Has my fellow Irishman taken to drinking as a hobby?

Kevo, I think he's raised it to an art form.

MindBend, you are probably onto the truth here, but maybe not with the drinking.

O'Reilly is probably deliberately jerking everyone's chain with his latest idea. Maybe he just wants to see how many stupid Fox viewers parrot him. He likely fancies himself as a performance artist whose every action and word are worthy of our attention because in his lizard brain his intellectual prowess (even typing that made me throw up in my mouth a little) is so much superior to everyone else.

Then again, he could have finally crossed the line into mental illness where he thinks that he really does have the authority to redefine religion.

But I think you are right with the art form aspect of it. He'll be on to the next act once this one is out of the spotlight.

Oh, and by the way: Happy Holidays, everyone!!

O'Reilly tells us "Nobody can control the climate but God!" and "God controls the climate. C'MON!!!" So global warming is really "God's" fault and apparently its design.

Does anybody need to know anymore about O'Reilly than that? Seriously?

Ridiculousness at its height....This educated Bill had to have learned, in first grade Catechism class, about "Free Will!" However, as mentioned by others, Mr. Bill is laughing (at the people) all the way to the bank!!!!

That is the part that bothers me about these Right Wing Nuts. I would love to be a fly on the wall after they shut off the camera. I can only imagine them laughing and making fun of the poor ignorant people that watch them and believe their outrageous lies.

I appreciate their nastiness in that it helped Mr. Obama win and I must say I have been laughing at them ever since. But, I live in Texas and you would be shocked at just how many of these people believe their scummy lies. This is the Bible Belt. These "Christians" just love to believe that someone is threatening THEIR freedom of religion when the law says they can't shove it down OUR throat.

I never watch Faux, but I always know when Bill is at it again. I get all kinds of emails and FB posts about the "war on Christmas". I'm soooo sick of it.

I feel there SHOULD be a war on Christmas to stop all the commercialism it has become that starts in October. I'm sick of Christmas by the time December gets here.

what's striking here is that it's highly unusual for a socially conservative culture warrior to insist, proudly on national television in pre-written remarks, that Christianity is not a religion

Actually, not so much. I've heard repeatedly over many years from religious-right individuals (such as my mother) that Christianity isn't a religion, although this is something more common to far-right Evangelicals (in my experience) than to Roman Catholics such as O'Reilly. Among Evangelicals, my sense is that they try to separate Christianity from religion as part of an effort to separate themselves from the historical mainstream of Christianity, which they tend to see as more or less corrupt.

If OReilly actually is as ignorant as his remarks suggest, why does he merit any significant attention? People who spend their careers in public view eventually need to do or say things that will attract attention, whether or not any of it is good. Why pay him that tribute?

Too many bosses not enough Indians. They are usually very bossy and love to tell people what to do, stupid is as stupid does, he's just another T.V. preacher, who only sees $$.Wash your shirts complete, but he can't be a man because he doesn't smoke the same cigarettes as me.Let's vote for the man who has the balls to lie to the American people, Wall ST. needs all the reps they can get.Lieing, cheating and stealing it's right up their alley. (synicle)

O'Reilley is just a dollar bill with a penis. That's as deep as he gets. Years of sucking on the FOX teat has made him even hate himself...but his ego won't allow it. But it's FOX...where else could goobers like him even get a job...hate radio?

Usually when I hear people discounting the religiosity of Christianity, it's an evangelical saying something like "I don't have a religion, I have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ." This idea that religion is just an administrative exercise separate from faith isn't new, though I didn't know it had propagated into the ranks of conservative Catholicism. It's a sort of selective or opportunistic ecumenism where people like O'Reilly alternately treat all Christians as one big group when it is convenient (i.e. when arguing that we are "a Christian Nation") and then focusing on the splits and differences (to argue that each sect is a religion, but that Christianity in general is a philosophy).

In any case, it is nonsense, but then, what do expect when O'Reilly starts talking religion? This is the sun and the tides guy, after all.

A modern philosophy where practitioners make $hit up for da money - reality, history, heritage and fidelity to the truth be damned!

So, what else is new?

There is a war on Christmas. It is a one sided affair where the far right is trying to force us to accept Christianity as our only belief and to turn from democracy towards theocracy.

They need to make up the enemies of Christmas in order to cause a fight. They must make us accept Christ-uh the Christ they made up and his father that they made in their image.

Wow Bill O'Reilly claims to be a theologian now. Knowing what is and what is not a religion. I think he needs to read some Paul Tillich.

http://www.theology.ie/theologians/tillich.htm

What do you call someone who is willing to do or say anything for money?

