February 05, 2004

Cubism Pisses Bill O'Reilly Off

Posted by shonk at 11:43 PM in Ramblings | TrackBack

Over at mock savvy, Neil points out how silly Bill O’Reilly’s concern about the erosion of values is:

He goes on to fret over secularization, and the attrition of “values that made - and still make - our nation great.” What values might those be? The Protestant work ethic so dutifully instilled by our slave driving forefathers? The sanctity upheld by our witch-burning Colonial demigods?

The point here is not to nitpick America’s tarnished past, but rather to discern the fallacy of nostalgia for some apocryphal American Utopia. I can vaguely understand the sanguine desire for a society of tried and true moral absolutists, but for God’s sake spare me the banality of this variety of feigned reminiscence.

My opinion is that O’Reilly is just nostalgic for the days when public dissemination of nudity was called “art” and people who spent all day looking at it were considered sophisticated. In that light, his is a self-interested call for the demise of non-representational art.

Of course, Maddox has a more concise interpretation: Bill O’Reilly is a big blubbering vagina.

Comments

the attache link from Remain Calm has a great conversation up between Jesus Christ and Bill O'Reilly. Go read it, it's nice to sometimes remind ourselves how the Right actually feels about the Bible and the words of Jesus. We might not speak in terms of God, but we tax on the terms of Christ.

Posted by: Josiah Daniel at February 6, 2004 05:43 PM

Remain Calm (attached URL - i'm a computer retard) has a great conversation up between Jesus Christ and Bill O'Reilly. Go read it, it's nice to sometimes remind ourselves how the Right actually feels about the Bible and the words of Jesus. We might not speak in terms of God, but we tax on the terms of Christ.

Posted by: Josiah at February 6, 2004 05:59 PM

We might not speak in terms of God, but we tax on the terms of Christ.

I don't quite follow you (or the Remain Calm post) there, Josiah. I'm assuming this is the point of the "Render unto Caesar..." reference, but it doesn't make any sense. I've read the relevant passages (Matt. 22:15-22, Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-26) and what Jesus is doing there is skillfully evading a trap set by the Pharisees and Herodians to get him to trip up and either publicly advocate tax evasion (which would have enabled them to haul him in as a rebel for punishment from the Romans) or publicly support the massively unpopular imperial taxes (which would have destroyed his credibility with his followers).

When the Pharisees ask "Is it lawful to pay taxes to the emperor or not?" Jesus recognizes the trap ("aware of their malice") and recommends giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's. Obviously, he couldn't be hauled away on incitement to treason/tax evasion for this statement, yet his followers recognize that, for Jesus (and them), nothing is rightfully Caesar's and, hence, nothing ought be rendered unto him.

The point is, the "Render unto Caesar..." bit is, if anything, anti-taxation. Not that that's a point I'd want to press too far, since I think efforts to characterize Jesus' politics are generally misguided.

Posted by: shonk at February 6, 2004 08:37 PM