Mikey Weinstein Gets Muted on Bill O’Reilly

Think what you will about Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, but this was actually fairly entertaining. Discussing the removal of Nativity scenes at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, an unusually calm O’Reilly faced off with the predictably verbose Weinstein, who was more interested in hitting his talking points than addressing the question. So O’Reilly cut off his audio — but Weinstein’s mouth kept moving…

O’Reilly called the decision to pull the Nativities “cowardly,” and noted that they recognized the occurrence of a national holiday.

Video and transcript here.

ADVERTISEMENT



17 comments

  • I’d say the were equally verbose and Bill is never “calm” when there is an attack(er) on the religious way-way-right. He made the delightful mistake of asking Mikey on his show in the first place and in his usual fashion, when things don’t go Bill’s way, he will cut you [them] off or throw you [them] under the bus (or both). It’s his show so he can do what he wants and I must say that it is typical for you JD to agree with him over Weinstein on this matter. Regardless, I like nativity scenes and you JD are my favorite “christian”, and I enjoy reading your anti-Mikey articles. I have a strike-eagle friend that debates with me all time about you and your blog.

    May the Force be with you and Happy Holidays!!

    • Some day you will regret that you call the defending of Christian values or things of God, propoganda.
      Bill had every right to mute this man who wants to tear down what we have always stood for.

  • The fact that Christians reported the Nativity Scence to the MRFF undercut the entire premise of O’Reilly’s propaganda piece. This isn’t about a “war” on Christmas; it’s about making sure the government abides by the Establishment Clause and doesn’t play favorites when it comes to religion.

    • @Jaime
      But O’Reilly never said anything about Christians or a “war on Christmas” during his chat with Weinstein, so it would seem the “premise of the propaganda” may be more in your own interpretation than what he actually said.

      And how is a Nativity scene Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion?

  • “But O’Reilly never said anything about Christians or a “war on Christmas” during his chat with Weinstein…”

    You must not watch O’Reilly’s show all that frequently, especially during the Holiday Season. This was a segment that fits into his “war” on Christmas narrative; that he didn’t explicitly mention doesn’t mean it wasn’t the message he was trying to convey.

    “And how is a Nativity scene Congress making a law respecting an establishment of religion?”

    The Establishment Clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, and/or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the “separation” or “no aid” interpretation, while the second approach is called the “non-preferential” or “accommodation” interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government’s entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

    The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was “indirect, remote, and incidental.” In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the Latin Vulgate translation). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that “the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah … simply recognizes that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society.”

    We can also look to the Supreme Court’s “Lemon test”, which details the requirements concerning government and religion. It consists of three prongs:

    1) The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose; (Purpose Prong)
    2) The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; (Effect Prong)
    3) The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion. (Entanglement Prong)

    If any of these prongs is violated, the government’s action is deemed unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A sole Nativity Scence violates all three of those; it has no secular purpose, it advances religion, and also results in excessive entanglement. If there are other religious and secular displays in addition to a Nativity Scene, then the Nativity Scene is constitutional, as there is no advancement of religion since there are other religious and secular displays, and it becomes a venue for all citizens, not just Christians, to practice their free speech (see the Alleghany case briefed above).

    • @Jaime
      You did an effective job of copying text from Wikipedia (on the Establishment Clause and Lemon), but the problem with Wikipedia is the presence of information does not magically grant the ability to apply it correctly.

      Your Wikipedia text is irrelevant because this incident was not about government action in erecting a Nativity scene, nor, for that matter, was it public.

  • If you believe the cited portions from Wikipedia are not applied correctly, you will need to lay out a logical argument as to why. The presence of information on Wikipedia does not magically grant people the ability to understand and apply it, but my Juris Doctorate does. Nor do you get to just dismiss the information presented because you doubt the presenter’s understanding. That is called a genetic fallacy; arguments are only logically invalidated by deconstructing the argument directly, and not by attacking the person presenting it.

    The information from the Wikipedia articles are relevant. First off, that the erection of a Nativity Scene was not conducted by the government isn’t the issue (as if that would be the only way for them to be violations of the Constitution…). Second, it was public; they were in prominent common areas. The issue is that the government is, in effect, endorsing Christianity by allowing the Nativity Scene to be placed in prominent common areas (that service members of other faiths and non-faiths were not given equal access to use in a similar manner), sending the message/impression that one faith is better than others, that faith is better than non-faith, and that the military institution singularly promotes Christianity.

    Fortunately, the DoD understood what was wrong and corrected it.

