The Spin Factor

In his book The O’Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life, Bill O’Reilly gives his spin on the current moral decline in America. In one paragraph, he counsels "religious fanatics who demonize gays…" to back off. "As long as a sexual issue is not intruding on your freedom or endangering your kids, leave it to God to sort out. The Deity is a lot smarter than we are."

In the very next paragraph, O’Reilly counsels gays who are "the victim of discrimination and abuse" to "exchange the high heels for a sensible business suit…and hire a lawyer who will put the screws to whatever **** (expletive removed) are interfering with your rights to private sexual expression. (emphasis his)

So, God will need to clean up the sexual perverts…while lawyers clean up the religious fanatics. Nice spin, Bill.

But, wait a minute. God already sorted it out. Remember Bill? It’s in the Old Testament (to be fair, O’Reilly does point this out, then dismisses it with "I also know what the Old Testament says about slavery"). The arguments are tired and worn out, but O’Reilly insists on spinning them on and on.

O’Reilly echoes a sentiment common now to Americans, the opinion that we have a right to private sexual expression, as if the founding fathers wrote the Bill of Rights to protect perverts.

Who guarantees this right to "private sexual expression"? It didn’t come from God. Don’t tell me our forefathers meant that when they described our "inalienable rights" to include the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? The mainstream slanders our Puritan forefathers for their stand against adultery. Certainly the Puritans didn’t include homosexuality as an inalienable right!

It is hard to believe that even Mr. O’Reilly endorses every act of "private sexual expression." Surely, even Mr. O’Reilly has a standard. He must have one somewhere. Maybe at the bottom of his barrel, but still, he must have one.

Consider the irresponsibility of remarks like this from men like O’Reilly. If we do in fact have a right to private sexual expression in the privacy of our bedroom, then the law loses its ability to protect women and children from the now rampant abuse and degrading effect of pornography.

"Sexual expression" as O’Reilly calls it, is never private. If adultery were private, we wouldn’t use tax dollars to finance abortion. How can sexual expression be private when the government foots the bill for most unwed mothers? Divorce courts are not private. Food stamps are not private. Venereal diseases and AIDS are not private. Sex is not private.

And, as for "private sexual expression" being a protected right, rights are God-given, or they do not exist. Evil men claim this right, not because they are concerned about laws and morals, but because they would take advantage. Sexual desire and lawful sexual expression are both gifts of a benevolent God. When God our maker forbids a certain type of sexual conduct, no matter how Mr. O’Reilly spins it, that conduct is wrong. And, for the sake of all that is beautiful and good about sex, perversion must be stopped. Cold. No spin.