Quantcast

Bible Thumping, Just Like the Founders

 

About the author: Bryan Fischer is the Director of Issue Analysis for Government and Public Policy at the American Family Association, where he provides expertise on a range of public policy topics. Described by the New York Times as a "talk-radio natural," he hosts the "Focal Point" radio program on AFR Talk, which ... [read 's FULL BIO]

Bill O’Reilly recently took it upon himself to insult everyone in America who has reverence for the Bible as the word of God. He ludicrously claimed that supporters of natural marriage haven’t “been able to do anything but thump the Bible” in making their case.

Now God clearly defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Genesis 2, and Jesus reaffirmed God’s definition verbatim in Matthew 19, which means, of course, that man-woman marriage is as much a part of the gospel itself as heaven and hell. What God and Jesus Christ have defined, man must not redefine.

But O’Reilly obviously hasn’t been paying attention, since supporters of natural marriage have not only cited Scripture but the best in social research, history and legal thinking to make the case that marriage ought to be defined exclusively as a one-man-one-woman institution. So O’Reilly is betraying his own blinding ignorance here while at the same time mocking the very Americans he hopes will watch his program.

Well, Mr. O’Reilly, we are going to go right on clinging to our Bibles and our religion whether gasbags in the media approve or not.

In his self-infatuated preening, O’Reilly is apparently oblivious to the stubborn historical fact that the Bible was the primary source of the wisdom the Founders used to draft the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

When they wanted to talk about civil rights, they didn’t cite social research or history or legal precedence. They thumped their Bibles, appealing to the “Creator” of Genesis 1 as the source of every fundamental right human beings possess.

The Founders thumped their Bibles some more by shamelessly appealing to “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God,” echoing scriptural teaching from Romans 1 and 2.

They pounded their theology even harder in the final paragraph of the July 4, 1776 document – the legal document on which the United States is founded – by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World.” And they had the audacity to declare that the declaration was not, actually, in fact, a “Declaration of Independence” but, at a profound level, a “Declaration of Dependence” when they boldly affirmed their “firm Reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence.”

In other words, they couldn’t stop talking theology in the very document that established the United States as one of the sovereign “Powers of the Earth.”

And things only get worse for O’Reilly when the books, monographs and pamphlets produced by the 55 men who drafted our Constitution are studied, as they were by professors Donald S. Lutz and Charles S. Hyneman. Their findings were published in 1984 in the “American Political Science Review.”

They examined over 15,000 items with explicitly political content, examining them for citations of external, authoritative sources. In other words, they were seeking to identify which sources the Founders most often cited to support or defend their political opinions. They found 3,154 direct quotes from other sources.

In what may come as an aneurysm-inducing shock to Mr. O’Reilly’s system, the Bible was far and and away the most frequently cited source. In fact, an astonishing 34% of all references to other sources were from the Bible. Montesquieu was a distant, distant second with 8.3% of all citations, while Sir William Blackstone, the greatest legal mind of the 18th century, garnered just 7.9%. And poor John Locke, the most influential political philosopher of his day, was cited a paltry 2.9% of the time.

When indirect Bible citations are included, the percentage of scriptural citations is much higher than 34%. And even worse for Mr. Bill, the bulk of the thinkers cited by the Founders outside the Bible, according to historian John Eidsmoe in his book, “Christianity and the Constitution,” “were not deists and philosophes, but conservative legal and political thinkers who often were also Christians.”

Mr. O’Reilly, we stand in rock-solid agreement with President Andrew Jackson, who in one conversation pointed to a Bible and said, “That book, Sir, is the rock upon which our republic rests.”

So Bill, go right ahead and keep pounding your chest. We’ll go right ahead and keep thumping our Bibles. Just like the Founders.

Follow Bryan on Twitter: @bryanjfischer

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • I am a Bible Thumper, just like our Founding Fathers and proud of it. I believe what the Bible says completely.

  • And if we wish can back even further were the law came from and yes it is from scripture. Those that deny the obvious facts are of course scared by them and that includes billy boy

  • I’m a Bible thumper and anyone who don’t like it can come and try to take it..

    • The Gospel is the power of God for Salvation. It is foolishness to those who are pershing. They have chosen to be their own god, and VERY SHORTLY, their god is going to die.

    • Robert McDonald

      I am also, Benjamin. (By the way, Clint is my middle name). I’m a Bible thumper and always will be. O’Reilly has stated with his own mouth; (the bible is not completely true. There are fictional stories in the Bible just to teach a truth.) Not a direct quote. I believe, if the Bible contains even one untruth, none of it can be trusted.

  • Chuck LaRue

    Bill O’Reilly was attempting to make a point about how religious arguments do not
    work well with our liberal justice system. The God-less courts are not often
    swayed with religious arguments, especially our Christian arguments. If fact,
    quite the opposite. O’Reilly was saying, in essence, that in order to be more
    effective we need to make our arguments as a group. And to make those arguments
    more effective by changing our “religious” argument to something better
    understood by the lefties whose opinions we are trying to sway (maybe “moral”
    arguments instead). The liberal left is trying to make a big deal out of the
    words “Bible Thumping”, hoping that the words will cause conservative people
    (or groups) to fight one another. Did anyone catch Bill O’Reilly’s shows the
    week before Easter? If so, you cannot doubt that he is Christian. This is not
    an ad for Bill O’Reilly, but a voice for conservatives to wake up and see what
    the liberals are doing to us!

