Bill O'Reilly
Posted on 01/03/2003 1:52:52 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Fox News is threatening to sue a prominent evangelical minister in the ex-homosexual movement who engaged in a volatile exchange over biblical morality on the top-rated television program "The O'Reilly Factor" in September.
Stephen Bennett, who says he left his homosexual lifestyle nearly 11 years ago, has distributed a 60-minute audio tape program called the "The O'Reilly Shocker," in which he responds to host Bill O'Reilly's characterization of people who take the Bible literally as "religious fanatics."
Fox claims Bennett's use of clips from the interview is a copyright infringement.
Bill O'Reilly |
On the Sept. 3, 2002 program, O'Reilly, a Roman Catholic, called Bennett a "religious fanatic" who wants to "deny people rights" and suggested the minister wanted "all gays to go to hell."
Bennett said he has received hundreds of e-mails from viewers of the segment who said they were outraged at O'Reilly's "anger and verbal abuse."
O'Reilly is coming on like a "bully," charged Bennett, who still counts himself as a fan of the Fox News nightly show.
 Stephen Bennett |
"He's a libertarian who relishes the fact that he doesn't care what you talk about, but we have to have that right of free speech," Bennett said of O'Reilly. "Yet when it comes to me now speaking out – never saying anything nasty about anybody but just addressing the issues – he does everything possible to silence me."
Bennett said he has nothing against O'Reilly personally.
"This is just an issue the two of us do not agree on," he said.
A recording artist and national speaker, Bennett's Huntington, Conn.-based group, Stephen Bennett Ministries, says that it offers help to people who want to "come out" of the homosexual lifestyle.
Bennett, who is married with two children, also is a spokesman for the lobby group Concerned Women for America, which just prior to the Sept. 3 interview criticized O'Reilly for telling the homosexual magazine The Advocate that he favored homosexual rights.
Lawsuit threatened
Bennett received a letter yesterday from a New York City law firm representing Fox which charged him with copyright infringement for sale of a product that uses "almost all, if not all" of O'Reilly's four-minute interview with Bennett.
In the letter, Dori Ann Hanswirth of Hogan and Hartson warned Bennett that if he does not stop distributing the tape and does not turn over all remaining copies, Fox will file a lawsuit seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief.
However, Bennett's legal defense, the American Family Association, maintains that the tape is legal because it uses excerpts from the interview for the purpose of commentary.
WorldNetDaily sought further clarification from Hanswirth, but after conferring with her client, she replied that Fox News does not comment on pending legal matters.
Michael DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the AFA's Center for Law and Policy, told WND that his reading of Hanswirth's letter is that Bennett cannot use any of Fox's material.
Bennett's tape, part of his group's regular tape-of-the-month series, is legal under copyright law's allowance of fair use and comment, DePrimo said.
"Certainly Mr. O'Reilly put it at issue when he called Mr. Bennett a religious fanatic and did not give him a chance to respond," he said.
DePrimo, who vowed to "vigorously defend" Bennett if Fox proceeds with a lawsuit, noted that it would not be legal "if somebody puts effort into a particular product and another person tries to appropriate it and sell it as his own."
That is not the case in this situation, he insists, charging that Fox simply "does not like the fact that Bill O'Reilly has been exposed as a homosexualist."
Bennett called Fox's demand's "ridiculous."
"Of course I can comment on that interview," he told WND. "If the heart of the interview was on cats and dogs, that means I can't talk about cats and dogs?"
After reviewing his tape again yesterday, Bennett said he has a total of about three minutes of audio clips from the Sept. 3 "O'Reilly Factor" interview and 57 minutes of original commentary.
Discussing theology
Bennett described his response to the interview in a column published by WorldNetDaily in September.
He said that in "pre-interviews," hours before the Sept. 3 show, producers called to discuss probable questions related to his Aug. 27 commentary in the Washington Times about promotion of homosexuality in the U.S. media and its effects on children, titled "The Gay Spin Zone." O'Reilly's comments in support of the homosexual rights agenda published in The Advocate also were added to the mix.
But Bennett says the "O'Reilly Factor" interview turned out instead to be "about Bill O'Reilly's theology."
After numerous exchanges in which O'Reilly tried to press Bennett on whether he thought practicing homosexuals would go to hell, O'Reilly said, according to a transcript, "We live in a secular society. You're a religious fanatic, with all due respect."
