January 26, 2006

Keith Olbermann Says John Gibson Should Resign

Posted by Eric Jaffa
Tuesday December 27th 2005, 8:46 pm
Filed under: Right Watch, Cable/Satellite, Media Watch, TV, Religion

John Gibson with a big grin. His blonde hair is combed back and he's wearing a blue shirt with a suit and tie.
John Gibson

Keith Olbermann is a host at cable news channel MSNBC; John Gibson is a host at cable “news” channel Fox News.

As a guest on the radio show of conservative Janet Parshall, John Gibson had the following conversation on November 17, 2005:

GIBSON: …listen, we get a little theological here, and it’s probably a bit over my head, but I would think if somebody is going to be — have to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to answer to me. We know who they’re going to have to answer to.


GIBSON: And that’s fine. Let ‘em…

Keith Olbermann said that while he used to be friends with John Gibson, this “wrong religion” talk is like something a terrorist would say. He named John Gibson as a “Worst Person in the World” on December 2, 2005. Olbermann concluded, “I’d tell you which religion John thinks is the only one that’s right, but what’s the difference? It’s not the faith that’s the issue; it’s the intolerance. John Gibson, today’s ‘Worst Person in the World.’”

John Gibson recently responded on his own radio show and on Fox News that his remarks were taken “way, way, way out of context” and the he was misquoted.

Keith Olbermann regards that as deceitful. Olbermann said tonight that Gibson has been accurately quoted, and the Gibson’s remarks are worse in context.

Olbermann concluded tonight that John Gibson should “leave the airwaves for good. Because between the remark and the denial, he has, sadly, forfeited his right to stay here.

Video at Can ‘O Fun.

« Janet Parshall Also Made Dubious Remarks About Religion »

Keith Olbermann tonight also took exception to conservative radio host Janet Parshall’s remarks to John Gibson on that radio show:

I have to tell you, I don’t know when they held this election and decided that tolerance was a transcendent value. I serve a god who, with a finger of fire, wrote, he will have no other gods before him. And he doesn’t tolerate sin, which is why he sent his son to the cross, but all of a sudden now, we jump up and down and celebrate the idea of tolerance. I think tolerance means accommodation, but it doesn’t necessarily mean acquiescence or wholehearted acceptance.

Olbermann said that the Bible verse is, “Thou Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me,” which Olbermann interprets that people who decide to worship the God of the Bible should do so exclusively, but that other people can worship any God they choose.

Personally, I question Janet Parshall’s comment that God “doesn’t tolerate sin, which is why he sent his son to the cross.”

Isn’t the concept that the crucifiction provides a path to atone for one’s sins (not an intolerant message that anyone who sins will burn in Hell?)

Is intolerance for sin really the message of Jesus? What about Jesus saying, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone?” What about Jesus’ befriending a prostitute?

I’m Jewish, and on the holiest day, Yom Kippur, people go to temple to atone for their sins. There isn’t a sign on the temple door sayng “No sinners allowed,” nor have I ever seen such a sign on the door of a church.

Janet Parshall follows her glorification of intolerance with moderate words about “accommodation…but [not] wholehearted acceptance” and so she’s having it both ways.

Previous: Spying on UN Officials, Too || Home || Next: Advertising Disguised as Graffiti

10 Comments so far

These are scary comments. When you say the wrong religion, you’re saying that there is a “correct” one and all those that don’t follow the correct one don’t deserve to worship the way they choose. What these people don’t realize is that we have a consitution RIGHT to worship any god we choose whether someone else thinks is wrong or not and without be persecuted for it.

I went to catholic school and I will tell you that christians beleive that there is no tolerance for other religions. They believe that other religions (or no religion at all) are wrong. That is what they practice and preach. For 10 years, I had to take a class called “religion” but what it was really “Christianity and nothing else”. When I transfered to public school my junior year in high school, I knew nothing of any other religion and didn’t realize how much diversity there really was. I was friends with people who practiced all kinds of religion and we all respected each others beliefs.

The real irony of Gibson’s and Parshall’s comments is that they probably are sinners too. The bible also says that you can’t have sex unless your trying to procreate, women are unclean during menstration, you can’t work on Sundays, a human being is a human being until blood flows through the heart (which alot of prolife people seem to ignore), pride, lust, anger, gluttony and envy are among the cardinal sins, etc. There are very few true christians and catholics out there. Most are “cafeteria catholics”. Take what they want and leave out what they don’t want.