  • Chuck LaRue

    Bill O’Reilly was attempting to make a point about how religious arguments do not
    work well with our liberal justice system. The God-less courts are not often
    swayed with religious arguments, especially our Christian arguments. If fact,
    quite the opposite. O’Reilly was saying, in essence, that in order to be more
    effective we need to make our arguments as a group. And to make those arguments
    more effective by changing our “religious” argument to something better
    understood by the lefties whose opinions we are trying to sway (maybe “moral”
    arguments instead). The liberal left is trying to make a big deal out of the
    words “Bible Thumping”, hoping that the words will cause conservative people
    (or groups) to fight one another. Did anyone catch Bill O’Reilly’s shows the
    week before Easter? If so, you cannot doubt that he is Christian. This is not
    an ad for Bill O’Reilly, but a voice for conservatives to wake up and see what
    the liberals are doing to us!

    • You are trying so hard to excuse him. It just does not work. “Bible-thumping” is a derogatory term. It always has been and always will be. Straight up. O”Reilly favors the homosexual agenda, which also includes the destruction of Christianity.

    • “….changing our ‘religious’ arguments to something better understood by ……” That is the same argument that many churches have used to dilute and lose the Gospel in their churches. The music HAS to attract the “druggie heads” or they won’t come to church.
      So now their churches are full of people with NO MORALITY, ETHICS, STANDARDS OR MESSAGE.
      They are ALL of the Church of LAODICEA. Bet you don’t know about that church, do you?

  • Bill1966

    As a person who follows more of a druidic belief, it is NOT just the Bible thumpers who think Marriage is one man and one woman. Just take a look at nature, where do you see a pack of wolves of ONLY males? How about a pride of lions of ONLY females? Not gonna happen in nature, it is UN-NATURAL! What do you suppose happens to that male wolf who tries to hump another male wolf? Give up? They KILL him. Not just one of the wolves, but the entire pack. Look at history you stupid democratic socialist putzes! When a society embraces same sex relationships it FALLS! If bam bam was truly a Muslim, he would NEVER come out and applaud same sex marriage, as it is against what Allah teaches!

  • marineh2ominer

    Please tell Obama ass this , it will break his heart , and hopefully his will to live ..

  • We were founded upon Christian Belief’s and it is indeed the Bedrock of our Constitution and the American Way of life. They did not look to manmade laws, but to biblical God and Natural laws. That is why the wording of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Right’s so confounds the liberal left think mind. They want all law’s to be Manmade which to me means law’s that ‘fit their particular desires at the time’. This is where the so called ‘living document’ think comes from. Obama and his minion’s despise the Constitution because it places hard restrictions on how and when they do their evil trick’s. we as a Nation in order to survive this most troubling of times need to turn to the Founder’s their writing’s argument’s for and against certain wording and order of Amendment’s. the very powerful wording and how it is written and intended to be understood is all there for us to rebuild the rock solid foundation and return America to that Shining City on the Hill. Obama want’s to turn it into a trash dump and landfill. He grew up in the slums and dirt of Indonesia and Kenya. To him our poor are rich by the standards of many 3rd world countries. His Hatred of America comes thru with every word he utter’s and every executive abuse he attempts to get away with.

    • Where are ANY people who will stand up and defend the Constitution and the nation from these wickd, evil people. WHERE ARE THEY? They have been silenced by the Bilderbergs
      When they bring about the collapse, they will be ready to fight and KILL any American who will resist their BLITZKRIEG. And most people, facing odds of 50 to 2 will surrender and give up their weapons.
      Are we willing to die for our freedom. Remember, this is the nation that refused to fight in Vietnam. These leaders were the hippies who were and are only focused on the luxury of today.

  • Proof that O’Reilly is no longer either a conservaive or a Catholic. Folks, he has crossed over. He has been bought out. Mark O’Reilly out as WORTHLESS.

  • Shame on Bill O’Reilly. Why is it that if a person tries to live an honest, decent life, he/she is labeled a Bible Thumper? I’m proud to be a Bible Thumper…so take THAT, O’Reilly!

  • Mr. Fischer, what you mean by Bible thumping and what I mean by Bible thumping must be two different things–unless, by “founders,’ you’re referring to America’s true 1600 Christian Bible thumpers, who erected governments of, by, and for Yahweh (instead of, by, and for the people), based upon Scriptures clearly delineated and referenced:

    “They [the 1600 Colonial Puritans] exercised the rights of sovereignty; they named their
    magistrates, concluded peace or declared war, made police regulations, and enacted laws as if their allegiance was due only to God. Nothing can be more curious and, at the same time more instructive, than the legislation of that period; it is there that the solution of the great social problem which the United States now presents to the world is to be found.

    Amongst these documents we shall notice, as especially characteristic, the code of laws promulgated by the little State of Connecticut in 1650. The legislators of Connecticut begin with the penal laws, and … they borrow their provisions from the text of Holy Writ … copied verbatim from the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Blasphemy, sorcery, adultery, and rape were punished with death….” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: NY: The Colonial Press, 1899) vol. 1, pp. 36-37.)

    But then I don’t think that’s who you had in mind. Unlike the 1600 Colonials, the Constitution does not mention or give credit to the God of the Bible (except perhaps as the paper’s timekeeper), Christ, or the Bible. Furthermore, there is hardly an article or amendment that, in some fashion, is not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality. See “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which a chapter is devoted to every article and amendment examining them by the Bible. Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page and click on the top entry.

  • Thank you O’Reilly for opening my eyes. I am a “thumper” and proud of it. By the way, I no longer watch your program and I will not purchase anymore of your books. God has outed you. Thank you Lord.

  • friend to the world and enmity toward God Almighty for filthy lucre

  • Rick Lively

    In the 80′ s the a-hole was sued for SEXUAL HARASSMENT BY AN INTERN AND THIS IDIOT ACTS LIKE A GODLY MAN FOR YOUR MONEY AND RATINGS.