Earlier in the day on Sept. 3, O'Reilly referred to Bennett as "an idiot" and "religious fanatic" on his radio program, "The Radio Factor."
Bennett notes that one day later, O'Reilly compared his brand of religious belief to that of the Sept. 11 terrorists in a conversation with a liberal Baptist preacher.
Just a few days before the Sept. 3 program, O'Reilly responded on his show to Concerned Women For America's reaction to his Advocate interview.
O'Reilly opened his Aug. 29 program with this introduction:
In the "Personal Story" tonight, more attacks on your humble correspondent on the Internet. Now, I've gotten used to being pounded by both the left and the right, and very rarely do I see anything even remotely accurate on these websites. This time, a conservative group believes I am patronizing gays. Fine. My stance is simple. We're all Americans here. Nobody should be discriminated against. I'll leave it to God to figure out who's going to hell and who isn't. I'm not qualified, and nobody else on earth is either.
John Aravosis of About.com published a defense of O'Reilly in which he said, "What's troubling about this confrontation isn't that militant fundamentalists are angry about what O'Reilly said, but that they chose to respond to a political difference of opinion by questioning the faith of their opponent."
Calling Bennett a "self-proclaimed 'ex-gay," Aravosis quotes the minister commenting on behalf of CWA, "For a man to come right out and say that he does not believe in the Old Testament ? I think that many Catholics across this nation as well as the world are offended by Bill O'Reilly claiming he's an Irish Catholic."
Bennett said that his tape includes Rev. John F. Harvey, a Roman Catholic priest who asserts that O'Reilly is not speaking for the Catholic Church, which views homosexuality as "intrinsically evil."
Harvey, who runs Courage, a spiritual support group in Manhattan for homosexuals, says O'Reilly is abusing his public celebrity platform and promoting a heresy against the Catholic Church. The priest calls O'Reilly "confused" and "filled with pride – putting himself above the Catholic Church."
|
This is a problem with the socialist people who infiltrated our government, not directly with gay people. I can't believe I am defending gay people, but some of you are acting like they are the absolute cause of the nation's problems, not the socialists. |
Gay Money Comes Out of the Closet
: Salt Lake Tribune , August 19, 2000 Author: Ruth MarcusIn all, gays have contributed about $5 million this election to the Democratic National Committee alone -- a total that puts them among the top tier of Democratic givers
For the 2000 race, the DNC set up a new Gay and Lesbian Victory Council for those who gave $10,000 and more. It now has almost 100 donors, and about 13 members of the party's "Jefferson Trust," for $100,000 givers, are openly gay.
Gay And Lesbian Leaders Launch National Grassroots Effort To Help Elect Al Gore President
Nashville - February 29, 2000 - Praising Al Gore's commitment to fighting discrimination and promoting equality for all Americans, lesbian and gay leaders across the country today announced the launch of Gay and Lesbian Americans for Gore. The group will work over the Internet and in local communities to mobilize volunteers and organize support for Gore. Today's announcement came on the heels of an important national endorsement yesterday by the National Stonewall Democratic Federation, which has 47 affiliated clubs and 10,000 members nationwide.
My vote is that Donahue's worst. O'Reilly at least respects the military....
God has made the judgement clear. Homosexuality is an "abomination"...period. What is it about 'abomination' that you don't understand?
Is behavior a choice? Does a person have a choice whether or not they will have sex? Of course they do. Homosexuality is a behavior more than anything else. Are you going to try to convince me that gay men in San Francisco simply had no choice in having anal sex and spreading AIDS throughout the gay community...that abstinence is not possible...that people with homosexual tendencies are not capable of self control? A study was conducted on identical twins, and the study found that in over 50% of the cases when one twin was homosexual, the other was not! That alone should prove that homosexuality is not genetic.
Furthermore, what about Anne Heche? She said she was gay, then she got married to a man! How did she change - sounds like mere promiscuity to me. And how did all of the ex-gays change (there are hundreds of people who have come out of the gay lifestyle)? And what about bi-sexuals or people that have sex with animals...are you going to tell me that they also are born that way? I will grant you that some people have attractions for the same sex, but the urge does not have to be acted upon.
Promoting their "lifestyle" however, is another kettle of fish.