Comment by Mitch 12.28.05 @ 7:23 am

Since when is believing that your religion is right and other religions are wrong is intolerance. A tolerant belief is to live and let live. It has nothing to do with agreeing with anything. You don’t think Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that one of his missions from heaven to “save” souls? He was a minister of the gospel. That’s what they do.
Does that make him intolerant?
NO. Tolerance is allowing something to be even though you DISAGREE with it.
Throwing the word intolerance flippantly around takes power away from the word. Not good.

Comment by Gary Dean 12.29.05 @ 10:44 am

Gary Dean -

It’s true that everyone believes his beliefs are right and contrary beliefs are wrong.

But have you ever referred to other people as believing in the “wrong religion?”

Gibson implies there is a decent chance that people who follow the “wrong religion” will go to Hell for it:

GIBSON: “I would think if somebody is going to be — have to answer for following the wrong religion, they’re not going to have to answer to me. We know who they’re going to have to answer to.”

Comment by Eric Jaffa 12.29.05 @ 11:11 am


As I mentioned over on the Lean Left post on this subject, I find the whole story ridicuous to begin with.

Why is Olbermann wasting his time commenting on what his colleagues do or not do? How is this newsworthy? It seems more like something a 15 year old pack of girls might stoop to.

There is a problem in today’s America, and that is moral relativism and political correctness. You and I have no problem blogging and disagreeing with each other without the fear that we will mortally wound each other. Who really cares if someone feels that any religion but their own is “wrong” and that they may be held accountable by God? Again, this is moral relativism speaking, suggesting that the correct thought is that everyone should believe that any road can lead to heaven. Frankly, not all religions have the same take.

Comment by Wacko! 12.30.05 @ 6:18 am


re: “…this is moral relativism speaking, suggesting that the correct thought is that everyone should believe that any road can lead to heaven.”

I’m Jewish. Is it acceptable for someone to believe I’m going to Hell for being Jewish? I don’t think so.

Comment by Eric Jaffa 12.30.05 @ 6:26 am

I’m Christian. Is it acceptable for you to tell me that my religion is wrong. Sure. I’m a big boy.

The truth is that any news commentary show is bound to offend someone. Otherwise, people like O’Reilly, Gibson, Franken, and Stewart should just report the news without injecting bias. But that’s not entertaining. For example, I enjoy watching the Daily Show, even though Stewart’s personal opinion may differ from my own.

So, is it okay to say other political views are wrong, just not other religions are wrong? I see no difference, frankly.

You might be interested in a related post where I wrote about “hate” and “tolerance” as it relates to religion.

Comment by Wacko! 12.30.05 @ 6:58 am

Whacko! -

I find it offensive for a TV news anchorman to go on a radio show and say some people follow the “wrong religion.”

Discussions of religious differences aren’t a problem per se, but John Gibson’s style isn’t the right way.

Comment by Eric Jaffa 12.30.05 @ 12:54 pm

So, how is it any different than Olbermann covertly indicating that I have the “wrong” political views on issues? Politics is just as personal as religion, ans his outright partisan disdain for political conservatives is no different than Gibson’s indication that other religions other than his own are wrong.

Please identify substantive diffewrences between the two.

Comment by Wacko! 12.31.05 @ 11:42 am


If you find Keith Olbermmann offensive, that is fine.

I find John Gibson offensive.

Political statements can be offensive, and religious statements can be offensive.

John Gibson’s suggestion that people who follow the “wrong religion” have a decent chance of going to Hell for it, is in the latter category.

At least for me. If you don’t find Gibson’s statement offensive, that is up to you.

Comment by Eric Jaffa 12.31.05 @ 12:07 pm

But the issue isn’t how offensive either of them are. The issue is whether or not the statements are considered intolerant.

I guess we just happen to agree what is considered intolerant.

Comment by Wacko! 01.01.06 @ 7:13 am

Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks are automatic. Your e-mail address is never displayed. Basic HTML is allowed. Including more than one link makes you look like a spammer and will cause your comment to be held in moderation.