O'Reilly, Coulter, Limbaugh, etc., believe everyone has a price. They don't believe the stuff they spout, they say what ever they think will boost their ratings.

And The Great American Pyramid Scheme (the mormon church) are advertising again. How much did their last ad campaign cost? How much are they currently spending? What are they trying to get us ready for; accepting some LDS less repulsive than Mitch?

All religion stems from a protest again Catholicism and their teachings. They disagree with an aspect of Catholicism, then decide to form their own religion,an example of this would be protestants. Christianity is a religion that also is practiced, and disagrees with Catholicism, the oldest religion know to mankind. They have specific traditions that are reserved only for Christians. They didn't like the idea that it was considered a sin not to go to church. They make up the rules as they go.

Catholicism is not the oldest religion known to mankind. Not by a long shot.

Which one is, this is something a priest once told me, I guess I should revisit my sources.

Angel#77

Catholicism/Orthodox Christianity (pre-schism) was the first organized Christian religion.

Judaism and Hinduism predated Christianity by thousands of years and small regional pagan religions were probably around as long as mankind itself.

Angel: you should start by referring to the dictionary. Religion is a broad term which includes almost any belief in a superhuman entity that created the earth and even the universe. There have been many different forms of this belief, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, paganism, etc.

Modern protestant churches came into being as protests against the Roman Catholic Church. You need to distinguish between religions and churches/religious organizations. Most of our organized religions are really political organizations. They are about controlling people and enforcing laws more than they are about a belief in a "god."

You need to read history, especially the history of Christianity. It is not pretty. And it is a lot more about politics and power than about Jesus Christ.

Thank you, I can't find my dictionary, but I'll keep looking, I finally found my herbologist text, which is full of homemade remedies.

Ha ha! Touche Angel,touche!

Is trips your trigger anything like floating your banana boat?

I always thought it was "flips your skirt", but "trips your trigger" and "floats your banana boat" is kinda kewl, too.

Ever had an x-ray? Or know of anyone who's undergone radiation treatment for cancer? How about--did you turn on a light, or appliance, or computer today?

These are all related to the age of the earth. That age was determined by using radioactive decay of different elements. When you reject that the age of the Earth could be more than 6,000 years old, you are rejecting the notion that radioactive elements decay at a constant rate. Yet it's that same notion that we use to build nuclear power plants, give radiation doses to cancer patients, etc. You can not say that evidence based science works in one situation, but not another.

And the age of Earth is very important by itself. Understanding how the Earth formed and changed over time helps us understand what is going on now. Plate tectonics--the reason why we have earthquakes and in many cases volcanic eruptions--only works over longer time scales. And it's with that understanding that we can map out fault lines, begin to understand the stresses involved, and work out potentials for large earthquakes, eruptions, tsunamis, etc. We still can not reliable do short term forecasts, but can help plan out what's needed in the long term to help prevent disaster. We are not perfect, and the recent tsunami's showed, but the lack of earthquake damage in Japan shows our potential to improve outcomes.

Or you can reject that too. These are not independent engineering issues separate from the age of the Earth. You'd be right is saying the immediate effects off saying the Earth is 3.6 vs 4.8 billion years old won't have that much effect on daily lives--but accepting claims of 6,000 years old would require us to reject our observations that allow us come up with ways to deal with natural disasters.

And I even avoided evolution.

We are living on one big wiffle ball. Way to go oil companies. No common sense.

Don't they claim that one doesn't need to know how internal combustion works in order to drive a car?

Well, that is true, but then you would in turn be placing your utter and complete faith in those who *do* know how it works. Or getting an MRI without knowing the basics of atomic physics, but trusting that Phillips or whoever built the device *DOES* know that science and how to exploit it.

So it's second-hand reliance on and belief in science instead of first-hand. Sounds to me like they're living in a delusional fog. I'm with the purists: if you don't accept the science, act on your beliefs: refuse everything having to do with modern medicine, modern appliances, any products of deep mining, wireless communications, weather prediction, et al. Sounds straightforward to me.

And religion is really philosophy -- which the Constitution doesn't separate from State in the way it does Church. Ah. So that's it!

