(no subject)
Tonight I finished reading a book I received for Christmas called Who's Looking Out For You? by Bill O'Reilly. Now I obviously don't know your opinion on Bill O'Reilly, but the main reason that I asked for one of his books for Christmas was because I knew little to nothing about him, besides the fact that he hosts "The O'Reilly Factor" on the FOX News Network. I knew that he was credited with giving the conservative slant on many issues, but with all the hype he gets I figured I might as well read something he's written so that I would get solid facts and not just hearsay. (Is that a word? Not sure, even though I'm an English major.)
I liked this book pretty well, and I suppose it is due to the fact that it supported most of my political persuasion. Although Bill's beliefs may come off as conservative, it really gave me more insight into why he considers himself independent. The main theory of Bill's ideology is that he passionately crusades for justice and change for the good of people. He doesn't just see an issue presented and say "well, that's unfortunate;" he seems to really want to make a difference by doing what he's doing, and I really respect that. After all, one my mottos is "if you can take the time to complain about a problem then you can take the time to think of a solution." So, basically, I respect and identify with his beliefs.
The book, though, was mainly about how you can look out for yourself by making sure that the institutions and individuals that you surround yourself with have your best interests at heart. It is a good message, but there were just a couple of things that I disagreed with him about. First of all, Bill discussed how friends should treat each other, and the circumstances that should cause friendships to be damaged and fail. He described an incident where a friend doubted his honesty and therefore caused Bill to feel like the friend was trying to have power over Bill, somehow. Yet instead of letting it go as an isolated incident, Bill took it very seriously and decided to put this friend outside of his "circle of trust," if you will. As he says, "I just walked away. If the guy had later apologized, I might have dealt with him again. But he did not. And since a person who doesn't trust you cannot possibly look out for you or be a friend, there was no further common ground on which that man and I could stand. He was history."
Now I'm not saying that I don't get the reasoning behind this concept... but I don't think it's right. I mean, look at Jesus. Did Jesus ONLY surround himself with people he had complete trust in? Come ON... His disciples let Him down time and time again: yet he forgave them. He could have said to them, "You've failed me yet again, therefore I will no longer waste my time with you, I won't care about you or love you anymore." But as we all know, He didn't do that. He forgave them, loved them, and they moved on. If we all just detached ourselves from friendships that went awry, we wouldn't get anywhere. I can understand being more hesitant to trust this individual in the future, but I don't think that God wants us to abandon people just because we get let down once in awhile.
The other thing that bothered me in the book was the section on religion. Bill actually said many things that I DID agree with, but he seemed to be really confused on his presentation of how we should integrate religious beliefs into government, as well as on his religious ideology in general. First of all, it would have been obvious that he is a Catholic even if he hadn't bothered to state it, because he made his track record of church attendance the most prevalent part of mentioning his personal beliefs. He takes the time to mention, "I am, I believe, among a minority of journalists who actually attend church on a regular basis. But judging by the stares I get when I leave mass early, I am not enhancing the image of my profession." Not only is this a pretty big generalization (out of thousands of journalists, I really don't think Bill has any figures on their church attendance), but I wonder if he thinks that attending church makes one a REAL Christian or something goofy like that. He says that when people ask him why he attends church, he says, "Why not? What is a better use of my time? For an hour a week, I can think about things of a spiritual nature in a nice church with beautiful sculptures and stained-glass windows and a 2,000-year-old tradition that makes sense. Why would I not go?" I just want to take this moment to mention a couple things that Mr. O'Reilly has wrong: #1: Attending church does nothing beneficial for you if it's not influencing you to desire a closer relationship with God. #2: The point of church is not to go look at an ornate, elaborately crafted building for "tradition." God desires to be glorified through our worship, praise and respect. Going to church is good and well as long as your intentions are right, but going to church merely because you think it's the right thing to do is NOT a good reason to go. Now I will get off my high horse. But, I also didn't understand his reasoning for why we should integrate religion and government. Bill says that he thinks we should use the tools our country was founded on - but he also thinks that an all-encompassing view should be taken in regards to others who may have different religious beliefs. Now, let's see if I have this right: we should be accepting and tolerant of other religions/beliefs, but we should only integrate BIBLICAL principals? Hmmm... not getting it. (and I'm not saying we SHOULDN'T integrate Biblical principles into gov't... I'm just saying that his logic is flawed here.) But really, the chapter on religion was the only thing I had a problem with. There was alot of other really good material about how to tell who's looking out for you in our government, the leadership for the war in Iraq, the media, minority issues, and those in our judicial system, among other things. I seriously do recommend it... even though it kinda sounds like I'm badmouthing it here. Let me leave you with a couple of quotes: [in discussing the media and its influence on children/society] "... the Supreme Court has even ruled that websites are legally allowed to display explicit images of "virtual" sex between adults and children. Apparently, the nation's highest court sees this as "freedom of expression." Well here's another expression: wake up and smell the corruption. American society has become so nonjudgmental and profit-centric that it now refuses to set any boundaries at all. Kids are under assault from all forms of media, and it is simply impossible for parents to prevent cultural garbage from being dropped on them from all sides." Actually... that's the only one I'll give ya, cause that's the only one I remembered to highlight in there. But there are some great passages that I wish I could type out but it'd take forever. So just rest assured that it's a good book, if you're interested at all. Now I'm tired. Nightey wightey!