Bill O'Reilly Hates America's Secular Founding Principles

Bill O'Reilly Hates America's Secular Founding Principles by bashing Al Franken for saying that God shouldn't be plastered on government currency.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Bill
• O'Reilly
• Hates
• America's
• Secular
• Founding
• Principles
• bashing
• Al
• Franken
• God
• government
• currency

[dan012345]

It's a SECULAR NATION for fucks sake.

[vinnyhernia]

How can we have a republic if the principles of our government are derived from a theological monarchy? If you believe the Universe is a monarchy, how can you say that a republic is the best form of government?

[mojo1517]

Bill,

What I don't understand is how a supposedly college educated person can be gullible enough buy into the Christian myth, believe the tides, moon, and sun are proof of a divine intervention.

You might want to contact the college you attended and negotiate a refund. Secondly, when you interview a guest why don't you give them a chance to respond?

A fan...

[GuacamoleKun]

"They don't come any worse!"

Wow Bill. If that's the worst you can imagine, maybe we aught to send you to North Korea.

(I'll pay for your ticket, as long as it's one-way..)

[carmium]

Let's try putting "Bill O'Reilly is an idiot" on coins instead. 

[singring76]

Awwwwww...BillO, the guy is IN the senate now, and while you're stuck flinging mud at anything that moves in your impotent rage, he's actually making policy and history.

Boy, its gotta suck to be you.

[xadam2dudex]

Bill'O the clown is the biggest pinhead around

[Ryakki]

@XxVINCEROxX

Supernatural is just another word for fake. If it's real, even if it's extraordinary, it's part of the natural world. Part and parcel of reality.

[Ryakki]

@XxVINCEROxX

There is no supernatural. If there is evidence for a previously unknown phenomenon, it becomes science. If god suddenly appears, is verified, and says, "Sup"... he gets to be in a science book.

Your artificial and dishonest label does not validate your argument.

Good call on the parenthesis though.

[XxVINCEROxX]

@XxVINCEROxX personally have found that science's currently held theories on the foundations of the universe and the formation of life actually show more likelihood that there exists a god, I'll explain it if you want. You see, science and god are not opposites, they are on different planes, they don't really deal with each other and science certainly can't disprove god. It can disprove certain religions, but not the notion of a god.

[XxVINCEROxX]

@Ryakki Well first off, you named argument in quotations not parenthes(e)s, but I'm just being an ass. Secondly, it doesn't seem like you have looked at all sides because then you'd know the nature of science in this debate. Bluntly, science deals only with the natural world, god (whether he exists or not) lies only in the supernatural, so science even in it's very nature cannot account or even claim to account for god. But science can be used to show whether a god is necessary or not, and I

[Ryakki]

@XxVINCEROxX

I've looked at all sides honestly and openly between science and religion, and made my conclusions until new evidence presents itself, and the "argument" is so one sided I feel dishonest calling it an argument... even in parenthesis.