Just remember everything made on this Earth is natural, some good some bad, I just don't like the fact that we've become the pharmaceutical companies' guinea pigs. I hate medicine, but I have to remember that God also had a lot to do with medicine. His son was the great physician who could heal himself with an amazing immune system, I feel I have that same immune system as Jesus. But, the suicide rate is up because parents are afraid to put their children on anti-depressants. It's a crap shoot out there. Lawyers have patients by the .....Those 2 professions need a wake up call, they've got a rope pulling contest going on and the American people are right in the middle of the battle. It's ridiculous. The American people deserve a list of which Doctors are there to do God's work and which are there for their own selfish gain. We can easily settle all our disputes without reaching the million dollar sign. We need regulators who know how to regulate, without causing a fight. I think the President is on the right path with his super committee of 15. I trust more than anything the President's intellegience it is almost unsurpassable. The Republicans can't get a handle on it, and never will.

I am curious to find out how those who assert the earth is 6,000 years old explain fossil fuels.

Just to let you know, Angel, no, you do not have the same immune system that people 2000 years ago did. We have vaccines now which provide immunization to what were once deadly diseases. We also have, in many places not all, better understanding of sanitation, hygiene, and definitely a better understanding of germ theory, all of which offer us protections which people in the first century CE did not have.

I was referring to blood types.There's a lot of immunizations going on out there. I never had a flu shot and I never had the flu. Knock on wood!

HAHA !!! xD

Another loophole found by the 1%.

"If Morality was Christianity, Socrates was the Saviour." William Blake.

Great post, GrrrlRomeo. Which goes to show that Christianity is indeed a religion and Mr. Bill has a thing or two to learn. And if he is right, by some convoluted and arcane argument, they've been claiming religious tax-exempt status all these years and withholding gazillions of dollars in property tax that we could sure use right now. (Thanks to MCN1 for that.)

So which is it, FOX? Religion or just some plain ol' humble philosophy? Care to settle the confusion?

There might be people who call themselves Christian who don't really believe in a god and believe Jesus was just born out of wedlock, and those people are closet Atheists.

The concept of "not believing in a god" is atheism (whether or not it involves a closet). The idea that Jesus was just born out of wedlock not incongruent with believing in God, but if you don't believe that Jesus is the son of God, you are not a Christian.

Some people who believe in God but believe that Jesus was just a person consider themselves Deists. Deists believe(d) that God exists, but don't believe in man's rituals and trappings of so-called religion. Deism was rising in popularity in Jefferson's time -- people were becoming less afraid of science and more skeptical of books about magic snakes, talking bushes, miracles, and other such wonders. Most Christians nowadays do not know enough about history to know this, since references to The Age of Enlightenment are slowly being phased out of history textbooks by fundamentalist editors.

It's really a shame that we do not examine our history more closely, for without knowledge of our history as a warning, we are doomed to repeat our mistakes.

I find it problematic when people say "believe in God" as it asserts that there is only One True God and their god is it. Christians, Jews, Muslims and yes Deists believe in a god. Jews, however, don't go around insisting that their god is everyone's god like Christians do. Actually, they don't even say god.

I used to be a very progressive Christian that believed my god loved Hindus and Buddhists just the same and would all be saved. Then I realized that was arrogant and it's part of the reason I'm no longer Christian or anything. When your belief system about a god gets in the way of your beliefs about humanity, it's better to ditch the god than the people.

If it makes you feel more comfortable to say "believe in a god" rather than "believe in God" in my paragraphs above, you're welcome to substitute words. Doesn't appreciably change the substance of the paragraph.

And everyone has a different idea of who/what their god is like, but I doubt there are billions of Gods out there. GrrlRomeo...how did your belief system about a god get in the way of your beliefs about humanity? Or were you talking about people in general? (I'm honestly and not-snidely curious -- just trying to understand.)

A Famous or infamous person can be philosophical, groups of people together believing in whatever tickles their fancy, are not. They are religious, because they follow the rules of their church. They accept the body and blood of Jesus because they are religious and are following a religious tradition..Mary Magdalene sopped up all of Jesus's blood, why? Because she was pregnant with his child, and she had the same blood as Jesus.

IMHO they owe a ton of back taxes and that should help to take care of our national debt. Jes sayin.

Philosophy means literally love of wisdom, whereas religion relies in large part on unknowable belief. I mean, don't get me wrong. There's plenty of wisdom in the Christian (and of course Jewish) traditions, but there's also this requirement of a leap of faith. You know, Moses and the Burning Bush, the Virgin Birth, Death and Resurrection, a Choir of Angels and on and on.

In fact, you could almost say that philosophy is present in any given religion. It's just the part that deals with the progression of facts into knowledge and knowledge into wisdom. The other stuff is about blind faith, and it's hard to separate the tooth fairy and Easter bunny from the ones in the Bible, but I guess TF and EB didn't make the cut.

