O’Reilly: Jesus Wouldn’t Give Food Stamps to Lazy Bums

Bill O’Reilly knows Jesus. It’s a little known fact that Jesus was the one who introduced him to the joys of using falafel as a sex toy in the shower. So Bill can speak for Jesus when he says that, despite his many commands to take care of the poor, he wouldn’t bother with all those poor drug users who deserve to starve.

“The problem I have, as I stated is that you’re helping one group by hurting another group and a bigger group, and so I don’t know if Jesus is going to be down with that,” O’Reilly told Pentecostal Pastor Joshua Dubois.

“Jesus would be down for the poor,” Dubois pointed out. “He would want to make sure every single person in this country had enough food to eat. And the bottom line is if you add up every single private charitable dollar that feeds hungry people in this country, it’s only 10 percent of what we would need to make sure everyone has food in their stomachs. The rest comes from the federal government.”

“You’re making a powerful argument, but there is one huge mistake in it,” O’Reilly opined. “And that is that some of the people who don’t have enough to eat, it’s their fault they don’t have enough to eat. Particularly with their children.”

He continued: “If you’re an alcoholic or heroin addict or a drug addict and you can’t hold a job, alright, and you can’t support your children — and that’s a circumstance of millions and millions of people, not most, but a lot, a substantial minority — then it’s your fault, you’re bringing the havoc, that you’re asking people who may be struggling themselves to put food on the table to give their tax money to you. And then you’re not even going to buy food with it, you’re going to buy booze and drugs with it.”

Yeah, all those heroin addicts on welfare. You know what those state drug-testing programs have found? A rate of about 2-4% positive tests for welfare recipients. But it’s so easy for rich Bill O’Reilly to pretend that he got rich because of his overwhelming virtue and talent while poor people are poor because they’re a bunch of lazy drug addicts — and to invoke their mythical Jesus to justify it.

"Again, he didn't specify they were all human females."

OH Gov. Candidate Defends Franken by ..."
"Oh, please. Ankh-Morpork has had elections before. It's just that you were disqualified from running ..."

OH Gov. Candidate Defends Franken by ..."
"It's still a better candidate... then again I'd vote for a dog over most politicians ..."

Crokin: Trump Was Sending a Message ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • raven

    O’Reilly is just making it up. As usual.

    1. 70% of people on food stamps are children, the disabled, and the old.

    2. 40% of people on food stamps have at least one working adult in the household. Users of food stamps include many working poor at places like the banks, fast food i.e McDonalds, and Walmart.

    Food stamps have become an important corporate subsidy to companies employing large numbers of low paid workers.

  • Anthony K

    “And that is that some of the people who don’t have enough to eat, it’s their fault they don’t have enough to eat. Particularly with their children.”

    So fuck those kids, amiright Jesus? Hi five, bro!

  • bobafuct

    Apparently the book of Mark doesn’t exist in the O’Reilly Standard Version of the bible:

    Mark 6:34-44

    34 When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things.

    35 By this time it was late in the day, so his disciples came to him. “This is a remote place,” they said, “and it’s already very late. 36 Send the people away so that they can go to the surrounding countryside and villages and buy themselves something to eat.”

    37 But he answered, “You give them something to eat.”

    They said to him, “That would take more than half a year’s wages[e]! Are we to go and spend that much on bread and give it to them to eat?”

    38 “How many loaves do you have?” he asked. “Go and see.”

    When they found out, they said, “Five—and two fish.”

    39 Then Jesus directed them to have all the people sit down in groups on the green grass. 40 So they sat down in groups of hundreds and fifties. 41 Taking the five loaves and the two fish and looking up to heaven, he gave thanks and broke the loaves. Then he gave them to his disciples to distribute to the people. He also divided the two fish among them all. 42 They all ate and were satisfied, 43 and the disciples picked up twelve basketfuls of broken pieces of bread and fish. 44 The number of the men who had eaten was five thousand.

  • http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com SC (Salty Current), OM

    “You’re making a powerful argument, but there is one huge mistake in it,” O’Reilly opined. “And that is that some of the people who don’t have enough to eat, it’s their fault they don’t have enough to eat. Particularly with their children.”

    I don’t understand how this is supposed to make sense. He’s not arguing that it’s the children‘s fault that they don’t have enough to eat, so he doesn’t have an argument against providing them with food.

    (Sometimes when I’m commenting on these stories I get a feeling of unreality: Am I really having to argue that children should be fed? Are there really people trying to make the case that they should not? Do these people really style themselves as champions of life and families?…)

  • raven

    He’s not arguing that it’s the children‘s fault that they don’t have enough to eat, …

    Yeah he is.

    Those hungry kids are supposed to go out and forage in the parks for their food. Or work in textile factories and coal mines for their food.

    It isn’t supposed to make sense. It’s just a bunch of dog whistles.

    And O’Reilly is a Catholic. According to his religion, there are supposed to be a lot more kids, many of whom in his dystopic world, should be starving. It’s all part of his Sky Monster god’s plan.

  • raven

    Near where I used to live and out in the hills, there is a den of fundie xians, Okies from the midwest who still speak in a difficult to understand accent.

