News

‘Family values’ guys exposed in court as vicious wife-beaters

‘Family values’ guys exposed in court as vicious wife-beaters

Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, left, has lost a years-long battle with his own children over his right to have custody of them – and in Australia evangelical Pasquale (‘Pat’) Mesiti, right, has pleaded guilty to assaulting his second wife.

According to this report, O’Reilly, a conservative Catholic who never hesitated to lecture (mostly African-American) parents on how to raise their families, a New York appeals court put an end to the protracted family battle by affirming a lower court’s decision that O’Reilly’s teenage children don’t have to see him if they don’t want to and that they can live full-time with their mother, Maureen McPhilmy.

Even while privately fighting his ex-wife and his own children, right-wing commentator felt brazenly self-assured in telling his viewers that letting their children listen to Beyonce causes teen pregnancy.

In 2013, he wrote an op-ed suggesting liberal parents being too gentle with their kids has led to almost all of society’s ills. He used Miley Cyrus twerking at the MTV Music Awards as an example.

But while O’Reilly used his position on Fox to take the moral high ground, at home he was reportedly “a monster”.

During the legal battle, all of O’Reilly’s skeletons came out of his closet and the picture was disturbing. In one example, leaked to the press, O’Reilly’s young daughter told a forensic examiner that she had watched O’Reilly brutally assault her mom in a fit of rage.

According to a source familiar with the facts of the case, a court-appointed forensic examiner testified at a closed hearing that O’Reilly’s daughter claimed to have witnessed her father dragging McPhilmy down a staircase by her neck, apparently unaware that the daughter was watching.

Later, O’Reilly attempted to destroy his ex-wife’s reputation, going so far as to attempt to use his clout as a Republican celebrity to get her excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church.

The New York appeals court seems to have taken this pattern of abuse into account when they issued their ruling:

Viewing the totality of the circumstances, there is a sound and substantial basis for the Supreme Court’s determination that it is in the best interests of the children for the mother to be awarded primary residential custody.

Particularly relevant in this case are the clearly stated preferences of the children, especially considering their age and maturity, and the quality of the home environment provided by the mother.

Meanwhike, Mesiti, a former Hillsong pastor yesterday admitted assaulting his second wife, more than a decade after being asked to step down from ministry at the megachurch following revelations of adultery.

Mesiti admitted to one count of common assault in court after having previously pleaded not guilty. AP reports that prosecutors dropped a more serious charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The former evangelical preacher is currently on bail until his sentencing, which is expected on 23 March, but is barred from approaching his wife, Andrea, within 12 hours of consuming alcohol.

Court documents said he grabbed her “by the neck” after discovering that she had allowed a party at their home in Sydney to celebrate the New Year.

The two have been married for 13 years but separated last year and are now in the final stages of divorce.

According to the New Zealand Herald, he was stripped of his licence to minister after it was discovered that he had slept with prostitutes. He admitted in an interview with Sight Magazine in 2006 that he had struggled “with a sexual addiction”.

Four years later, however, he returned to ministry as a motivational speaker, and is now billed as a “self-help guru”.

According to his website, Mesiti is an “income acceleration coach” and is hoping to “raise 10,000 millionaires through his works”.

He promises to:

Shift your mindset, touch your heart and increase your wealth.

Hat tip: Barriejohn (Mesiti report)

22 responses to “‘Family values’ guys exposed in court as vicious wife-beaters”

  1. Broga says:

    This is strange. These two devout Christians are proven, cruel brutes. Meanwhile, they preach to others and are no doubt appalled at the thought of atheist parents.

    I, on the other hand, am an atheist – probably of the more aggressive stripe. In a long marriage I have never hit my wife nor my children. Nor have I ever seen my grandchildren hit not my son hit his wife. We are all atheists and part of a happy family.

    And yet it is the O’Reillys and Mesitis of the world who insist that only a belief in God will keep people behaving morally. I’m pleased they have been exposed in their fetid hypocrisy.