One of my favorite quotes and my mantra for years comes from Henry David Thoreau in Walden:

To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates a life of simplicity, independence, magnanimity and trust. It is to solve some of the problems of life, not only theoretically, but practically.

And to that, I say "Amen."

Before anyone jumps on me, I don't mean to offend your personally held beliefs. Just stating mine for the record. We're all entitled, you know. I'll listen to yours if you'll listen to mine.

If this (see above) isn't a career killer,, wow,, what a foot shot.

That tree was originally a pagan tradition, along with the yule log and such. That's right Pagan. The Christians stole that from the pagan holiday traditions. So before you all go screaming about it being 'christian' maybe you should actually learn a bit about it's actual history first. Also about your feelings over the word holiday, why don't you look up it's etymology.

Amy has it right. It is actually a Yule Tree and part of pagan solstice tradition. And before you go ranting about the "X replacing Christ!" nonsense....learn that X is from the Greek letter Chi and has been used as shorthand for Christ for MOST of church history! XMas has been around longer than the Protestant reformation. Another bit of history....the original "Fundamental" Christians (the Puritans) had laws banning ANY celebration of Christmas because they recognized the pagan origins of all of it.

Who used the word "Christian" or "God" or "Jesus" or "Christ"???? I am talking about TRADITION. Who cares when and where it became a Christmas Tree? I am talking about what it represents TODAY not 1000 years ago.

Christmas tree

noun

1.
an evergreen tree decorated at Christmas with ornaments and lights.

Thank you! I'm so tired of people "claiming" that certain things are Christian. When in reality it was taken from the "Old Religion" or Pagan celebrations & festivals. The early Christians wanted to "assimilate"/convert people & the people wanted to celebrate as they had for generations. So the early Christians took over their festivals, replacing the figureheads with their own to "trick" people.

Not all fell for the ruse and those were "weeded" out... and not in a nice way. Some missionaries were guilty of defacing a statue of Venus & the infant Eros by scrapping the letters away at the base. Thus they tried to claim to the native people that it was Mary & the Christ child. This sort of thing has gone on for a very long time.

Now that people would like to move on and are trying to move away from the overbearing Church presence - they are lashing out again at anyone that tries to take over what they've already taken over.

Rather sad when those that go through the seminary are told that they can not ever tell their flock or anyone the truth of what they learn when becoming a priest. They are forbidden to speak of it since the people have been lied to all along. Where is the foundation of trust...? There is none... it's all been lies so that they can control people. That's the sad part. The good part is that not many actually read the whole bible and all the violence, hatred, genocide, incest, murder & horrible things that are in there. Best that they read the parts that are actually nice and positive... there are more of those in the New Testament... if you want to avoid nightmares - stay away from the Old Testament.

If they have been calling it the Holiday Tree for years and not the Christmas Tree you do realize that would mean that calling it the Holiday Tree is now the tradition, yeah? You completely debunked your own complaint in the first sentence.

Secondly why does upholding this tradition matter? Does it harm anyone by not upholding it? No. Is it a necessary tradition? No. Does changing the label change the tradition fundamentally? No. Something being "traditional" does not inherently make it worthwhile, moral, or correct. It simply makes it something that happened before. This is an appeal to tradition and it's a logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

Thirdly what does any of what you said have to do with the quoted portion of Bill O'Reilly's comment? Does it provide necessary context to understand his statement? No. Does it change the meaning of his words or otherwise offer clarity? No. Does knowing this information make his statement more factually correct? No. So what advantage did you think you were gaining by providing this information? Whether he said it with regards to the Rhode Island issue or not does NOT change the meaning, intention, or application of what he stated. Now if he was, let's say, being cut off mid-sentence then that would change the meaning, intention, and application of his sentence. But in this case you are stating that Maddowblog accurately quoted him, accurately represented his argument, accurately presented the context and situation, but that you're complaining that they did not include the unnecessary information of the Holiday Tree.

When someone is using technical writing- which articles almost always do- they do not include unnecessary information. That is considered artistic "fluff" that exists to help convey imagery or setting, but that doesn't convey information. Since articles typically aim to inform the public they typically don't include a lot of setting or imagery work. Your complaint here is that you think Maddowblog is biased by not presenting the setting: you want to argue this? OK, but now you have to prove why it matters. So far all you've stated is that you don't like technical writing versus creative writing. You're welcome to have a preference as to which one you like, but if you're going to argue that someone has done something wrong you have to prove why that bit of information is necessary and why it's absence is therefore partisan. You haven't done this (yet).