    • @Jaime

      Regarding the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, you said

      First…erection of a Nativity Scene was not conducted by the government isn’t the issue…

      You’ll have to forgive those of us who learned in high school American government class that the Constitution only applies to government action.

      Second, it was public…

      According to those black robed guys up at the SCOTUS, a military base is, by definition, not public.

      service members of other faiths and non-faiths were not given equal access to use in a similar manner…

      Counsel is asserting facts not in evidence — actually, contrary to evidence. According to locals, other faith groups have been represented during their holiday seasons, and the government denied no one an opportunity to present a display. Would you like to reconsider your conclusion since it was based on an erroneous assumption?

      the DoD understood what was wrong and corrected it.

      On the contrary, the DoD declined to intervene, saying it remains a local commander’s prerogative, not DoD policy. In this case, the commander did not say he “understood what was wrong” or that he agreed with the critics; you are inappropriately concluding causation and assigning a motivation contrary to public information.

      Each of your points was in error. You seem to be arguing this based on what you believe the situation to be, not what it actually was.

  • “You’ll have to forgive those of us who learned in high school American government class that the Constitution only applies to government action.”

    First, the problem with High School is the presence of information does not magically grant the ability to apply it correctly. Second, I have a Juris Doctorate. Third, the military selecting speech in prominent common areas is government action, so it applies. See the jurisprudence (case law/court cases) provided above for education.

    “According to those black robed guys up at the SCOTUS, a military base is, by definition, not public.”

    Public in the scheme of things; they were put in prominent common areas, areas that all military personnel have access to (and not just military personnel: their family and contractors). There’s also the fact that the government is selecting speech, so it still applies even though it isn’t public in the sense of a park.

    “Counsel is asserting facts not in evidence — actually, contrary to evidence. According to locals, other faith groups have been represented during their holiday seasons, and the government denied no one an opportunity to present a display.”

    (Citation Needed)

    According to several news sources and the correspondence to the MRFF, “[n]o other religious denominations are represented aside from Christianity…in the center of their eating areas.”

    http://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2013/12/121713-breaking-navy-times-mrff-exposes-denounces-sectarian-nativity-display-at-guantanamo-bay/

    “Would you like to reconsider your conclusion since it was based on an erroneous assumption?”

    No, since I have the evidence on my side, it is you that will have to do the reconsidering of their erroneous assumptions.

    “On the contrary, the DoD declined to intervene, saying it remains a local commander’s prerogative, not DoD policy. In this case, the commander did not say he “understood what was wrong” or that he agreed with the critics; you are inappropriately concluding causation and assigning a motivation contrary to public information.”

    I’ve seen statements from DoD officials regarding the matter (I think most recently in the NavyTimes); they very well may have left local command correct the situation, but whether or not it’s the DoD or local command isn’t central to the point. The point is, the right thing was done.

    “Each of your points was in error. You seem to be arguing this based on what you believe the situation to be, not what it actually was.”

    Actually, it is you that is arguing on what you believe the situation to be, not what it actually is. I’ve provided the

    • @Jaime

      Public in the scheme of things…

      Convenient that your definition changes with the circumstances, but the case law didn’t.

      …the military selecting speech…the government is selecting speech…

      There is no evidence either the military or the government selected anything. In fact, public statements it was not the government. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

      According to several news sources and the correspondence to the MRFF…

      Circular evidence. The news sources cite the MRFF. The correspondence to the MRFF was coached by the MRFF, and it is no more reliable than the first-hand statements to the contrary.

      If you require citation, you are free to read the thousands of comments on the various articles on this topic, and note the ones that say “I’m at Gitmo, and there was stuff up for Ramadan and Hanukkah…and only those faiths during those times…” Regrettably, those voices are much quieter than the ones who have access to the press.

  • “Convenient that your definition changes with the circumstances, but the case law didn’t.”

    Words do that; many have different connotations in different contexts. For example, going to a dictionary, we can see that there are several definitions provided for the word “public.” They are as follows:

    1. of, pertaining to, or affecting a population or a community as a whole: public funds; a public nuisance.
    2. done, made, acting, etc., for the community as a whole: public prosecution.
    3. open to all persons: a public meeting.
    4. of, pertaining to, or being in the service of a community or nation, especially as a government officer: a public official.
    5. maintained at the public expense and under public control: a public library; a public road.

    You are equivocating; you are attempting to plug in another meaning of the word public to better service your argument (namely definition 3, when 1,2, 4, and 5 are more appropriate in the context). This is a logical fallacy (I’ve noticed you use these quite a bit).

