Video and audio (MP3) can be found on the National Cathedral website

audio

video

We will try to post a local mirror when available.

Ms. Palin says that she didn’t read the story, but didn’t like it and thought that it wasn’t relevant. She also took the opportunity to deny that she has breast implants.

Watch the video below or visit FoxNews.com

On June 15, 2010, Bill O’Reilly, host of the “O’Reilly Factor,” interviewed Lisa about her Newsweek cover story on Sarah Palin.

Watch the video below from YouTube, Fox News, or view on the FoxNews.com website.

Here’s the transcript (courtesy of FoxNews.com):

Interview
Is Newsweek’s ‘Saint Sarah’ Cover Story Mocking or Praising Palin?

BILL O’REILLY, HOST: In the “Personal Story” segment tonight: The Newsweek magazine cover story this week is entitled “Saint Sarah: What Palin’s Appeal to Conservative Christian Women Says About Feminism and the Future of the Religious Right.” The question is: Is the piece a slam or a compliment?

Here now, the journalist who wrote the story, Lisa Miller. You know, she doesn’t like it very much. Did you hear the comment?

Click here to watch the interview!

LISA MILLER, NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE: I heard that she hadn’t quite seen it.

O’REILLY: Yes, I don’t know whether she saw it or not, but she doesn’t like it. You know, I don’t know. And I didn’t think it was a bad article. It’s not a slam. You didn’t write a slam.

MILLER: No. That wasn’t my intention.

O’REILLY: But there are some passages in here that I think are a little dubious. I’m going to read them to you. Your own words. And then you can tell me what you had in mind.

MILLER: OK.

O’REILLY: First of all, feminism, the subject is feminism. “Palin has been antagonizing women on the left of late by describing herself as a feminist, a word she uses to mean the righteous mama bear anger that wells up when one of her children is attacked in the press or her values are brought into question.” Why would she be antagonizing women on the left by using the word feminist? I mean, why?

MILLER: Well, because old school traditional feminists…

O’REILLY: Yes.

MILLER: …think that there is a certain agenda that goes along with feminism.

O’REILLY: But there isn’t.

MILLER: Well, they say there is.

O’REILLY: And you buy that?

MILLER: And she doesn’t comply with that. So she’s calling herself a feminist, but it doesn’t jive with the traditional definition of feminism.

O’REILLY: OK, but no, no, you’re using the word traditional. I’m using the word — they have co-opted, they being a far left, you know, militant feminist. They say that they own the word. I don’t believe that. I think there are a lot of feminists in the conservative ranks. But your magazine and you have been antagonizing women on the left by describing yourself as a feminist. Sarah Palin is — absolutely has the right to describe herself as anything she wants.

MILLER: I completely agree with you actually.

O’REILLY: Well, why didn’t you say that? I mean…

MILLER: Well, because she’s been antagonizing women on the left, and she has been.

O’REILLY: But just by saying that she’s a feminist antagonizes somebody?

MILLER: Right. So I’m just reporting what I see. And so, she’s not antagonizing me.

O’REILLY: OK, that’s good to hear, because I don’t think she’s antagonizing anybody. They just take it that way.

MILLER: I agree that people who want to call themselves feminists can be feminists.

O’REILLY: Yes, I mean, they don’t own the label. They being the far-left Eve Ensler people.

OK, “The women who do follow Palin” — these are the conservative women and I think you’re right there: mostly conservative women do follow her – “the women who follow Palin will fight against Roe” — that’s Roe v. Wade – “and support adoption and prenatal health clinics. But they aren’t generally focused on birth control, sex education, or gender discrimination. They shrug at the agonies of the overeducated moms, who feel forced to choose between work and family. No one had to do that on the farm. And they refute the idea that to succeed in the world, a woman must look and act like a man.”

See, again, you’re coming at it from a — I don’t know any conservative women who shrug at the agonies of overeducated moms who feel forced to choose. I don’t know anybody who does that.

MILLER: I think that there’s a very powerful — that Sarah Palin is actually conveying a very powerful message, which is there’s a lot of kind of whining on the fringes of the left. And she’s saying, look, we don’t have to choose. We can be powerful working women, and be wives, and be mothers, and take our children, you know, put our children first, and make money, and be visible in the world all at the same time. And I think that’s a message that a lot of women, especially conservative Christian women, want to hear.

O’REILLY: Right, right.

MILLER: So…

O’REILLY: So when you say they shrug at the agonies of the overeducated moms, come on, I mean, there’s never been a time in America that women have had more opportunity to do whatever they want to do.

MILLER: I completely — I absolutely agree with you.

O’REILLY: So how can anyone be shrugging at agonies when the agonies don’t exist?

MILLER: I think there’s a false perception out there that, you know, you either have to…

O’REILLY: Then you shouldn’t — with all due respect, you should have said they shrug at the false agonies. See, look, this is — you’re a good writer. And this is a fair article. I’m not going to read you anymore. This is a fair article.

MILLER: Thank you.

O’REILLY: You’re a good writer.

MILLER: Thank you.

O’REILLY: But you do come at it from that urban doctrinaire left wing, because Sarah Palin is a conservative, she must be really trying to really nail those people.

MILLER: No, with all due respect.

O’REILLY: Her message is unique.

MILLER: With all due respect, I’m trying to explain to people that what Sarah Palin is offering conservative, Bible-believing women is something very, very powerful. And if they don’t understand it and take it seriously, they’re overlooking a very powerful part of this country.

O’REILLY: Why wouldn’t you offer the same advice to independent women and liberal women? Not far left kooks, you’re never going to get them. But why target the conservative women?

MILLER: I’m not targeting…

O’REILLY: Palin’s message resonates in independent and liberal precincts, some of her messages.