    They are all rabid Tea Partiers whose last noteworthy accomplishment was burning a cross on someone’s lawn for not fitting in. They were white but had adopted a black child. They even have their own chapter of the John Birch society.

    They are also mostly really poor since logging, millwork, and fishing all went downhill. 85% of their kids qualify for free federal school lunches. And oh yeah, they hate the government. I estimate that half the income in that area is federal and state transfer payments.

  • fusilier


    (Sometimes when I’m commenting on these stories I get a feeling of unreality: Am I really having to argue that children should be fed? Are there really people trying to make the case that they should not? Do these people really style themselves as champions of life and families?…)

    Yes there are.

    I was driving home from work, the other day, and sat behind a car festooned with bumperstickers saying: “If You Can’t Feed ‘Em, Don’t Breed ‘Em,” “I’m tired of paying for YOUR KIDS free meals and free schools,” and more of the same.

    As you might expect (I’m in Indiana) the driver paid an extra 25 cents for an In God We Trust license plate – complete with billowing stars and stripes.


    James 2:24

  • http://www.facebook.com/den.wilson d.c.wilson

    What could possibly be more hip than a 60+ year-old white guy from Long Island talking about what Jesus would be “down with”?

  • Michael Heath

    Bill O’Reilly’s argument for policies that hurt the poor are important to note.

    I perceive his arguments as representative of conservative Christians in general when it comes to that population’s avoiding or denying biblical edicts that conflict their conservative political agenda. And when it comes to voting constituencies, they are the sole obstruction to policies that would cause harm to the poor; that’s ironic given their Bible commands the opposite from them. O’Reilly’s arguments over the years are the exact arguments I’ve heard from these Christians my entire life.

    And we all know what the dog whistle, “drug addicts” is really referencing. So pointing to the facts as Ed here to falsify O’Reilly’s sole premise, while important, doesn’t address O’Reilly’s motivation to refer to drug addicts in this context. That’s due to the inherent racism of conservative Christians. It’s their bigotry that’s being leveraged by their social dominators to support policies that are the opposite of their holy dogma. It’s critical we always address their racism in this context; that’s because it’s a root cause psychological affliction of conservative Christians. The lack of evidentiary support for the poor being drug addicts is merely an expressed symptom of their inability to think clearly, argue honestly, and promote policies we’re confident will increase human suffering.

  • http://www.holytape.etsy.com holytape

    Wasn’t there some miracle in the bible about feeding people?

  • mastmaker

    And he’s the one who wrote the book ‘Killing Jesus’?

    Do you think the book is a confession rather than a (histo^K^K^K^K^K fictional account)?

  • Chiroptera

    Those kids deserve to go hungry. If they deserved to be fed, God would have had them born to people with good jobs.

  • plutosdad

    Disregarding the fact he is completely wrong on the demographics of who receives SNAP benefits: Anyone with a relative who is actually an addict knows the pain of wanting to do what’s best and help, and knowing if you do help you are feeding their addiction even if you give objects instead of money (even if I paid for an apartment, or meals, that’s money she doesn’t have to spend that would then go to drugs). This is painful for the relatives who want to help, and tears them up inside not knowing what to do.

    Somehow, I don’t think O’Reilly really suffers along with addicts and wanting to help them in constructive ways. It seems he really just thinks he is better than anyone with a weakness he doesn’t have, and therefore should not help them.

    If he wanted to get those people off welfare, instead of fighting SNAP, he’d be fighting FOR things like decriminalization, more money for treatment, raising the minimum wage, and other ways to help get people off welfare. But he’d rather make welfare as punishing as possible.

  • Nemo

    “Take all that you have, and give it to the 1%.” — Republican Jesus

  • chilidog99

    I want Pope Fancis to issue a statement calling out people like Bill ORiely for the assholes that they are.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    Now, look, everybody knows that Jesus was for feeding the poor. But He didn’t say anything about the undeserving poor. Or the working poor. Or the middle class, facing a crisis. Also Merry Christmas and good will to all. Except those people.

  • justsomeguy

    He’s kinda right, though…. Jesus (the good guy Jesus who helps people, not the more popular “do as I say” Jesus) would probably not support food stamps or WIC or any of that. Instead he’d just MAKE FOOD for people and cut out the middleman.

    The reason we have these programs is because there *isn’t* some benevolent wizard who conjures food for everybody. By all accounts, it’s just us on this planet and we need to look out for each other. The programs we have in place aren’t perfect, but they’d be a heck of a lot better at doing their jobs if they weren’t being sabotaged by people who are far more interested in making a point than they are in improving anything.

  • Chiroptera

    Nemo, #14:

    Heh. Matthew 25:29:

    For to all those who have, more will be given, and they will have an abundance; but from those who have nothing, even what they have will be taken away.

    (Shamelessly taken out of context.)

  • pianoman, Heathen & Torontophile

    blessed are the poor, Bill. not “blessed are the egomaniacs making millions of dollars to spend an hour each day embarrassing their species on television”.

  • http://www.pandasthumb.org Area Man

    Wait a minute. We have the Pentecostal pastor playing the role of the liberal bleeding-heart who wants the Federal government to do more for the poor, and the Catholic playing the role of the callous libertarian who wants children to starve.