  2. CoastalMaineBird says:

    she had watched O’Reilly brutally assault her mom in a fit of rage.
    It’s OK – Jeezus died on the cross for your sins, so, no sweat, bro.

  3. CoastalMaineBird says:

    Broga: I’m pleased they have been exposed in their fetid hypocrisy.

    — Not that it will do any good. He’s not a TRUE Scotsman, you know.

  4. AgentCormac says:

    This all reminds me of that revolting excuse for a human being, Stephen ‘Birdshit’ Green. A man whose name hasn’t besmirched the pages of this blog for quite some time. As well as being a well-publicised practitioner in the art of domestic abuse, Birdshit also believes that gay people with HIV who have sex should be executed and has previously argued that it is impossible for a husband to rape his wife.

    Christians, don’t you just love them? No? Good – because they definitely don’t love you!

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/meet-stephen-green-the-right-wing-christian-voice-leader-who-went-on-a-homophobic-tirade-against-10039270.html

  5. barriejohn says:

    AgentCormac: I was thinking the same thing myself. Green has been off on a ridiculous crusade against social services for the past few months (Christians don’t believe in that sort of “state interference” in their lives, natch), but is back on form with his latest offering – criticizing “pro-sodomy propaganda” in schools (who’d have guessed it?). They’re bloody obsessed with the matter! As is the case with another self-styled “Christian blogger”, his nonsense attracts very few comments (though he’s another who is quite active in deleting anything but brown-nosing sycophancy), so one has to assume very few visitors as well!

    http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/index.php/schools-gay-propaganda-in-re/

    One would have thought that any bullying was harmful, but propaganda such as the SACRE leaflet is not about stopping bullying – it may even add to it – but about promoting perversion.

  6. Broga says:

    Green is a sad, unbalanced man with apparently very few wits left after years of steeping himself in Christian superstition. Yet, he is clearly an ingrate of the most offensive kind in his attitude to the Enigma codebreaker Turing. If the half dozen men or women who had done most to help defeat the Nazis in WW2 were listed Turing would be very close to the top of the list.

    Yet the intellectual mediocrity Green, whose very freedom to spout his verbal sewage may owe much to Turing, has the effrontery to attack such a genius. We cannot, on past experience, expect civilised behaviour from Green. But a measure of restraint from him in his offensive comments about a hero would be welcome.

  7. L.Long says:

    The various books o’BS all say its OK to beat the crap out of wives, kids, and your other slaves.

  8. Horace says:

    Tide comes in …Tide goes out. Prick …O’Reilly

    Just need some dirt on that other ‘When an irishman speaks an English man has to shut up’ prick Bill Donohue.

  9. Cali Ron says:

    O’Reilly is a hateful, bigoted,bully and thug. How pathetic to be lecturing people on how to raise a family when you have done such a shitty job yourself that your own children want nothing to do with you.

  10. Laura Roberts says:

    I’ve read articles in various places implying that pundits like O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh really are acting parts on TV — that off-screen they are more reasonable than their on-screen personas. Stephen Colbert played this up brilliantly in his Colbert Report. However, this paints a far different picture. Not only is O’Reilly a filthy opportunist, he’s a pathetic little coward as well. He’d do well as an Islamist.

  11. 1859 says:

    Some may use religion to justify domestic violence, but domestic violence as such has nothing to do with religion and it would be no surprise to me if the perpetrators of domestic violence even turned out to be atheists – sometimes you can get locked into a marriage which, for whatever reason, goes seriously wrong. No matter how ‘happy’ you may seem to be with your partner, if the circumstances turn nasty, I believe every one of us, given enough provocation, can turn violent – which doesn’t, of course, make it OK. I just don’t think painting atheists as always morally superior helps.

  12. barriejohn says:

    1859: Obviously there are atheist wifebeaters, but the point here, as in so many other cases, is that these people are setting themselves up as paragons of virtue, and actually claiming that without their precious Jesus the rest of us have no moral compass. That’s why it’s almost an irrelevance that some “atheist regimes” have proved repressive and violent – they weren’t generally (especially the case with Nazism) claiming to be spreading love and peace amongst mankind!

