Re: Townhall.com – 12/6/2008 – “Jesus vs Atheists” – Bill O’Reilly

Why does O’Reilly find expression of opinions in conflict with his as “insulting”? Why does he see disagreement with him as an “attack”? Is it because O’Reilly just doesn’t understand that a democracy is supposed to encourage differing opinions? Does O’Reilly think that those who disagree with him and have the nerve to publicly state their disagreement hate him? If so, does O’Reilly hate them?

O’Reilly clearly doesn’t understand what is going on in the state of Washington. Not about naked bike riders, support for the homeless, religious displays on government property, or anything else.  

The State of Washington did not prohibit non-Christian displays at Christmas time because the courts have said that if the government allows the religious displays of any religion on government property, it must allow religious displays for all religions. The State of Washington supports Christian displays on state property during Christmas, and to legally allow Christian displays it must also allow non-Christian displays. In order to prohibit religious displays that those of other religions may object to, Washington State has no choice but to prohibit displays by all religions on state property.

Christmas is celebrated by Christians for the birth of Christ and as the celebration of faith, love, peace, and giving that Christians associate with the birth of Christ. Other religions also have traditions that celebrate faith, love, peace, and giving, but their traditions differ from those of Christians, especially concerning the birth of Christ. If Christmas is to be a national holiday it must not be a holiday only to Christians but to all Americans. As a Christian holiday, the holiday may honor Christ, but as a national holiday it must also honor traditions relevant to all American, Christian or otherwise. The Establishment clause of the 1st Amendment does not forbid a national celebration of Christmas on government property, only an exclusively Christian celebration.

The particular non-Christian Christmas display that bothers O’Reilly speaks only to the historical contributions of religion to our society without celebrating love, peace, and giving --- it clearly is not an appropriate expression of the holiday spirit, but it clearly is not an illegal utterance exception to freedom of speech such as shouting “fire!” in a crowded theater. Since it is not an illegal utterance and since the Court has ruled that allowing one religion’s displays requires allowing all religion’s displays, the state has no legal authority to deny the display of the message O’Reilly finds offensive. To deny this display but allow other religion-specific displays would be illegal.

O’Reilly thinks that “teaching children about the atrocities against Native Americans by the Pilgrims” denigrates Thanksgiving. He’s wrong. The truth is never denigrating, it is revealing. A thing is what it is, not what we wish it should be. Thanksgiving commemorates the survival of our ancestors from the hardships of settling in a new land, something well worth celebrating. But the act of settlement did hurt native inhabitants, partly the unintentional consequence of settlement and partly by the intentional acts of settlers. It should not surprise O’Reilly if some of the loyal American citizens who are descendents of those harmed Native Americans don’t enthusiastically celebrate Thanksgiving the same way the Pilgrim’s descendents do, and it should not irritate O’Reilly if some of us who do celebrate Thanksgiving do so while recognizing that our initial non-native settlers were not all perfect in spirit and deed. Those who forget the mistakes of the past are bound to repeat them. Perhaps O’Reilly should say some Thanksgiving prayers for the forgiveness of our European ancestors for whatever sins they committed in dealing with the Native Americans during settlement rather than trying to hide the fact that some sins were committed. Hiding those sins will only give license to future generations to repeat them out of ignorance.