Real Time Web Analytics

Bill O’Reilly Completely Misses the Point About Free Speech…Again

Dr. Fred


What people are failing to realize is that Islam and those on the left have certain things in common. They both want freedom of speech to be limited. This effectively neutralizes the 1st Amendment, canceling out freedom of speech altogether. You cannot have “limited” freedom of speech. You either have freedom of speech or you do not.

The left has worked hard to place constraints on freedom of speech. The argument that you cannot yell “FIRE!” in a crowded place (unless of course, there IS one), because of what this will incite and the injuries and panic that would likely result is used now to state that anything that is offensive to Islam (or gays, or fill in the blank), should be curtailed. This is patently absurd because we all know that the people who would determine what is and what is not “allowed” as free speech is based on their particular likes and dislikes.

This is why the 1st Amendment stands as it is, recognizing that while we are not all going to agree with one another, people should be allowed to express themselves even if or when the result is that people become offended by that speech. That is the essence of the 1st Amendment.

But Bill O’Reilly – who rarely, if ever – admits that he’s wrong on anything, often goes out of his way to declare that we cannot put all Muslims in one category, for instance. He’s written several books about who killed Jesus, who killed JFK, etc., so that of course, makes him an authority.

It is ironic, but when I hear Bill O’Reilly speak and pontificate, I do not necessarily see him as a Christian, though undoubtedly, in many respects, he is a conservative. That comes into question though with discussions surrounding the current one regarding the 1st Amendment.

His latest argument has to do with a “what would Jesus do?” scenario, in which he invokes comments by Rev. Franklin Graham.

GRAHAM: As a Christian, I don’t like it when people mock my lord and savior Jesus Christ and what this event in Garland, Texas was doing was mocking the Muslims. I’m discouraged that people would do this…I agree that the folks in Garland, Texas was wrong.

O’Reilly believes that his anti-freedom of speech position is bolstered by Graham’s comments, and essentially says so.

O’REILLY: Rev. Graham reflects the Christian point of view that you don’t demean other people unnecessarily. Jesus would not have sponsored that event.

The problem is four-fold here. First, is Pamela Geller a Christian? I know she’s Jewish, but is she a Christian? I don’t recall that she has ever STATED that. If she is NOT a Christian, then what Jesus would or would not do doesn’t enter the picture for her at all. It’s really a strawman argument.

Second, Graham assumes that the event that Geller sponsored and held was for one purpose and one purpose only: to “mock” Muhammad. Were the images drawn expressly done to ridicule and mock Muhammad? According to modern-day Muslims, any drawing of Muhammad is punishable by death. This means that if – as an artist – I take the time to draw the most beautiful, uplifting portrait of Muhammad that I can, many Muslims would still be offended at it and call for my death.

muhammad drawingClick the link to see some examples of paintings and drawings done by Muslims and non-Muslims during the Middle Ages. As far as I know, no one was executed because of them, though Muslims will tell you – without equivocation – that no “real” Muslim would have ever done this.

An article – Modern Art from the Arab World By Wijdan Ali – confirms that depictions of Muhammad were fine until the 16th to 17th centuries when imams during that period decided it was no longer allowed to draw any form of Muhammad. In other words, it has NOT always been Islamic “law” that forbade drawings of Muhammad.

Third, why are we ignoring the situation of Charlie Hebdo now that Pamela Geller has sponsored a drawing contest?

Fourth, I live in AMERICA. I am guaranteed by the Constitution to be able to say what I want to say, to express myself as I want to express myself. If I want to draw an image of Muhammad, Muslims say I CANNOT because they will have to kill me if I do.

Bill O’Reilly’s argument that Jesus would not have sponsored the Garland, TX event is moot, if Pamela Geller is not a Christian. In fact, Christianity has no bearing on the subject at all at that point. The only issue at stake is the 1st Amendment and whether Bill O’Reilly, Franklin Graham, or anyone else thinks it was a “stupid” event or not is also not the issue.

The only issue at hand is whether or not Pamela Geller’s event was protected under the Constitution of the United States and the 1st Amendment. Was it? The answer is without equivocation, “YES!” Because her contest – and freedom to express herself – was and remains protected, there is no discussion.

The LEFT – and I include Bill O’Reilly in this since he is on the same side as they are arguing about the fact that people should self-censor so as not to offend – want nothing more than to LIMIT (read: DESTROY) the 1st Amendment.

O’Reilly should know better, but when it comes to Islam and Muslims, he’s generally on the side of the left. Because of that, he is willing to say that people should self-censor so as not to risk offending someone else’s religious ideals.

Tell you what, Mr. O’Reilly. When people stop using the Name “Jesus Christ” as an epithet, then maybe I’ll consider your point. In the meantime, I hear Jesus used as a swear word on a daily basis.

Moreover, the word “F*CK” is a very offensive word to me, yet that is commonly used today as a noun, an adjective, a verb, or whatever fits the need at the moment. I hear no one calling on people to stop using “Jesus Christ” as a swear word because it might offend Christians or to stop using the “F” word because of people’s sensibilities. Society has gotten so used to using and hearing these words that to state you are offended by them would likely result in a hearty “F*CK YOU! I’ll say what I want to say!”

There are two things the left is desperately trying to accomplish. First, to limit (destroy) the 1st Amendment and to limit (destroy) the 2nd Amendment. They will not stop until they accomplish both. Once these things are complete, America’s sovereignty is lost.

Was what Pamela Geller did in Garland, TX, “stupid”? At this point, I don’t even care and my opinion doesn’t matter. The ONLY thing that matters is whether or not what she did is fully supported by the United States Constitution.

Guess what, folks? It IS. End of discussion.

About Nathan Laurenson

Editor at The Daily Resistance, Citizen Journalist, Activist and Co Host Of Battle Of New Orleans Radio On 990 AM WGSO Airs 8pm Wed.| Resist Daily