Interesting, the value we place on single words and the arguments it creates. On one hand, we have transitioned from the word "Christmas" tree in an effort not to offend those who disagree with what they view as an implied traditional meaning of the word.

And then, there's "marriage".

Sorry cartoon, I have to disagree with you on this. I was actually in charge of the celebration at the State House for a few years. We ALWAYS called it a Christmas Tree. We had the Christmas Tree Lighting every year I was in the State House. I started my own tradidtion there where I had Seniors from senior centers come and matched them up with young children from low income head start programs. We had food and books donated. The seniors read to the children and at the end Santa Claus visited. Prior to my adminnistration, a Jew was the Governor. He also had the Christmas Tree Lighting every year. So I do not know where they are getting it that it has been called the Holiday Tree. Not true.

So I do not know where they are getting it that it has been called the Holiday Tree.

You stated that for the past couple of years it has gone by the The Holiday Tree and not The Christmas Tree. Even if it's a new thing that has only been around for 2 or 3 years by making that statement you were immediately showing that this has precedent in and of itself.

But regardless I don't know why it's a big deal. The Holiday Tree is an all-inclusive term whereas The Christmas Tree is an exclusive term. Why wouldn't you prefer the inclusive versus the exclusive? And if it isn't about religion then why care? It's just a title that has no meaningful application to the real world. It's not like the holiday celebrations changed, it's not like people are being prevented from referring to the season as Christmas in their private life, and it's not like it changes the nature of the tree itself. It seems to me you're getting hung up on a linguistics issue for no apparent reason?

Because to me it is sanitization. It is a tree with lights, garland and decoration. I do not know what other "Holiday" it would represent. Rhode Island is also having a ceremony that they are calling the "Lighting of the Menorah". They did not change it to "A Candle Lighting Ceremony". They are doing this because is it representative of a specific celebration. Go to any Governor's website and look at the proclaimations they issue. Hell, Chafee proclaimed February 29th "Rare Disease Day" even though everyone does not have a rare disease, March was "Caffeine Awareness Month", everyone does not drink caffeine. To me it just gets into sillyness. A christmas Tree is just that, a Christmas Tree.

Because it's unconstitutional for public officials to use public funds to support a specific religion. You either have to support all religions (in which case I am going to move to Rhode Island and insist that I have my Satanic holiday) or you support none. The constitution is pretty black and white about this. If public space is going to be used, if public dollars are going to be used, and if public officials are going to be appearing at the ceremony as representatives then they are endorsing any religious ceremony they undertake.

Caffeine awareness and rare disease day have absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand so please don't use red herrings like that- that's just a feeble argument and it makes you look weak on intellectual grounds.

But what is sanitation and why is this bad? You make this argument as though the conclusion proves itself, but it doesn't. Who cares if the name is changed: it doesn't prevent you from celebrating Christmas now does it? But it does allow for the state to separate itself from religion as it's constitutionally mandated to. For the record the Menorath lighting ceremony would also be a violation of the constitution. So yeah it probably should be changed to candle lighting ceremony- you cannot argue that because the name hasn't yet been changed that this is evidence of some anti-Christian sentiment.

Lastly who are you to state that this has to be a Christmas tree or that the tree's purpose is only to celebrate Christmas? Again you are being exclusive in making that assertion: you're forcing your beliefs onto other people and making them conform to YOU. You don't have a right to do this and you aren't proving the harm of the inverse so how can you be making this appeal to authority?

If it is SO unconstitutional, why do we have to pay Federal, State andMunicipal employees for the day off on December 25? It seems as if THAT would be unconsititutional, if anything was.

December 25th is just a day. Some federal employees gets the day off and what they use that day for is up to the person. You are the person making the inference that because you choose to celebrate Christmas on the 25th of December this invariably means that everyone else is doing the same thing. The employee isn't forced to celebrate Christmas or any other holiday: they are just being given time off. And for the record you don't pay employees for days they don't work. The employees you would be paying are for those who are working (like military or police personnel). That makes it even more secular. This is just like the tree issue: you assume that because it's a pine tree and has decorations that it HAS to be called a Christmas tree and calling it anything else- like a holiday tree- is somehow an insult to Christianity. You assume that December 25th has to be related to Christmas and calling it anything else is an insult to Christianity. It's just a tree, it's just a day. Christians don't own these holidays and by attempting to own these holidays that is what violates the US Constitution.

