On Tuesday evening April 2, 2013 Laura Ingraham is seen slouching back in her chair in an exhausted pose in response to Bill O’Reilly’s defense of the term ‘bible thumper.’ Ingraham, a regular substitute host anchor for O’Reilly couldn’t get a word in edgewise and when she did it was only to state once again that the term may have offended or berated people who trust the bible.
Mr. O’Reilly is not helping the ratings and he is not the first to knock some of the audiences off the grid. A recent announcement by Fox’s president Roger Ailes to move Fox away from the right and back to center was the first hit to the ratings and some sources have noted a 22 percent decline in audiences.
The second dark cloud forming in the wings is the Tea Party’s call to boycott Fox, because they refuse to discuss serious matters like, the Benghazi scandal and the findings of Sheriff Arpaio’s cold case posse on the fraudulent documents of President Obama. Lots of evidence and questions have been raised by the Sheriff, but not a peep has been heard by Fox and friends.
When Bill decided to call Christians who read their bibles and stand by them - ‘thumpers’ he crossed a line that even President Ailes may not fully understand.
Get a Proper Definition, O’Reilly
A Harvard education and a Catholic background may have insulated Mr. O’Reilly from hearing the term, but in protestant circles it is a familiar term and not very appreciated. But we have only to check a few sources to see what the term means.
“Originating from typically southern US fundamentalist Christian sects given to evangelizing in a very outgoing, rambunctious way, often characterized by a religious bigot standing on a street corner, with or without foam around his mouth, shouting about how we should all turn to Christ, whilst vigorously thumping his soft covered bible for emphasis.” (Urban Dictionary)
“(U.S.) someone perceived as aggressively imposing their Christian beliefs upon others. The term derives from preachers thumping their hands down on the Bible to emphasize a point during a sermon. The term's target domain is broad and can often extend to anyone engaged in a public show of religion, fundamentalist or not. The term is most commonly used in English-speaking countries” (Wikipedia)
“an overzealous advocate of Christian fundamentalism” (Merriam-Webster)
“Bible thumper is a slur used against particularly vocal Christians who constantly quote the Bible when discussing non-Biblical topics (often about science, but also about homophobia, porn, etc.). The term comes from old-timey circuit preachers who would emphatically thump a bible held aloft while making their points.” (Rational Wiki)
In today’s world we don’t need a plane trip back to the ivy covered halls of Harvard for a visit to her splendid libraries, but just a few clicks on Google to see if we are misusing a word or a common phrase. The word of the day, Mr. O’Reilly, is ‘Bible Thumper,’ go look it up.
At least be true to your own religion Bill!
Newly elected Pope Francis and his predecessor Ratzinger both stand against same sex marriages and see them as morally bankrupt, perverted and a direct assault on family life throughout the world. Are they thumping their Catholic bibles or at the least their Catholic doctrine?
Pope Francis, in fact, has produced the loudest ‘thump’ heard round the world in is declaration that same-sex marriage is “A move of the father of lies,” and “A total rejection of God’s laws.” Consistency is called for if you are going to proclaim you are a Catholic.
Thanks for the work on Megan’s Law, but long before it, there was God’s law, and if it were adhered to, and obeyed - there would be no need for Megan’s law. We need more ‘bible thumping’ Mr. O’Reilly - not less.
The magical mystery higher reasoning argument does not exist.
When opinions, higher reasoning and all the intellectual ramblings of man have come and gone mankind will stand and face a judge who will use only one criterion to weigh each individual.
“He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” (Jn 12: 48)
Using some philosophical argument to answer the rise in perverted interests would be futile, but it would also be direct defiance to the word of God. It isn’t an argument men need; there are already endless arguments in the world and on the Factor. It is trust in a source that cannot be moved, it is adherence to the wisdom of the following.
“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col 2: 8, 9)
If the Bible, the Pope and every good gospel preacher and apolegeticist are thumping a message of rejection for same-sex marriage should we look to the arguments of academics, politicians and pundits to answer the most pressing question of our generation?
It is here where you need to see, that what we want to see, coming from our ‘humble correspondent’ is not the explanation of where the spin stops, but we want to see - where the apology begins.
Copyright ©2013 Rev. Michael Bresciani