Ah, but wait. This is contradictory to what you said earlier. If they are born and not made, then homosexuality is on a par with skin color, and that being the case, homosexuality SHOULD be promoted. But it is not the case, is it? Homosexuality is not equatable with skin color.
I'm sure he thinks everyone should be Fundamentalist Oreillys. He needs to get a grip.
While this may be true, the side presented to the public in the form of Gay Pride Parades looks just a little different, wouldn't you say?
Can you explain why a group which wants acceptance in society would present themselves this way? What conclusions are we to draw?
Yea, and every good looking woman he sees. One of his faults(although he probably would not admit that he has some)shines through so much that its almost blinding.
|
What is it about 'abomination' that you don't understand? |
Homosexuality: A Political Mask For Promiscuity: A Psychiatrist Reviews The Data
Condemnation of homosexuality, however, is by no means directed at specific ancient rituals alone. Among the cardinal sins of Judaism, which one is bidden to lay down his life rather than engage in, are murder, idolatry and "gilui arayot," the immoral uncovering of nakedness (Lev. 18), which includes adultery, incest and homosexuality. Indeed, the Torah reserves its most intense condemnation for homosexuality: "to'eva"
ABOMINATION
\A*bom`i*na"tion\, n. [OE. abominacioun, -cion, F. abominatio. See Abominate.] 1. The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing; as, he holds tobacco in abomination.
2. That which is abominable; anything hateful, wicked, or shamefully vile; an object or state that excites disgust and hatred; a hateful or shameful vice; pollution.
3. A cause of pollution or wickedness.
Syn: Detestation; loathing; abhorrence; disgust; aversion; loathsomeness; odiousness. --Sir W. Scott.
This one certainly is.
I quit watching him because he is only about rantings. ;o)
|
O'Reilly seems blind to the detrimental effects of the gay lifestyle |
CBS News | AIDS: Deadly Ignorance | July 8, 2002 23:22:37
BARCELONA, Spain, July 8, 2002
(AP) A study of young gay and bisexual men in major U.S. cities found that more than three-quarters of those infected with HIV - including 91 percent of blacks - were unaware they had the AIDS virus.
The finding, presented Monday during the first day of scientific sessions at the 14th International AIDS Conference, is a worrying sign that the epidemic could be in danger of accelerating again in the United States.
The study indicated that ignorance of infection among HIV positive gay and bisexual men was twice as common as previous estimates, which were based on HIV tests results of people entering the military or jobs that require screening.
The survey, conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "helps explain, at least in part, why many young gay and bisexual men in the United States are becoming infected," said Duncan MacKellar, who led the study.
Researchers surveyed 5,719 men aged 15 to 29 at dance clubs, bars, health clubs and street locations in Baltimore, Dallas, Los Angeles, Miami, New York and Seattle from 1994 to 2000.
Of the 573 who tested HIV positive, 440 - or 77 percent - had not known they were infected with the virus. Around half of those men hadn't been tested in the past year and half were having anal sex without condoms, said MacKellar.
Another CDC study presented at the conference, which examined anonymous blood samples of 40,000 high-risk patients of all ages, found that the rate of new infections for gay and bisexual men was nine times higher than for women and heterosexual men.
Other CDC research linked psychosocial health problems such as depression and drug abuse to higher HIV infection rates and large age gaps within homosexual couples to a higher propensity to engage in risky sexual behavior.
Can you explain why a group which wants acceptance in society would present themselves this way? What conclusions are we to draw?
Yes. I would definetely say that the Gay Pride Parades look a little different. A lot different. I AM BEING FORCED AND CORNERED INTO A GAY ACTIVIST POSITION (sorry robert paulsen, not directed at you). I am sick and tired of the gay agenda and the push to make it more open and in your face then heterosexuality has ever been. I dislike the flagrant gays shown on the liberal media. The thought of homosexual sex repulses me (thanks Remedy for bringing those wonderful images into my head!) I just don't think that they are all like that and people who do what they want in the privacy of their own homes are free to do so. There are definetely some people on this thread that apparently think that homosexuality will bring about the demise of the world. I hardly think so.
The real issue are the socialists. The opposite of conservative is not homosexual. Only in operation Destroy Communism do people of Free Republic have names. His name is Robert Paulsen, his name is Robert Paulsen.
Tch, tch. That's discriminating, and you know it! (/sarcasm).
(Discriminate, like gay, another good word debased by the leftists).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.