Religion is a farce , culminated for the goofballs to make excuses for their actions and financial benefits and an excuse to not work for a living and to financially feed off of others and just simply for them to use as a backboard to lean on for any and all numbers of excuses and manipulations of any and all situations to use to make themselves look and feel as though they are religious and righteous ! Just simply a way to stonewall themselves and others that are around them ! As for orielly and all of the other strange people in this world , this is merely their excuse platform to prosper off of others !

Blasphemer!!! Putting Ralph the holy in the same sentence with the transcendent cosmic cabbage (oops),,, We must die!!

Ralph IS the holy and Transcendent cosmic cabbage (All glory to Ralph, May his peace and blessings be upon you child of the patch.)

Do not be led astray by Floyd the sprout, lord of flatulence, who is the source of all evil and gastric distress

(Can I have my tax exempt status now?)

THAT explains everything Mama told me about being found under a cabbage leaf in the cabbage patch!

I'M the Son of RALPH!!!!

I'M the Son of RALPH!!!!

Okay, fine. I just wouldn't expect any kneeling, gratuity, or entitlements to come from it. That requires tenure.

FSM gonna touch you all with his noodly appendage!

locknpost...

Okay.... but, don't I at least qualify for tax-exempt status, too?...

I should get SOMEthing out of it...

Son of Ralph, I don't think that's how it works. It's true, that "religion" is listed along-side non-profit organizations that provide humanitarian services as qualifying for IRC 501 (c) (3). http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Charitable-Organizations/Exempt-Purposes---Internal-Revenue-Code-Section-501(c)(3) So, you just need to set forth qualifying a "religion".

First: You'll need a doctrine, and some followers. It would also boost the legitimacy of deserving a following if you could perform a miracle. Or maybe you have special knowledge, skills, or abilities? A good trick or joke? ... If you can crack thunder out of your a**, that'll be good enough for now.

Second: I don't think you realize you will not be the direct benefactor of these entitlements. It never goes to the Deity. It goes to those in your base who fight on behalf of your legitimacy. You know... your lobbyists.

Thirdly, (no offense, your deityness), but you'll need a better iconic symbol. This will be your symbolic delegation of authority for your lobbyists (I like "clergy" better) to represent you and your "religion". You will talk through them only from then on. And remember, they more often choose you, than you choose them.

Good luck.

PS: Have everything you speak or write stamped, dated, witnessed, and certified. Don't ask me who certifies it. Figure it out yourself. You're the son of a Deity.

Seems like a philosophy would not entail burning in hell for an eternity for not choosing it.

Nope. You've got your definitions of religion and philosophy wrong. Those are words that mean something and you don't get to redefine them when it suits your needs.

@ Mayer- The Nicene Fathers and Constantine, if alive today, would take up arms against Bill O for his blasphemy. The Nicene Meeting was very much into declaring Christianity a Religion and every single other religion a Cult. They rooted out the Christian Gnostics by the early 5th century because the believers had the mind and brain function to question the written bible. That was true philosophy. The declared "Religion" needed the backing of a king and his army and to keep the converted numb and dumb so they wouldn't question.

I'm sure all the founding fathers read their fellow founding father's book Common Sense by Thoms Paine.

Luz: I can't really claim to be very well-versed in Paine's "Common Sense," but it is my understanding that Paine did not address religion in that document. Instead, the book is wartime propaganda written to promote the American Revolution. Paine's attacks on organized religion appear in his later work, "The Age of Reason." I have only read excerpts from "The Age of Reason." In these excerpts, Paine condemns all three of the great Abrahamic faiths as simply institutions designed to enslave and exploit people.

Great comment and really to the point. Religion is just way for a person to salve the existential emptiness that each one of us has. Everyone picks their own poison and, ultimately, nothing works. Attacking their religious "heroin", will, of course, result in viscious reprisal. Bill O'Reilly desparately needs his Christmas trees and mangers on every street corner so he can remind himself every five minutes that he is not really a bigotted, self-righteous, greedy phony. Although the show became maudlin, "The Newsroom's" final show described the Religious Right in the most accurate way I've ever heard. They are "American Terrorists".

Si, y gracias..

The creatoress created us to be creative.

I agree with the main thrust of this post by "from TO".

America is not a christian country. Nor is it a "secular" one since "secular" is a right wing term and they define every term according to their fear of knowledge and freedom of thought.

I do not know if maddowblog took O'Reilly's comments out of context. I think they seldom do that.

I like Luz CAnN's comments for the most part.