O’Reilly likes kids.

O’Reilly appeared on Good Morning America yesterday to talk about his new book on the youth of today. I am scared that O’Reilly actually was near young people. But I remember teachers like him, the ones that did it to really set these kids straight. They sucked.
But now he has a book out about young people and how to control them and how they act in school. I wouldn’t normally pay attention this, but this got me. O’Reilly claims that wearing a burqa/hijab/veil, is an imposition of religion onto OTHER people. Huh?

O’Reilly and host Diane Sawyer are in agreement that today’s youth are unacceptably dressed. Indicators of this include the flaunting of low-hanging pants and burqas. Burqas, O’Reilly says, are an imposition of one’s religion on others. He alludes to such an expression of religion as a path to “chaos in the classroom” and an acceptable loss at the discretion of school administration.

Oh, I see, low hanging pants AND burqas. So too much exposure, bad-too little exposure, bad. No wonder kids are so confused and angry these days. All they get are mixed messages. And what do these two fashion choices have in common? It is probably young brown kids wearing them, so of course they shouldn’t be wearing them to school. My god, how did they even let them IN the school?
And you have to love the hypocrisy. First he chides the school district for firing a teacher to have the students pray and then demands that wearing a burqa in school creates chaos. Obviously for him, it is only an imposition of religion if it is not one that he adheres to.
(Oh and he hates on Colbert, so boo to him. AND, what is up with Diane Sawyer all, “thanks for saying I am pretty?” Barf.)
via Raw Story.

Join the Conversation

  • blogjunkie

    If burqas are an imposition of religion on other people, then so are crucifix and cross jewelry. I think crosses should be banned from schools because it imposes a religion on me.
    Wonder how that would go over with the Fox News crowd!

  • SarahMC

    I hate this man so much I can barely contain it.
    Does he think wearing a Pink Floyd t-shirt imposes one’s musical tastes onto others? Speaking of Pink Floyd, this hullaballoo reminds me of “Another Brick in the Wall.”

  • Incendria

    I’d like to know just how many students are wearing burqas. I am 99% sure that they are actually referring to hijabs, rather than a full-body covering with a screen over the eyes.
    Of course, I wouldn’t stop a woman from wearing a burqa either, even though the given reasons for such garb are entirely antithetical to my opinions.

  • http://profeministmale.wordpress.com ProFeministMale

    Sounds like he’s merely xenophobic and is afraid that somehow, the big bad Muslim woman is going to kick his ass and start a riot for having religious expressions.
    If anything, it’s those people with the goddamned WWJD (does the J stand for Jessica?) bracelets and their little crosses that are that ones inciting feelings of discomfort.
    On that note, I am busting out my flaming chalice and walking around campus with it.
    I can see it already …”wait, what’s a UU …WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVERYTHING! YOU CONFUSE US!”

  • Vervain

    This from the guy who said a kid held prisioner by a sexual predator was “probably having a great time.” Because he didn’t have to (read: wasn’t allowed to) go to school.
    Given the choice between being raped and going to school, personally I’d go to school. This logic apparently escapes Bill O.
    But then, most logic seems to.

  • http://subtilitas.blogspot.com/ Basiorana

    blogjunkie– YES.
    While I agree* that clothing styles at schools are inappropriate and thus that there should be uniforms in schools (particularly middle schools, where it would do a lot of good preventing both oversexualization and teasing based on clothing choices), hijabs, like kippahs and crosses, should always be allowed.
    *AHHHH I agreed with something O’Reilly said unclean unclean!

  • BluePencils

    When I was in high school (a very long time ago) there was a teacher who wore a giant wooden cross around his neck that had to be at least eight inches high. My friends and I would debate about how heavy it was–was it made of stained balsa wood, or did he wear such a heavy thing as penance? And then we speculated on why he felt he needed penance…but I digress. Anyway, his giant cross offended me, as an atheistic student. It didn’t seem fair to me–or to my Jewish best friend–that we be subjected to this giant symbol of religion being displayed by an authority figure in a public school. However, when we brought up the topic with the teacher’s superior, we were told that the teacher had a right to freedom of religion and he could therefore wear it. Somehow I bet that O’Reilly wouldn’t have a problem with that teacher’s giant cross.

