When O’Reilly is wrong

By Joseph Farah

When Bill O’Reilly is right, he’s as right as rain.

But when Bill O’Reilly is wrong, he is ever so wrong.

And he was ever so wrong last week in his on-air “memo” to religious conservatives.

The Fox News Channel star supports adoption of children by homosexuals “when there is not a heterosexual alternative.” First of all, adoption is not about sexual agendas at all. Adoption is a practice that should be encouraged only for married couples – and there are plenty of them looking for children. Anyone who has tried to adopt a child in recent years can attest to the fact that there is a long wait – thanks to 1.5 million abortions a year and a government foster-care system whose lowest priority is permanent placement of children in caring homes.

There is no need, as WorldNetDaily columnist O’Reilly suggests, to place children with homosexuals because no one else wants them. Just knock down the barriers to adoption and, in no time, you will see every child in America placed in stable homes headed by married couples.

O’Reilly goes on to suggest it is “unconstitutional to deny a foster child a good home because of an American’s sexual orientation.”

I don’t know which revisionist version of the Constitution my good friend Bill has been reading, but, there is simply nothing in the document that would remotely suggest adoption by homosexuals is a civil right. No one – homosexual or heterosexual – has a “right” to adopt a child.

In adoption, the best interests of the child are always considered paramount, not the best interests of the parent.

But, let’s face it: O’Reilly’s real beef is with people who take their faith seriously and try to act on their beliefs in the public square.

“The founding fathers took great pains to keep the laws of our country secular so that all beliefs and behavior, legal behavior, would be tolerated,” he says. To which I say: Utter nonsense.

Is this what they teach at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard these days, Bill? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Nevertheless, it’s pure fiction. Let me give you some examples of specific actions by the founders that should dispel any such notion:

  • The very first Congress of the United States allocated money to print and distribute Bibles throughout the nation.

  • During the War of Independence, Congress allocated money for the import of 20,000 copies of the Bible.

  • In 1787, the same year the Constitution was approved, Congress passed the Northwest Ordinance, one of the most important pieces of legislation because it was the blueprint for admitting new states into the Union. One of the provisions was that new states had to encourage education. Why? Because religion and morality were absolutely necessary for self-governing people.

  • The treaty between the colonies and Great Britain ending the War of Independence began “In the name of the Most Holy and undivided Trinity …”

  • The Constitution expressly exempted Sunday as a work day for the president in the article concerning vetoes of legislation.

  • General George Washington required all of his men to attend Sunday services.

  • Every president since Washington, has when taking the oath of office, said, with his hand on the Bible: “… so help me God.”

  • Since the days of the colonial army, chaplains have been required. Initially, during the days of the founders, those chaplains were all Christians.

  • Of the 15,000 writings of the founders, the most heavily quoted work is the Bible – and specifically the Book of Deuteronomy, which is the Old Testament book of law.

  • On the same day the Congress ratified the First Amendment, it also called on President George Washington to proclaim a day of national prayer and thanksgiving.

I could go on and on. I could provide hundreds of similar actions if space permitted. I could also cite hundreds of quotations from the founders that articulated their heartfelt convictions that only a people steeped in the faith and morality of the Bible were capable of governing themselves under the Constitution they ratified.

And, if O’Reilly really wants to argue that the Constitution drafted by those men justified adoption by homosexuals, perhaps he can explain why Thomas Jefferson, as governor of Virginia, proposed the death penalty for those guilty of sodomy. By definition, homosexuals are practitioners of sodomy.

I’ve praised O’Reilly when he’s been right. I just can’t hold back when he’s wrong.