    Did I just wake up in Bizarro World?

  • http://www.facebook.com/fred.barton4 sc_01b2b83c75253e8943fcd61c8df56a2b

    You know, Jesus healed 10 men with leprosy (Luke 17:11 -19) , so I don’t think he’d have an issue even with a crackhead. Shoot, he was such a bleeding heart liberal I bet he’d even help Bill O’Reilly if he needed it.

  • John Hinkle

    The problem I have, as I stated is that you’re helping one group by hurting another group and a bigger group…

    Is there some sort of zero sum game I’m missing?

    Maybe he means “helping the poor” equals “taking from the makers and giving to the moochers.”

  • scienceavenger

    @22 Yes, because taking a small % of some people’s disposable income to give to others so they don’t starve is totally equivalent .

  • sinned34

    Yet again, we have Christians who can’t (or won’t) even read their own fucking book.

    Jesus speaking in Matt 25:31-46

    31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

    34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

    37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

    40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

    41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

    44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

    45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

    46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

    So according to O’Reilly’s own holy text, he’s going to hell.

  • felidae

    Poor Billy, he is sooo put upon, having to pay taxes on the $20,000,000 he knocks back every year and knowing that some of it goes to feed poor people who are lazy bums that can’t feed thier families on our overly generous minimum wage because they are junkies or alcoholics

  • http://saltycurrent.blogspot.com SC (Salty Current), OM

    Michael Heath:

    It’s critical we always address their racism in this context; that’s because it’s a root cause psychological affliction of conservative Christians.

    Very good point.

  • Artor

    Only Bill-O can make a Pentecostal pastor sound like the sane, compassionate & rational one in a conversation.

  • vmanis1

    Well, let’s see. Biblical Jesus talks with approval of the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus (not, apparently, the Lazarus who was raised from the dead). The Rich Man had everything in life, Lazarus had nothing. So after death Lazarus ends up in Heaven—or at least Abraham’s bosom—and the Rich Man ends up in hell: it was His Turn To Suffer. (Luke 16). Is this the Jesus that O’Reilly follows?

  • busterggi

    Bill O’Reilly is the Serpent on the mount.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1531393070 danrobinson

    “Are there no prisons?”

    “Plenty of prisons…”

    “And the Union workhouses.” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

    “Both very busy, sir…”

    “Those who are badly off must go there.”

    “Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”

    “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

  • caseloweraz

    What Nemo said (#14).

    Furthermore, the Republican Bible says, “It is easier for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven than for a needle to pass through the eye of a camel.”

  • caseloweraz

    A shorter version of Matthew 25:31-46 comes from “Bob Dylan’s 115th Dream”:

    I said, “You know they refused Jesus too.”

    He said, “You’re not him.”

  • caseloweraz

    I recall from Al Franken’s Lies that Billo tries (or tried then) to claim his upbringing was less affluent than it was. Franken demolishes that myth, quoting O’Reilly’s mother who said they lived in prosperous Westbury, not working-class Levittown.

  • Larry

    Republican Jesus hates the little children

    All the hungry children of the world

    Red, brown, yellow, black, just not white

    They’re all just moochers in his sight

    Republican Jesus hates the hungry children of the world

  • Michael Heath

    caseloweraz writes:

    I recall from Al Franken’s Lies. . .

    I grew up in a red part of the country, rural northern Michigan. Eventually the term liberal was considered a pejorative, which also infected the public square a bit even on the national stage. While I was never a conservative and had some great moderate influences growing up, Gerald Ford and Bill Milliken (MI’s long-serving GOP gov.), I probably came to think the pejorative was generally earned, which was mostly wrong when looking at the country as a whole, but not necessarily when putting the narrower lenses of looking only at Michigan liberals back in the 1960s and 70s.

    The first sharp pivot in my perspective was reading reading Mr. Franken’s Lies. What an eye-opener Franken’s book was for me. I came to greatly admire Mr. Franken in a manner similar to my respect for ex-Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). Franken’s book began to have me more carefully scrutinize the nuances of liberalism where I learned the liberals that earned my ire, e.g., those running Detroit in the 1960s through Mayor Kirkpatrick in the 2000s, were not representative of liberals in general and certainly not the type of liberals wielding power outside places like Detroit, at least during the Carter era and following.

    Franken’s book also helped me become more sensitive to the path of liberals from the enlightenment to the framers of the U.S. to today’s liberals. Not because Franken made arguments from history or political science, but because he provided practical examples of liberal openness to new ideas, their concern for optimal results (most of them), and their acceptance of the fact that successful countries require government that’s engaged in the right activities and executing their operations competently. And that’s in a context where conditions are constantly changing; so that demands open thinking and an eagerness to change.

    I found the parallels in history wasn’t so much from positions of liberals then and now, but instead how people who adhere to various ideologies think, that is, their psychological profile. I already knew conservative/libertarian close-mindedness, anti-intellectualism, and antipathy regarding equal protection was reason for disdain, but I didn’t appreciate the value of liberalism until Franken re-introduced me to re-study liberalism.