    “There is no evidence either the military or the government selected anything. In fact, public statements it was not the government. Do you have evidence to the contrary?”

    Yes, there is/I do. There are several news reports from various news sources, which include photography of the Nativity Scene and prominent common areas that only include said Nativity Scene and no other religious/non-religious displays. If you believe they are relying only on the MRFF’s complaints, you will have to provide some actual evidence as to why that is incorrect. You also keep going back to the “argument,” which I have already addressed, that “it was not the government” that put the Nativity Scenes up. No one is claiming that the government did, and that isn’t the issue. The issue is that the government is giving one religion in particular preference by giving it special access to prominent common areas.

    “Circular evidence. The news sources cite the MRFF.”

    No, it isn’t circular evidence. These news sources cite the MRFF in addition to providing other forms of evidence, such as photography of the Nativity Scene and prominent common areas that were home to them.

    “If you require citation, you are free to read the thousands of comments on the various articles on this topic, and note the ones that say “I’m at Gitmo, and there was stuff up for Ramadan and Hanukkah…and only those faiths during those times…””

    First, comments on various articles on the topic are not credible evidence; it is the internet and anyone can make anything up anonymously, and I have evidence that contradicts it in the form of multiple stories from various news organizations that are complete with things such as photographs and commentary by both parties which indicates that there is no dispute over the fact that there was only one religion given access to the prominent common areas. Second, the issue isn’t that there were things up; it is where things were up and the preference that was given to allow them to be there in the first place.

    • @Jaime

      several news reports from various news sources, which include photography…news sources cite the MRFF in addition to providing other forms of evidence

      Read the credits. The photos were provided by the MRFF. Circular evidence.

      comments on various articles on the topic are not credible evidence…and anyone can make anything up anonymously

      Agreed. So you’d agree an anonymous complaint through a biased, vendetta-based organization — without any substantiation of their complaint — is also not credible?

      there is no dispute over the fact that there was only one religion given access to the prominent common areas.

      There is dispute. Where is your proof anyone was denied access? You seem to be conflating equality of outcome with equality of opportunity.

      preference that was given to allow them to be there in the first place

      You’re moving the goalposts. Earlier you said it was the denial of access to others, not the mere presence of one.

      Let’s recap some important points.

      You say the government is selecting speech, without providing proof the government conducted any action at all. You say other faiths were “not given equal access,” but provide no evidence to show anyone was denied access. You think the accusations have been verified, yet the evidence you cite comes from only a single source.

      Your position is a comedy of errors.

      You and some other critics fail to realize that Christians actually agree with your position, at least the position you claim — no faith should have government preference. The disagreement comes in your accusation that the government permitting people to acknowledge their faith publicly — regardless of what that faith is — somehow grants that preference.

      Religious liberty is promoted by encouraging the marketplace of ideas, not banning it.

      Merry Christmas.

  • “Read the credits. The photos were provided by the MRFF. Circular evidence.”

    First off, you’re using the genetic fallacy again, judging the merit of information on the source of the information and not the information itself. Second, I’ve read the credits, and they aren’t.

    “Agreed. So you’d agree an anonymous complaint through a biased, vendetta-based organization — without any substantiation of their complaint — is also not credible?”

    A) MRFF isn’t a “biased, vendetta-based organization.” You’re engaging in ad hominem, another logical fallacy; dismissing a claim or argument because of the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person/group presenting the claim or argument, which in this case isn’t even true.

    B) There has been substantiation of their complaint, in several ways. There have been plenty of news articles from various news sources that document this fact, complete with commentary from relevant parties as well as photodocumentation which demonstrats the prescence of Nativity Scenes — and only Nativity Scenes — in the prominent common areas. If you dispute this, you will need to present actual evidence, say photographs of other religious/secular displays in the same prominent common areas at the same time. Quite simple actually.

    “There is dispute. Where is your proof anyone was denied access? You seem to be conflating equality of outcome with equality of opportunity. ”

    No, I am not. According to the Base Commander, “The spirit of the Navy’s policy on this is, if it’s religious, it goes to the chapel. It’s more appropriate there.” Exception to Naval policy had to be given for them to be there.

    “You’re moving the goalposts. Earlier you said it was the denial of access to others, not the mere presence of one.”

    You’re misunderstanding me there. My apologies if the sentence was a bit long and oddly worded.

    “Let’s recap some important points.

    You say the government is selecting speech, without providing proof the government conducted any action at all. You say other faiths were “not given equal access,” but provide no evidence to show anyone was denied access. You think the accusations have been verified, yet the evidence you cite comes from only a single source.”

