![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatI know I've been making a lot of Culture Warrior posts recently, but some of you DID ask for it. I've now caught up in my posts to the point where I've actually read, and there are only three chapters left. I think I'll try to hold off on them for a little while, since I feel like I've been inundating your friends pages with these entries. Besides, I'm going to be pretty busy for the rest of this week.
Chapter Twelve of Bill O'Reilly's book starts out with him mentioning that the conservative Christian groups are the most vocal proponents of his side, but he thinks that isn't enough. He writes, "In order to stop the S-P movement cold, nonreligious Americans have to be persuaded that traditionalism is in their best interest." So people who aren't Christians or Jews should adhere to a philosophy based on "Judeo-Christian values"? How would O'Reilly like it if some other religion he didn't believe in tried to get him to accept THEIR values? But I guess it's worth it to avoid a country in which you can practice any religion you want as long as you don't force it on others! Oh, the HORROR!
The next paragraph has Bill arguing that a socialistic system "is impossible, especially in a land of 300 million people, but the S-Ps will never believe that." Then, in the one after that, he says, "The secular-progressive dream is not an impossible one for them to achieve." Um, would you mind MAKING UP YOUR FRICKIN' MIND? The anti-socialism paragraph also says, "If they gain power, your assets will become their assets." Seems like it would be the opposite for poor people, but I shouldn't be surprised that he doesn't think any of THEM would read this book. Unfortunately for Bill, I checked the book out from the public library, which people of all different income levels are allowed to use. And, well, maybe total socialism ISN'T practical, but why does that mean we shouldn't make ANY movements in that direction?
O'Reilly also takes on European "relativism," under which "even heinous acts can be explained, so they should not--in fact, they cannot--be condemned." Great cornstalks, this guy makes so many straw men he could start his own scarecrow factory! When I was in college, I considered myself a moral relativist, and was rather surprised that both of the philosophy professors I had were self-styled absolutists. I've thought about the subject many times since then, and I now tend to think that no thinking person can really be a TOTAL absolutist or relativist, because some morals are universal and others situational. Does O'Reilly really think there's nothing that's right at some times and wrong at others? Elsewhere in the book, he's implied that he thinks the rules should be different in time of war, and that American citizens should be treated differently from illegal immigrants. Aren't those relative morals in their own ways? But I guess they're OLD-FASHIONED relative morals, which makes them okay for traditionalists. And really, if O'Reilly actually thinks that Europeans believe "no definite judgments about behavior should be made," then I challenge him to show me a European nation where murder is acceptable.
And guess what else comes up in this chapter? Gay marriage! He says he's not actually opposed to it, but that "gay marriage has an impact on straight marriage." Um...would you mind explaining how? Apparently he WOULD mind, because all he really says is that "American society is built around the traditional heterosexual home." Also, "there is no question that having a mother and a father is what Nature intended." That's funny, because I've heard that humans are naturally polygamous. I could possibly even suggest that a certain married man's sexually suggestive comments involving Middle Eastern cuisine to another woman could be indirectly due to his biological urge to spread his seed to more than one female. But that would be a cheap shot, wouldn't it? And, from what I hear, some animals are gay. Besides, how can Nature (with a capital N, no less) "intend" anything? Does he believe it's a conscious force? Is it more like MOTHER Nature, or like the idea that God and Nature are the same? I'd normally dismiss that as metaphor, but it's hard to do that when he's trying to make a moral point. Not to mention that he says he's not opposed to gay adoption because "kids raised by gay parents usually turn out the same way children in traditional homes do," yet specifies that he favors "allowing children consigned to foster care to live in a gay home when no other alternative is available." Um, if the kids turn out the same either way, why include that "no other alternative" part? Maybe he's like Giuliani, and doesn't always agree with himself. Wrapping up the gay part (sorry, nothing at all titillating is involved), he claims that "traditional warriors do not base their philosophy on bigotry." He's not bigoted; he just believes that some people should be treated differently from others just because that's how it's always been done. They're TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS! :P
Looking ahead a little bit, I see the chapter after the next one is called "Hating America." Ah, THAT sounds like it will be rational and well thought out, doesn't it? {g}
Chapter Twelve of Bill O'Reilly's book starts out with him mentioning that the conservative Christian groups are the most vocal proponents of his side, but he thinks that isn't enough. He writes, "In order to stop the S-P movement cold, nonreligious Americans have to be persuaded that traditionalism is in their best interest." So people who aren't Christians or Jews should adhere to a philosophy based on "Judeo-Christian values"? How would O'Reilly like it if some other religion he didn't believe in tried to get him to accept THEIR values? But I guess it's worth it to avoid a country in which you can practice any religion you want as long as you don't force it on others! Oh, the HORROR!
