Bloggers Other Cheek
Bill O’Reilly today is bragging that he forced John Edwards to fire two bloggers who said bad things about Christians. The other reporters say that the bloggers resigned on their own, but O’Reilly seems intent on proving that he’s a powerful man and not to be messed with. Apparently the notoriously lecherous and sexist O’Reilly has now coronated himself defender of the Virgin Mary. I bet she’s overjoyed.
To prove his point, he baited a democratic party operative to say, “I would not have fired the Christian-bashers, but I would have fired anti-semites or gay-bashers”.
O’Reilly acts as if he has uncovered some great hypocrisy on the part of democrats, but he instead demonstrates an utter ignorance of Judeao-Christian philosophy — and sets a terribly dangerous precedent. At least he doesn’t claim to be anything other than an apostate blowhard; he is certainly not in the mainstream.
It is true that the bloggers made crude, juvenile, and offensive comments in the past. So what? These are kids who were raised in a Christian milieu and are unhappy about the world they find themselves in. Kids criticizing their Judeao-Christian upbringing is a stereotypical rite of passage, not aberrant. Today as when I was a kid, teen angst groups like The Thermals and Death Cab for Cutie capitalize on these themes — not because Christians are an oppressed minority — but because these issues are top of mind for kids from Duluth to Calgary. This is a far cry from isolated bigots making anti-semitic or gay-bashing comments.
And the admonitions of “judge not” and “nothing hidden shall remain hidden” are as deep as it gets in Judeao-Christian philosophy. Silencing critics is part of Scientology’s playbook, not Christ’s.
Bill O’Reilly seems to think that voters would do better if the truth is hidden. He would rather that the campaigns employ angst-ridden kids and keep it a secret. This is mentality that leads to e-mail deletion (nee “retention”) policies. The judgmentalists would rather that George W. Bush do sneaky things in smoke-filled rooms than in e-mail (where he can at least confess from the grave). O’Reilly forgets completely ”turn the other cheek”, an admonition which itself is misunderstood. Cheek-turning has nothing to do with redeeming oneself, and nothing to do with heaping coals of earthly contempt upon an aggressor. And it certainly has nothing to do with changing another’s heart through “setting a good example”.