MILLER: I completely agree with you, and I think one of the things that’s so appealing about her is that she has this universal female message, and that, you know, the left overlooks it to its own peril.

O’REILLY: All right. Thank you for coming in, Ms. Miller.

MILLER: I’m very, very happy to be here.

O’REILLY: We appreciate it.

“Holy geez!”

Palin has already overshared: nothing makes a person, let alone a politician, appear more vulnerable, more ordinary, and more unambiguously female than a scene in a bathroom where she pees on a stick. But then she defies a generation of pro-life activists who preached that the life of the fetus is sacred, no matter what an individual woman wants. For a split second, Palin—already at the limits of her time and energy—stops to consider the chaos another baby will create in her life. These are really less than ideal circumstances, she thinks. And then the inconceivable. I’m out of town. No one knows I’m pregnant. No one would ever have to know. Any woman who has faced a pregnancy test with hope or with dread can picture the governor sitting there, alone with her dilemma, certain that her future will change. We know, of course, how the story ends. Trig, diagnosed in utero with Down syndrome, was born just months before his mother’s vice presidential run.

Coast-To-Coast AM

About 60 million white evangelicals live in America, and about one third of them believe that the world will end in their lifetime, according to the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Broadly speaking, these Christians subscribe to a theology called “premillennial dispensationalism.” In this world view, they are warriors on the side of God: a cosmic battle—culminating in apocalypse, judgment, and, finally, the reign of Jesus in “a new heaven and a new earth”—will come soon. The most determined of these believers mine the Book of Revelation for signs that the end is near. A text of terrifying and mysterious prophesy, Revelation forecasts the apocalypse in coded language; Christians have spent lifetimes trying to break that code by correlating its verses to current events. (A New York minister named William Miller used Revelation and other sources to predict that the world would end on Oct. 22, 1844. He had previously predicted—wrongly, obviously—that the date would be March 21, 1843. The Millerites, once a powerful and fast-growing sect, quickly became extinct.)

Visit ColbertNation.com or watch the clip below:

This decisive action against one nun in one ethically murky case comes as an “apostolic visitation,” or investigation, of all of America’s 60,000 religious sisters is underway. Its purpose is unclear, though the man who ordered it, Cardinal Franc Rode, is well known for his views about “irregularities” in post–Vatican II religious life. “You could say,” he told a radio interviewer last year, that the investigation “involves a certain secular mentality that has spread in these religious families, and perhaps also a certain feminist spirit.” Anxious observers and commentators worry that, as a result of the inquiry, nuns will be forced to take steps backward—into the head coverings and habits, for example, that were made optional after the Second Vatican Council in 1965. They worry further that sisters who have worked more or less independently for decades will have their independence curtailed: the church has been known to remove teachers from their posts, for example, for teaching an insufficiently orthodox theology. With dioceses still hurting for cash due to settlements from the sex-abuse crisis, they worry that with the number of sisters dwindling in the West, real estate that has belonged to a religious community for generations will be sold or reappropriated by the diocese. At a time when the male leadership can be blamed for leading the church to a state of crisis—a time when the voices of women are needed more than ever—even the modest roles accorded to female clerics have come under attack. The specific reasons for the investigation are unclear (or, more probably, not public), but the suspicion, clearly, can be put in the crassest terms: too many American nuns have gone off the reservation.

Sixteen million Americans practice yoga, according to Yoga Journal, and in 2008 we spent nearly $6 billion on classes and stretch pants. Yet aside from “om” and the occasional “namaste,” Americans rarely acknowledge that yoga is, at its foundation, an ancient Hindu religious practice, the goal of which is to achieve spiritual liberation by joining one’s soul to the essence of the divine. In its American version, yoga is a mishmash: Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, 12-step rhetoric, self-help philosophies, cleansing diets, exercise, physical therapy, and massage. Its Hindu roots are obliterated by the modern infatuation with all things Eastern—and by our growing predilection for spiritual practices stripped of the sectarian burdens of religion. Americans’ naive but characteristic conflation of Eastern religions isn’t new; in 1845 Ralph Waldo Emerson called the Bhagavad-Gita (which is Hindu scripture) “the much renowned book of Buddhism.”

What can possibly be new about Heaven? After all, we’re talking about the universal hope of an afterlife. Among the hot nuggets identified by the Washington Post in recommending Lisa Miller’s new book is this news: Growing numbers of Americans appear to be looking toward Heaven as a real-life destination these days. Why? Well, we asked Lisa about this finding.

This book is a terrific discussion-starter for small groups—and it is unusual among new books on religion because of its religious diversity. That’s because Lisa Miller is Newsweek’s religion editor and approaches this subject as a journalist wanting to hear from many different points of view. Everyone has something to say about heaven, no matter what your personal approach to faith.

DAVID: You present some fascinating data showing that we’ve moved from roughly 7 in 10 Americans believing in heaven in the 1990s—to 8 in 10 who believe, now, a decade later. Your book explores this huge fascination in about 300 pages, but can you explain briefly why you think our belief is growing right now?

LISA: In 1997, Time magazine did a story and found that 72 percent of people believed in heaven. I think that period in the 1990s was the height of our arrogance and material prosperity as a nation. When things are good on earth—and I mean really good—I think the need for heaven wanes. And when things get hard again, the need for heaven becomes much more acute. I think 9/11 is a border we’ve crossed. It is a border in my own psyche and I think that’s true for a lot of people. Things started getting really hard after 9/11 and the threat of terrorism now feels constant. You add that to the crash of the economy, unemployment, people losing their homes, then add in the wars abroad that seem unresolvable, conflicts in the Middle East that seem more and more volatile, then think about the aging of our population—all of these things combine to make us think we’re not on the upward part of the curve anymore. Heaven is an important idea when people are feeling under threat or in need of consolation and hope.