressed people.

A Minnesota priest “denied communion to more than 100 people Sunday, saying they could not receive the sacrament because they wore rainbow-colored sashes to church to show support for gay Catholics...Ann McComas-Bussa did not wear a sash, but she and her husband and three children all wore rainbow-colored ribbons and were denied communion. ‘As a Catholic, I just need to stand in solidarity with those that are being oppressed,’ she said...Last year, some conservative groups in St. Paul kneeled in church aisles to block sash-wearers from receiving communion.”

Catholics being not only "tolerant" of gays, but standing in solidarity with them? I'll bet if Big Bad Bill had been on hand, there would have been a Beatdown!!

"Don't Tase Me Bro!!"

WWJP: Who would Jesus Pummel?

O'Reilly on Gay Pride at a Padre's game, because we really can't afford to have our kids exposed to The Ghey Tolerance!. It might make them flinch during the ritual beatings.



All kidding aside endorsing the idea of gay intolerance is no joking matter, it's dangerous according to the 2005 FBI Hate Crime Stats.

Sexual-Orientation Bias
In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual- orientation bias.

* 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
* 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
* 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
* 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.
* 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual

By comparison, heterosexuals have very little to fear physically from gays - yet people like BillO feel little impedements to literally threatening the health and safety of Gays and/or Gay supporters.

Many on the Hard Right like to argue that being Gay is merely a choice (although this seems to fly directly in the face of The Science - that hasn't stopped them before has it?), and since it's a "Choice" they are under no obligation to be respectful of a choice they disagree with. But here's a newsflash - being Religious is a Choice Too. Religious Intolerance, because it has shown to be detrimental to people's life and health, is prohibited in this country by law and under the 14th Amendment which states...

All Persons within the Jurisidiction of the State, will be granted the equal protection of the Laws

Clearly, Gay people are in far greater need of protection than heterosexuals - but still the Bush Administration has threatened to Veto Hate Crimes legislation that would protect gay people from abuse and intolerance.

The White House has even helped draft exceptions in the latest version of the ENDA which allow Religious Organizations, Small Business and the Military to effectively discriminate against gays at will.

Could you imagine if the Voting Rights Act had an exception in it for any elections which used a church as a polling place? Could have imagine if the Diners which used to be for "Whites Only" in the 50's and 60's would have had an exception to the Public Accomodations Act on the basis that they were a "Small Business?"

The law would literally be meaningless, just as the 14th Amendment had been for nearly 100 years.

It's long past time that we put a stop to this. We have to realize that endorsing Tolerance does not mean that you agree with someone elses choice. You don't have to agree, but even assuming that it is "merely" a choice, frankly if it's not your CHOICE you have no dog in the hunt. "Live and Let Live", isn't that what Jesus preached?

Just as Religious people can worship at the altar of their preference, and are granted protection to do so, GBLT people deserve - no need - to be granted the same protections.

It's the Christian and Human thing to do.

Vyan