The next paragraph has Bill arguing that a socialistic system "is impossible, especially in a land of 300 million people, but the S-Ps will never believe that." Then, in the one after that, he says, "The secular-progressive dream is not an impossible one for them to achieve." Um, would you mind MAKING UP YOUR FRICKIN' MIND? The anti-socialism paragraph also says, "If they gain power, your assets will become their assets." Seems like it would be the opposite for poor people, but I shouldn't be surprised that he doesn't think any of THEM would read this book. Unfortunately for Bill, I checked the book out from the public library, which people of all different income levels are allowed to use. And, well, maybe total socialism ISN'T practical, but why does that mean we shouldn't make ANY movements in that direction?
O'Reilly also takes on European "relativism," under which "even heinous acts can be explained, so they should not--in fact, they cannot--be condemned." Great cornstalks, this guy makes so many straw men he could start his own scarecrow factory! When I was in college, I considered myself a moral relativist, and was rather surprised that both of the philosophy professors I had were self-styled absolutists. I've thought about the subject many times since then, and I now tend to think that no thinking person can really be a TOTAL absolutist or relativist, because some morals are universal and others situational. Does O'Reilly really think there's nothing that's right at some times and wrong at others? Elsewhere in the book, he's implied that he thinks the rules should be different in time of war, and that American citizens should be treated differently from illegal immigrants. Aren't those relative morals in their own ways? But I guess they're OLD-FASHIONED relative morals, which makes them okay for traditionalists. And really, if O'Reilly actually thinks that Europeans believe "no definite judgments about behavior should be made," then I challenge him to show me a European nation where murder is acceptable.
And guess what else comes up in this chapter? Gay marriage! He says he's not actually opposed to it, but that "gay marriage has an impact on straight marriage." Um...would you mind explaining how? Apparently he WOULD mind, because all he really says is that "American society is built around the traditional heterosexual home." Also, "there is no question that having a mother and a father is what Nature intended." That's funny, because I've heard that humans are naturally polygamous. I could possibly even suggest that a certain married man's sexually suggestive comments involving Middle Eastern cuisine to another woman could be indirectly due to his biological urge to spread his seed to more than one female. But that would be a cheap shot, wouldn't it? And, from what I hear, some animals are gay. Besides, how can Nature (with a capital N, no less) "intend" anything? Does he believe it's a conscious force? Is it more like MOTHER Nature, or like the idea that God and Nature are the same? I'd normally dismiss that as metaphor, but it's hard to do that when he's trying to make a moral point. Not to mention that he says he's not opposed to gay adoption because "kids raised by gay parents usually turn out the same way children in traditional homes do," yet specifies that he favors "allowing children consigned to foster care to live in a gay home when no other alternative is available." Um, if the kids turn out the same either way, why include that "no other alternative" part? Maybe he's like Giuliani, and doesn't always agree with himself. Wrapping up the gay part (sorry, nothing at all titillating is involved), he claims that "traditional warriors do not base their philosophy on bigotry." He's not bigoted; he just believes that some people should be treated differently from others just because that's how it's always been done. They're TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS! :P
Looking ahead a little bit, I see the chapter after the next one is called "Hating America." Ah, THAT sounds like it will be rational and well thought out, doesn't it? {g}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-11 11:05 pm (UTC)(he would me, at least. No falafel pun intended.)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-12 12:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-12 06:28 am (UTC)Oh wow, how could I have gone all these years without knowing this distinction. Bill O'Reilly, you are truly a scholar and a gentleman for making me see the light.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-12 12:05 pm (UTC)