  • DrkEyedCajn

    Wait, I heard that bit of logic last week when I was watching the latest round of Republican debates (during which I entertained myself by tracking how many times they said “Hillary.” I got to 23 mentions in 40 minutes, and got bored). One of the candidates, I forget which, made the inexplicable claim that gay marriage is a threat to religious freedom. See, Samhita hits the nail on the head here: “Obviously for him, it is only an imposition of religion if it is not one he adheres to.” They are very deliberately blurring the distinction between being able to practice your own religion, and being able to cram it down everyone else’s throat.
    Why does the religious right so badly want to give the government the right to choose the religion of the people?

  • http://aikenareaprogressive.blogspot.com Jovan1984

    First and foremost, I am totally appalled that Bill O’Reilly had the gall to wear a Pink Floyd t-shirt on air. Unlike David Gilmour and Co., Bill O’Really is definitely no progressive. Bill O. is a hardcore, big government conservative.
    Does Bill O’Really really thinks he is impressing South Carolinians by hating on Colbert, a Charleston native?
    And ProFeministMale, I agree with your post about the Bible-beaters. The Bible-beaters are the ones stirring up hatred day in and day out.

  • florafloraflora

    First of all, let me open this comment with two words: Falafel Thing. It makes me sick that Bill “Falafel Thing” O’Reilly still has an audience at all, especially among right-wing moralists, after pulling that stunt.
    Which leads me to my second point: expecting any kind of logical consistency from Bill “Falafel Thing” O’Reilly is just giving him too much credit. To speak logically he would have to be a thinker, and he’s not. He’s just a machine designed to spew hateful phrases and white-male entitlement on any issue that crosses his mind. That’s what he’s paid to be, not an ethical or moral, let alone logical, thinker.
    Once more for good measure: Bill “Falafel Thing” O’Reilly. *ptui*

  • SarahMC

    Jovan, you know I wasn’t referring to O’Reilly w/ the Pink Floyd thing, right?

  • http://norbizness.com norbizness

    Hey! Teachers! Leave this thread alone!

  • Suzy

    HAH! What a pompous asshole. I like how he told Obama that he needed to go onto HIS show in order to get elected and now Stephen Colbert denied going on HIS show and instead ran for president. Like running for president is going to get you noticed.
    He’s a moron. His book is going to be full of contradictions and all he is going to do is turn his own crazed ideas of supremacy into conservative writing.

  • EG

    particularly middle schools, where it would do a lot of good preventing both oversexualization and teasing based on clothing choices
    I doubt it, on both counts. School uniforms for girls have been so sexualized as to become fetish objects, and Catholic school girls have been rolling their skirts for years. As for teasing based on clothing choices–first of all, I doubt it. The teasing will just be about how new your uniform is, how long the skirt is, how well it fits, how you’re accessorizing it. Second, when kids tease each other cruelly, the appropriate adult response is to punish the teaser, not limit the choices of all students.

  • Shadow32

    DrkEyed, the gay marriage vs. religious freedom concept is that if gays establish their legitimacy, they’ll somehow be able to make preaching against homosexuality a hate crime and outlaw it.
    Yes, I know that’s stupid.

  • sweetwickedgrl

    I’m preparing to become a teacher, and as part of one of my classes I go into an urban middle school twice a week. Instead of uniforms, the students have a strict dress code – shirts with collars (polos, usually) and tan or white jeans or (appropriately lengthed) skirt or shorts. Not only is this (probably) more affordable for families, it defies the possibility of the girls’ being sexualized in a traditional uniform.
    As an atheist, I would also like to note that I’ve heard time and time again that school prayer does NOT violate my freedom of religion (although it does), since I’m not forced to partake (just to be singled out). I don’t know O’Reilly’s position on school prayer – I only know that he doesn’t know anything when he tries to defend “under God” in the Pledge – but I’m guessing he has yet to make the connection between his arguments…

  • http://www.mysterybea.wordpress.com mysterybea

    I almost wrote my own blog post on this interview. I especially liked when he “complimented” Diane Sawyer for “actually reading his book” and sayings she’s “not just a pretty face”. Wow, that must have made her day to receive such high praise from a patronizing caveman such as O’Reilly.

