Yes, and your point?

Yes, and your point?

Mr. O’Reilly’s tweet does bring up a real issue, though. I have no problem reading, say, the Declaration of Independence and accepting it as a call to freedom while at the same time rejecting hero worship of the founders. The ideas are valuable, but the people are demonstrably no more worthy of emulation that I am. Why do we need hero worship anyway?

I can also value the Bill of Rights while recognizing the government structure established by the Constitution in the 18th century was not just a compromise, but a cynical compromise to protect wealth and enslave people. I can accept the good ideas while rejecting the bad structure.

Two things can be true at the same time, and we can reject one while keeping the other. We can accept the Sermon on the Mount while rejecting the legions of Christians (and Christian institutions) who are anything but Christ-like. It was fashionable for a while to ask, WWJD? Well, rage against most Christians and Christian institutions is my best guess.

The only people who, like Bill O’Reilly, believe there are rules about any of this — that one thing (the Bill of Rights) requires another (hero worship of the founders or acceptance of the government) — are simply betraying their own intellectual and emotional weaknesses.

They are attempting to preserve their position (usually White, male, and Christian) in the status quo by borrowing strength from an imposed 18th century hierarchy.

The worst of them are every bit as cynical as 18th century slaveholders. Modern rightists want to destroy government functions for the majority of citizens while at the same time using the power of government to protect their wealth. Funny how that works, isn’t it?