While recently discussing how President Obama’s relationship to Islam is undermining U.S. security, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly offered up some strange analogies:
Barack Obama has deep emotional ties to Islam. Now to some extent I can identify with Barack Obama on the religious issue. As a Roman Catholic I was appalled when the priest pedophilia scandal broke. There’s absolutely no excuse for the Catholic Church covering up many horrendous crimes…. However, like Barack Obama I do make the distinction between the faith and the people who abuse it. But here’s where I depart from the president. I went after the American Catholic leaders of the church with a vengeance…. President Obama should do what I did. Aggressively call out those who abuse the Muslim faith, who commit atrocities under a religious banner.
O’Reilly’s claim that “I do make the distinction between the faith and the people who abuse it” presumably means that he distinguishes between Catholicism—which does not promote the molestation of children—and those who “abuse” it for such ends.
Yet how exactly did pedophilic priests “abuse” the teachings of Catholicism? Is there some biblical scripture or church mandate that is ambiguously worded enough for them to twist in a way that justifies the molestation of boys, the way intolerant and violent Muslims are supposedly always “twisting” the Koran?
No. Such priests were not “abusing” their religion. They were directly violating it in both spirit and letter. That’s why they did it in secret and hiding, in the dark, and not “under a religious banner.” That’s why, unlike the jihadis, they were unable to write and issue lengthy treatises (fatwas) littered with scriptural references justifying their behavior. And that’s why O’Reilly—and many other Catholics—were rightly “appalled” and vociferously condemned it.
From O’Reilly’s false premise, the errors naturally morph and multiply: “President Obama should do what I did. Aggressively call out those who abuse the Muslim faith, who commit atrocities under a religious banner.”
Unlike the Catholic example—where there is no biblical or ecclesiastical reference that can be “abused” to support the priestly rape of boys—armed violent jihad is a clear mandate of Islam, one that manifests itself repeatedly and vociferously in both the history and doctrinal teachings of Islam.
According to the authoritative Encyclopaedia of Islam, which was published between 1913-1936—before the great age of political correctness set into the West—the “spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general … Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam … Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.”
Even the atrocities that groups like ISIS engage in—beheadings, crucifixions, church bombings, sexual enslavements—are supported by the doctrines and historical practice of Islam. Indeed, even that one ISIS atrocity that the West is convinced has nothing to do with Islam—burning people alive—stretches all the way back to the example of prophet Muhammad and is taught in the curriculum of Egypt’s Al Azhar University, widely regarded as the world’s most prestigious seat of Islamic learning.
This is why, Mr. O’Reilly, most Muslims are not aggressively condemning ISIS, the way you condemned the pedophilic priests. Neither ISIS nor the pedophilic priests “abuse” their religion: Catholicism offers nothing that can be “abused” to justify the rape of children—hence why Catholics denounced the priests—while ISIS’ behavior falls squarely within the pale of Islam—hence why poll after poll shows widespread support for ISIS among Muslims.
In reality, and to use O’Reilly’s own words in describing his response to pedophilic priests, Muslims are indeed often “appalled,” and do “aggressively” chase down—“with a vengeance”—those who besmirch or contradict the teachings of Islam. When non-Muslims mock or “blaspheme” Muhammad, Muslims riot and kill all around the world (in Pakistan, a Christian man and his pregnant wife were slowly roasted alive by an irate mob on the accusation that they had insulted Muhammad last year). When non-Muslims try to build churches in Muslim majority lands, or merely meet in private homes to worship, Muslims riot and rage (recently in Egypt, burning 80 Christian homes).
But when groups like ISIS wage jihad in order to create a caliphate that enforces Sharia—a requirement of Islam—why expect Muslims to condemn it?
This is why people like Bill O’Reilly are forever taking one step forward followed by one step back. On the same segment he said, “The jihad is solely based on theology [correct], perverted as it may be [false].” As discussed here, such people apparently cannot accept that their Western values are historically singular—not universal—and that Islam has its own antithetical worldview.
Either that or they’re too scared of the ramifications of acknowledging that reality.
I hope you mail him a copy of this!
Great article as always Ibrahim. I think most people have great difficulty conceiving of a worldview other than their own. I tried to draw an anology of the paradigm shift that is currently required and people’s resistance to making it in my essay “Refusing Galileo’s Telescope” on my blog malsi-tung. There is interesting research in the field of cognitive bias which might also help us. As you point out, once O’Reilly has accepted his false premise, the errors multiply from there on.
Alas, ghamilton, your bogus history of the stories of Galileo, Bruno, et al. in the essay you reference follows many of the myths and exaggerations involving these individuals and their declarations, and it appears you have done so in order to perpetuate the notion of excessive persecution by the Catholic Church. Below are the facts in outline form of what really happened involving Galileo, which I invite you to examine with objective honesty unless you have too much “difficulty conceiving a worldview other than your own.” By the bye, the Church via Pope St. John Paul II apologized for the faulty judgment of the Papal Commission and Estate arrest of Galileo, but this does not equate to “looking back with shame” as you wrongly characterized it in your false narrative.
The Galileo Case in Detailed Outline
1. The basic controversy actually stems from the excellent and Church-honored astronomical work of Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543). Copernicus was a canon in the Church, and may have even been a priest, but there is no direct evidence that he was ever ordained.
2. In 1543, Copernicus published 6 works on the Celestial Orbits, and it is here that the sun was placed at the center of the system, and hence we have our heliocentric understanding. Copernicus’ work was dedicated to Pope Paul III.
3. Protestants attacked the Copernican system continuously, because they believed it violated Holy Scripture. However, There Was No Catholic Condemnation of the system in any way, shape, or form until the Galileo case came up in the early 17th century.
4. In the early 1600s, Galileo provided more evidence in support of the Copernican system, for which he was originally honored by the Church in 1610/1611.
5. In 1612, Galileo published “Letters on the Sunspots,” and in this work, Galileo formally promoted the Copernican system. Shortly thereafter, Galileo received a congratulatory letter of support from Cardinal Barberini. Barberini later became Pope Urban VIII.
6. At that time the theory was not definitively proved, but it was looked upon, even by the Church, as a hypothetical possibility and so it could be taught that way. This fact is frequently ignored or falsified by opponents of the Church who wish to make it look like the Church is opposed to the findings of science.
7. Galileo was more convinced that the heliocentric theory was absolutely true, so he did not want to promote it as a hypothetical theory. Nevertheless, in support of his claim, Galileo stated that the movement of the ocean tides was proof of the earth’s motion, which is quite silly. Galileo was also unable to refute some of the remaining claims made by those who still favored the Ptolemaic system concerning the problem with earth movement and the observation of the stars. Still, Galileo was convinced despite not having as much proof as necessary (and which would ONLY come about much later after Galileo died).
8. Galileo went even further and insisted that scripture needed to be reinterpreted to align itself with the as yet unproven Copernican system. Now he stepped on Church authority, and this led to the unfortunate developments on and off over the next 20 years or so, but Galileo was not the innocent victim that inaccurate and propaganda-based “history” often portrays him to be as one who was severely persecuted only for telling the truth.
9. At this time (circa 1615/1616), the Protestant Reformation was in full swing, and one of its primary and false charges against the Catholic Church was a “lax interpretation” of scripture. However, with this in mind, the Church was much more circumspect and more reluctant to suggest reinterpretations based on theories that were still in a hypothetical state.
10. There were Church leaders at that time who were open to a reinterpretation of scripture, but not until the theory obtained more definitive proof. A wise and prudent course that is frequently condemned by those outside the Church.
11. 1616: Galileo continued to assert the truth of the Copernican system, so Church authorities stepped in and advised him that he could in good graces with the Church teach the theory as hypothesis only, not definitive truth,…and Galileo agreed.
12. Some 8 years later, Galileo was well-received in Rome once again where he even received some medals and gifts from Pope Urban VIII (the former Cardinal Barberini mentioned above). Moreover, Urban advised Galileo that the Church had not and would not condemn the Copernican system as heretical…and it never has (though it came very close to doing so via a statement/verdict of the Holy Office from the 1616 trial that was overruled, but was subsequently published in 1633, thereby adding fuel to the myth surrounding the situation).
13. 1632: With the support of the Pope, Galileo published “Dialogue on the Great World Systems,” but once again, Galileo ignored the admonition to not treat the Copernican system as established fact, because that had still not yet been established. He broke his word even though no new proof was developed over the additional years, and so in 1633, a Papal commission, not the Pope, declared that Galileo had been vehemently SUSPECTED of heresy, and he was ordered to cease publishing on Copernicanism. He was also confined to a relatively large estate (not some small house prison as false history describes) where he was permitted to carry on his scientific work the rest of his life.
O’Reilly is just another media idiot posing as a supposedly unbiased “savant”. Unfortunately , like the many Leftists who pose as “academics” and therefore unprejudiced sources of opinion, they blatantly ignore fact in favour of dogma or doctrine as most are long past the gates of historical truths. I have no time for organized Christianity as its leaders are now betraying it, but this comment is more of a defining of the stupidity of O’Reilly and a measure of the PC disease plaguing the west and obliterating lucid thought than anything else.
Well said. Your writings function as the voice of informed reason here. Thank goodness you shun the social evil of political correctness. An antidote to PC exists: “The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right name.” (Confucius). Please write more.
READ WHY:
ALL MUSLIMS ARE EVIL AND GUILTY OF TREASON
ALL POLITICANS: President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Democratic Party, Elites of Republican Party, MEDIA: Bill O’Reilly, Christiane Amanpour, CNN (See Below), RELIGIOUS, INTELLECTUAL ELITES, TEACHERS AND ALL OTHERS WHO SUPPORT ISLAM ARE GUILTY OF TREASON
http://www.godofmoralperfection.com/new-page-107.htm
Good article.
It would be wonderful if the people of Fox, including Hannity, O’Reilly, and many others would have the intellectual courage to feature you prominently on their programs, but if they did, they might be persuaded to give up their “right wing political correctness” attitude that jihadis have “hijacked” or “distorted” Islam. Keep up the good fight, sir.
Keep it up Raymond, the very least you do is make us think. And when a person thinks, that Islam is nothing but a cult of deranged fanatics supported by legions of useful idiots is clear. Muhammad a messenger of the Creator? No more likely an earthling practitioner of satanism.