Bill O'Reilly has no clue (duh!)

Is O'Reilly really this stupid? He totally does not get the point of LA Times' editorial As a Protest, What a Bust. The point of the editorial is to show how insane this country has become in terms of being offended. The righties are always complaining that the left is too PC, but we aren't the ones that see statues as sexual objects. I mean, when Johnny Ashcroft covered the statue of justice, was he aroused by her breasts? Why else would he be offended? Here is how the Times editorial began:

Quote, "The College of Cardinals elected an ultraconservative pope earlier this week, under a ceiling replete with genitals, breasts and buttocks that apparently gave no offense. Good thing Michelangelo painted his Sistine Chapel masterpieces in Rome and not Venice — California, that is."

Here is what O'Reilly said about it:

Now, in trying to make a connection between the art of Michelangelo and the perceived small mindedness of some in Venice, Kinsley labels the new pope an extremist and sets up a disrespectful non sequitur by referencing the Catholic Church, which he apparently sees as a puritanical outfit. Remember, the church has nothing to do with the statue controversy. The cardinals in the Sistine Chapel have no relevance whatsoever. Yet Kinsley chose to put a negative spin on the conclave to make a foolish point about a foolish issue.

What Kinsley is saying is that art is art. By saying "ultraconservative" in describing the new pope, he is underscoring the idea that if the holiest man on the planet is not offended by the Sistine Chapel, why are people up in arms against a statue of a torso?

O'Reilly went on to say

Now if Kinsley had referenced Islam or Judaism that way, he might be out of a job right now. But denigrating a Christian religion for absolutely no reason is perfectly acceptable at the L.A. Times. Now, I guess I could be overreacting, but I just think this is outrageous.

Kinsley did not denigrate Christianity. If anything, he was praising the pope for knowing what true art is and not seeing a painted naked torso as a sexual object.

I don't think O'Reilly read the rest of the article. Then again, I don't think O'Reilly reads anything, period.