  13. 1859 says:

    barriejohn: I know the thread is about the religious ‘family values’ hypocrisy of the two above ungentlemen, I guess I was reacting to Broga’s depiction of the ideal atheist family where everything appears full of sunlight, honey and furry slippers. If this really is the case for him I sincerely wish him – and anyone else in this fortunate position – the very best. But clearly being an atheist is no guarantee of domestic bliss – nor would domestic bliss guarantee you will turn you into an atheist.

  14. barriejohn says:

    1859: I see. I thought that was a general comment on the article and responses to it!

  15. barriejohn says:

    On second thoughts; maybe these guys are the real disciples.

    “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)

    Authentic words of Jesus, circa 30 AD, as they would put it.

  16. Brummie says:

    @ Broga. Alan Turing. A fitting tribute to this great man would be putting his face on our banknotes. This would partly redress the shame of our legal system causing his death in the 1950s.

  17. Broga says:

    @1859: I am certainly not suggesting my family is ideal. Far from it. But we deal with difficulties within a context of atheism and not within the context of religious belief with its prayers, saying grace and thinking that an omniscient God is watching over everyone.

    I am sure that there are atheist bad marriages and atheists who ill treat there children. However, I have noticed, while rearing our own children, that many religious parents have what I regard as an unhealthy enthusiasm for physical punishment of children. I think that the absence of religion does allow for a more relaxed atmosphere in family life.

    Not too long ago a book by a Christian was mentioned here. At the core of the book was the recommendation that even young children should be beaten. The nonsense of “Spare the rod and spoil the child” seemed to be a guiding principle.

    PS: I never wear slippers, furry or otherwise. I just don’t like them.

  18. Horace says:

    Brummie …. coins are better …. last much longer than a paper …

  19. Broga says:

    @Brummie: Great idea. The treatment of Alan Turing is a stain on the UK. He would be a far more fitting person to be on banknotes than the Queen.

    I think the royal family were ready to leg it to Canada if they were in danger from the Nazis. And the witless, useless Duke of Windsor was an admirer of Hitler and may have been lined up to be King when Hitler conquered us. Churchill gave the Duke a sinecure of a governorship somewhere and he couldn’t do that. He was also upset because his generous, and shameful, largess from the UK government wasn’t enough.

    Yes please. Let us have Alan Turing whom we can admire – indeed revere – on the coins (Horace’s idea) for what he did to save the UK.

  20. Vanity Unfair says:

    To barriejohn:
    I claim no originality in what follows; if it can occur to me then others are certain to have said it before.
    There are a few paradoxical sayings in the gospels. Some time back I likened them them to Buddhist koans (I know Zen is generally believed to start in the C6 but it has a pre-history.) for meditation training. If you regard them as such then they take on a different complexion. What they then mean is, of course, a different matter too.
    So, to contradict an earlier report, “Jesus” was not a Hindu, but a Buddhist and, as a source for the sayings, does not need to have had a real existence.
    There is plenty of evidence for trade with India in the C1 and India was possibly the first foreign outpost of Christianity.
    None of this is proof, of course. However, if you enter “Luke 14:26” in a well-known Internet browser you will find that people are still meditating on it.

  21. Trevor Blake says:

    Did these men do anything that their Bible said was their right and duty?

    No.

    That says something damning about their Bible, now, doesn’t it?

  22. 1859 says:

    @Broga: Watch out… a bare-footed atheist could give the impression you belong to a secret cult!
    Re. Turing: I agree he should be honoured far more than those parasites in the royal family. As a maths teacher I often tell the story of Turing and the dire situation facing Britain in 1940, hunting the German subs for the Enigma machine , Bletchley Park etc. I finish off by saying that possibly hundreds of thousands owe their lives to his efforts and that we owe are freedom to Turing who was, by the way, a gay man. ‘So, ‘ I usually finish with a flourish,’the next time you slag someone off for being gay remember you owe your freedom to a gay man!’ I know this is a little OTT but the students certainly remember it, but for all its hyperbole it is true.