  • DrkEyedCajn

    Shadow32– ohhhhh. Huh. I guess that makes marginally more sense. Thanks for explaining, I was totally flummoxed.

  • http://secondinnocence.blogspot.com/ la pobre habladora

    In the public school where I recently taught I was told that we had to enforce a daily “moment of silence” in which the students might pray – as though they couldn’t pray if other students were talking, or at home. There is a real movement to try to Christianize all arenas of the public sphere and it should be intolerable to a nation that believes in religious freedoms and the separation of church and state. O’Reilly knows that bigotry pays, and will say anything to make another bigot buck, but the problem is that other people, like Sawyer, treat him as though his opinions were valid. Sawyer and everyone else need to call this man what he is – a bigot and a hypocrite.

  • http://subtilitas.blogspot.com/ Basiorana

    EG: You could always require both sexes wear pants. Make the uniforms identical. That would end the sexualization and make it impossible to roll the skirt. Take out the ties and make the shirts polo shirts, even.
    And the “punish the teaser” doesn’t work, because as soon as adults get involved with children’s social lives, the child who got them involved suffers even more. You punish the teaser, and it is the teased who suffers.
    I speak both from personal experience and from the personal experience of many, many people like myself, who were social bottom-feeders at that age.

  • http://www.nyctophilia.net moonwatcher

    And this is the same guy who thinks saying “Happy Holidays” is declaring a War on Christmas. How is it possible for someone to be SO unapologetically prejudiced about religion, and not even realize it?

  • http://aikenareaprogressive.blogspot.com Jovan1984

    Sorry I misinterpeted what you said, Sarah. :(

  • SarahMC

    Don’t be sorry, Jovan! Just didn’t want you to remain confused. :)

  • EG

    And the “punish the teaser” doesn’t work, because as soon as adults get involved with children’s social lives, the child who got them involved suffers even more. You punish the teaser, and it is the teased who suffers.
    I remember it well. But restricting children’s choices doesn’t work either.

  • xxhelenaxx

    You want hypocrisy?
    O’ Reilly is one more GOP motherfucker who has anointed himself a crusader for kids against us pedophile/gay heathen-loving, baby-slaughtering, degenerate “secular progressives.” He’s a father. He’s done special coverage of high profile child abduction cases (horrible examples of a broken system with truly heartbreaking, godlessly frightening stories…but he tried he paint himself as though he was the ONLY FUCKING GUY COVERING THESE KIDS.)
    So he’s a father, he’s a “crusader,” and after Shawn Hornbeck and Will Hornby…two kids abducted by the same bold asshole (one kid is bad enough…TWO? Ballsy stupid dipshit scum)…he said that Shawn, who had been abducted at age 11 at GUNPOINT and held for four years, must have “liked” his sexually abusive abductor, Michael Devlin.
    Little girls–cute, sweet little girls, the perfect infantilized victims in his view–GREAT! But eww, teenage boys (Shawn was fifteen, Will was thirteen)?
    I don’t know why Shawn stayed. What I DO know is that he was forcefully abducted as a little boy and indeed terrorized. I kid you not–as Mr. Blowhard was talking about Shawn enjoying his freedom from regular life (didn’t go to school…was a “kept boy,” in Bill’s view), the news ticker below said Devlin was being charged with production of child porn. Guess Bill didn’t know.
    But his show is fine. Just a snafu! And he backtracked with ease and covered his (stupid, worthless) ass.
    I HATE Bill O’Reilly…but I actually hate Sean Hannity and John Gibson more.
    I want to tie them up and grind dog shit into their forces…put back what they put out (and what some people LAP UP…Jesus.)

  • susanb

    i cannot believe O’reilly said this. he is always attacking people on his show. this is hard to believe.
    silver charms jewelry