    I’ve provided ample evidence, complete with supporting documentation that ranges from jurisprudence to news articles. All you have done is bring forth one logical fallacy after another in attempt to preserve your presuppositions.

    “Your position is a comedy of errors.”

    No, it isn’t. Yours is. You’re projecting here and trying to save face.

    “You and some other critics fail to realize that Christians actually agree with your position, at least the position you claim — no faith should have government preference. The disagreement comes in your accusation that the government permitting people to acknowledge their faith publicly — regardless of what that faith is — somehow grants that preference.”

    I am well aware that many Christians, like myself, agree with the Constitution. You are also mischaracterizing the disagreement. The disagreement is actually that the government is acting in a preferential way when it allows one religion over other religions and non-religion to acknowledge their faith publicly in a prominent common area when, as the Base Commander summarized, “The spirit of the Navy’s policy on this is, if it’s religious, it goes to the chapel. It’s more appropriate there.” Now, I don’t think the government was intentionally playing favorites. I believe it was merely an innocent misstep. But it had to be corrected, and the local command did the right thing by moving it to the chapel, where it belonged all along.

    “Religious liberty is promoted by encouraging the marketplace of ideas, not banning it.”

    Agreed, which is what the problem is. It is not “encouraging the marketplace of ideas” to let one faith over other faiths and non-faiths to have sole access to prominent common areas.

    “Merry Christmas.”

    You too! And Happy New Year!

  • @Jaime

    You have a Juris Doctorate, yet you cite news articles and Wikipedia as your sources?

    I think you missed the point about military installations not being considered ‘public.’ See:

    18 U.S.C. Sec. 1382

    In place of your google/Wikipedia search, here’s a bit of light reading to expand on:

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Time%2C+Place%2C+and+Manner+Restrictions

    or:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/496

    The argument that a Christian display is violating the first amendment if other displays are not placed with it demonstrates, to me, you don’t have a firm grasp on this issue. The argument that allowing a display, regardless of its nature (symbolism), somehow equates to excessive government entanglement or promotion of it, demonstrates you lack insight in distinguishing the difference between accessibility vs. promotion.

    Furthermore, moving a display from one location to another on the installation demonstrates accommodation, not fixing something that was ‘wrong.’

    Am I missing something here?

  • “You have a Juris Doctorate, yet you cite news articles and Wikipedia as your sources?”

    I’ve cited those in addition to legal precedent. And there is nothing wrong with news articles and Wikipedia as sources of information, especially if the latter is cited. You’re using that genetic fallacy again; dismissing evidence because of its source.

    “I think you missed the point about military installations not being considered ‘public.’”

    I’ve already explained to you that you are equivocating there.

    “In place of your google/Wikipedia search, here’s a bit of light reading to expand on:

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Time%2C+Place%2C+and+Manner+Restrictions

    or:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/496

    You are looking to unrelated jurisprudence. This is about the Establishment Clause, which neither of those deal with.

    “The argument that a Christian display is violating the first amendment if other displays are not placed with it demonstrates, to me, you don’t have a firm grasp on this issue. The argument that allowing a display, regardless of its nature (symbolism), somehow equates to excessive government entanglement or promotion of it, demonstrates you lack insight in distinguishing the difference between accessibility vs. promotion.”

    You are again misrepresneting the issue. I provided you with the case law. See below:

    “The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was “indirect, remote, and incidental.” In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the Latin Vulgate translation). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that “the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah … simply recognizes that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society.”

    “Furthermore, moving a display from one location to another on the installation demonstrates accommodation, not fixing something that was ‘wrong.’ ”

    This is really just a matter of semantics. The fact is, how and where (see the Alleghany case I’ve cited twice already) the Nativity Scenes were displayed was the problem.

    “Am I missing something here?”

    I’d say you’re being intentionally obtuse. I’ve given you the applicable case law; you just don’t want to accept it.

  • Oh, I just realized that one of my series of responses awaiting approval was actually in response to a different person. My apologies, Priscilla! The response should still be intelligible; you just might have to be sure to switch the context a bit. Thanks!

  • @Jaime

    Two points.

    The genetic fallacy of which you are so fond is applied with frequency in courts of law viz. the Federal Rules of Evidence. If a source is deemed not credible, the fact-finder may disregard its testimony.

    The Lemon Test is disfavored. See Van Orden v. Perry, particularly Justice Breyer’s concurrence (which also happens to be the controlling opinion).