It is impossible to know what Jesus would do to address the growing problems of starvation and insufficient health care in America. But according to Bill O’Reilly, one thing he would certainly not do is support programs meant to help the most needy.
Bill O expressed his disagreement with Jim McDermott’s recent assertion that Jesus “didn’t charge food stamps” — he just fed the poor because they need it, and joined Rush Limbaugh in denouncing the Pope’s characterization of income inequality and greed as “immoral.”
O’Reilly said that Christ would have fed the poor, but that the man who flipped tables on moneychangers would not have expected the more affluent in society to help those less fortunate than themselves. Unsurprisingly, Fr. Murray, a Catholic priest O’Reilly dredged up, agreed that Jesus would not support food stamps — after all, it’s wrong to expect those with means to do any good in the world.
Pentecostal preacher Joshua Dubois opined that “[Jesus] 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.”
O’Reilly, of course, disagreed. “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 Dubois.
O’Reilly added that poor people are at fault for their circumstances. Characterizing “millions and millions” of food stamp recipients as drug users who can’t hold jobs (causing them to be unable to care for their children), O’Reilly said that “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.”
In Florida, Welfare recipients tested positive for drugs at a rate over three times lower than other Floridians. In other words, based on Florida’s experience Bill O is more likely to be “on drugs” than someone on public assistance.
O’Reilly ignored Dubois’ point that the “vast majority of that program goes to elderly people, people who are disabled,” and “46 percent are children and most people are working families,” and went on to add that his parents didn’t make much money, and could still put food on the table–apparently feeling that a citation of personal circumstance somehow speaks for the whole of society.
Watch this disgusting display below: