She's talking about right now. She's talking about the 21st century. Well, is she right? And really, shouldn't she apologize?
For the latest pictures from the religion of peace head over to out to Michelle Malkin.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Well...Is She Right? Is Fundamental Christianity as Dangerous as Radical Islamofascism?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
32 comments:
While inflammatory, that's her opinion. Why do you expect that she apologize?
You made comments not two days ago defaming the left, stating in your opinion that they care not about fighting terrorism. That statement to me is just as inflammatory, yet we don't hear your apologies...nor ask for them.
Why don't you make a list for us as to who is allowed to have an opinion, so we can issue our apology demands in advance to save some time.
btw, I'd expect a little more responsibility of a political leader in this area...but this is Rosie O'Donnell we are talking about here. Don't sweat it..she's going to hell anyway, right?
She's right. She essentially said what Jimmy Carter said a few weeks ago, and what you posted to this blog.
One man's "fundamental" is another's "radical". When one sees things in terms of black or white, or good or evil, without having wiggle room for disagreement, that's radical in my opinion.
And you don't have to be a fundamentalist to be religious. I certainly don't think that just because someone is Christian, Catholic, Muslim, Buddhist, or whatever, that there's no middle ground. Most people have good perspectives and embrace some middle ground Some don't.
So yeah, I think she's pretty much correct.
Big difference here. While we have had and still have groups like the Klan, skinheads and even morons like Fred Phelp's group, show me where any of the far right Christian groups have strapped bombs on women or children and walked into clubs, shopping centers or wedding receptions.
Groups like the Klan and such were stripped of their heavy handed grip over others by other Christians, we reduced them to insignificant radicals on our own.
I would love to see Muslim groups stand up and either fight the terrorists or point them out from within their communities. We need their help and if they ever give it, public perception of Islam may just well improve.
As for Rosie, it might be her opinion, but it is obviously a very uninformed opinion. Then again, she isn't considered very high on the intelligence quotient anyways. ;)
There is a stunning level of rationalization and moral equivalence at work in someone who could say something so patently ridiculous. What are the statistics on radical Christian terrorist attacks? I honestly don't know, but I can guess what they might say. I grew up in "the buckle of the Bible Belt," as Travis Tritt would say, and in thirty of my thirty-four years I never met anyone who supported the wholesale slaughter of nonbelievers. I don't know any Christians who approve of methods such as suicide bombers in city buses or rocket attacks on homes - and I know a LOT of Christians.
Whole Lotta Rosie's comment, to me, is less offensive than it is utterly absurd. She is not that stupid, so she must either be so willfully ignorant that she can't comprehend the difference, or a liar who knows better.
"I would love to see Muslim groups stand up and either fight the terrorists or point them out from within their communities."
Easy for a white man in a majority Christian county to say. You can't fault a community for remaining silent in fear of their's and their families lives everyday, living amongst these radical killers. Also, you should not fault an entire religion by the acts of a small sect associated with it.
If you are talking about groups or individuals who are Muslim in the United States, I advise you look around a bit before shooting off the hip.
Aside of all that, where's the need for these "soap opera" posts when we could be talking about more relative matters like why we were not allowed to fire upon a crowd of known Taliban at a funeral?
r,
You are assuming that they are living in fear. It is equally reasonable to assume that they agree/support the Radial groups.
Case in point on 9/11 the Palestinians danced in the streets and exchanged candy in celebration.
Lew makes some good points. I think a lot of the "restraint" on the hardcore Christian side (as opposed to Middle Eastern Islam) is that we have a strong governmental structure to keep that sort of thing in check. I gotta believe that if given the opportunity, Pat Robertson would do (or at least advocate) some horrible things, but he knows he can't in this political environment. Gut feeling. I could be wrong (and hope I am, actually).
What about, as an example, John Salvi? He walked into an abortion clinic in Brookline, MA, many years ago and opened fire on the workers and patients there. It's an example from memory - I don't know if he was a "fundamental Christian" or not, but if I had to guess, he probably shared at least a few of the same beliefs.
Anyway, I amend my agreement with Rosie O'Donnell to a point based on Lew's comments. But I do think that trying to "deal with" (via argument and debate, nothing sinister) fundamentalist Christians is similar to trying to deal with radical Muslims. Both seem to be like speaking to brick walls at times.
iknow,
While talking to some fundamentalist Christians may be akind to talking to a wall. I disagree that talking to radical Muslims are akind to talking to a brick wall. Brick walls do not attempt to saw one's head off with a knife.
iknow - When 'engaging' a fundamentalist Christian, you don't have to begin by asking that he not advocate your murder. It is different, and fundamentally so.
Brick walls do not attempt to saw one's head off with a knife.
Nah, Christians just waterboard 'em. The Communists we fought a generation ago would be jealous.
Again, in my first post, I said she was "pretty much" correct, and I give Lew much credit for introducing the topic of violence into the discussion, because my initial response was more or less in regard to trying to create bonds with those who disagree socially or politically.
An honest question for anyone who wants to answer: Yassir Arafat. Muslim, or Radical Islamofascist?
thefifth,
There is a degree of difference between waterboard and sawing someone's head off, yet you seek to make a moral equivalence between the two.
There is no equvalance between the two actions. The radical muslam sawing your head off is making a statement with your death. Whereas waterboarding is used to obtain information to prevent deaths and is not intended to kill.
...yet you seek to make a moral equivalence between the two.
Absolutely. Americans don't torture. And they sure as hell don't condone it. There will come a time when images (video?) of our "unnamed techniques" will come to light and the administration, which seeks to legitimize, such activity will be called to account. This is NOT what we stand for and when the public sees it they will, and should, recoil in shock. Is it as bad as sawing heads off? No. And in no way do I believe that even on our worst day we're as bad as these thugs. But we're WAY better than this.
R, your verbiage was wasted. Nowhere will you find me condemning the entire religion of Islam. If anything, and I have stated here before, I support their right to believe as they see fit, so long as they don't force it on others.
My comment was more directed at the outrage over Bush saying "Islamic Fascists," a name clearly meant to separate the terrorists from mainstream Islam.
As for the funeral incident, had our troops actually bombed it, ow fast would you and others been condemning Bush for hitting a funeral? I bet it would have been micro-seconds.
Rosie and her ilk are always wrong. What a joke she is and the TV show "THE VIEW". The View might as well be on AIR AMERIKA.
"I support their right to believe as they see fit, so long as they don't force it on others."
That's what makes America great.
"ow fast would you and others been condemning Bush for hitting a funeral?"
1. What does Bush have to do with it?
2. You've applied a generalization to my position, before you've even heard what it is.
3. Your clarification as to exactly who in the Muslim community you were talking about is noted. Thanks.
3. You forgot the "h" in how.
1. What does Bush have to do with it?
Everytime anything happens, it has been Bush being castigated. Why would this be any different?
2. You've applied a generalization to my position, before you've even heard what it is.
Only from experience of reading. Did you miss the "and others?"
3. Your clarification as to exactly who in the Muslim community you were talking about is noted. Thanks.
That is why I was dismayed as to the objections of the use of "Islamic Fascists." I prefer Islamofascists, but the point is that thet wo need to be shown separate. Too many condemn all of Islam as well as people Like Rosie seem to have condemned all of Christianity over this. Either is wrong in my book.
3. You forgot the "h" in how.
Deliberate, just to see if you would catch it ;)
Truth be known, I had just washed my fingers and couldn't do a thing with them :)
Iknow: How many Christians, Catholics (and most Catholics are Christians, or at least profess to be), Buddhists, or sane Muslims strap on bombs and go out to kill as many women and children as they can? Of course, it goes without saying that there are many insane muslims who do that every day.
And surely you aren't putting any stock in much of anything that Jimmy Carter has to say, are you?
Please, Scottie, re-read EVERYTHING above, then post. Don't shoot first and ask questions later.
"An honest question for anyone who wants to answer: Yassir Arafat. Muslim, or Radical Islamofascist?"
You mean, the man who perfected the fine art of skyjacking? The forefather of modern Islamic terrorism? The man who left "Palestine" the steaming mess that it is, whose Fatah party was so corrupt that Hamas looked like a better option? The man who almost single-handedly introduced the word 'suicide bomber' to the lexicon?
You figure it out. In hindsight, I'm surprised that I even dignified such a ridiculous question with this response.
No, it's a serious question for debate. Here's my point:
If he was an "Islamofascist" and advocated murder of any non-Muslim, why did he bother sitting down to talks during the Clinton administration? The results of the talks are not the point - it's the fact that he was there at all. Based on this, was he an "Islamofascist"?
I'm not "taking his side" or advocating anything of the like, I just want to know, based on how people define "Islamofascism", was he one of them?
Or, was he a Muslim who put Muslim interests first on his political agenda? He was no saint. He did despicable things at times. But toward the end of his life, did he make any efforts that might disqualify himself as an "Islamofascist"?
That's an honest question, I think. And I don't know if there's a right or wrong answer. I just think it would be an interesting discussion point.
That's all :)
He was a man who blew up his [civilian] enemies in the name of his God, and played bait-and-switch with his enemy by sitting down to a table of diplomacy without calling off his suicide brigades.
THE KILLING NEVER STOPPED WHETHER HE WAS IN NEGOTIATIONS OR NOT.
I cannot believe that I must explain to any thinking person why Yassir Arafat was a bad guy.
I didn't say he was a nice guy.
OK, so that's apparently one checkmark in the "Arafat was an Islamofascist" column.
Anyone else?
I find it funny (in a sick and disgusted, but not surprised way), that you, Victoria, are demanding an apology from someone who has equated the entirety of one religion with that of another based on a narrow, stereotypical perspective. When all the while you are pushing a similar, narrow minded stereotypical view on that of another religion.
Guess what...you are no different than Rosie. In fact, you may be more ruthless, as she limited her opinion to a equation within the ideology of fundamentalism between two different religions.
By appearances of your latest update to this post, you would have everyone believe the entire religion of Islam is a part of what you call "Islamofascism ."
You are truly disturbing, ignorant, and just plain wrong.
iknow, to your question about Yasser Arafat, Muslim or Islamofascist.
In my opinion, defintiely an Islamofascist. Yes, he did "set down for talks" during the Clinton administration, but to what avail? Suicide attacks against Israel did not stop nor did any other terrorist activity, it escalated.
The only talks it seems between Israel and others that may be holding (at least for now) would be with Egypt.
Arafat may have publicly rejected terrorist activity after the talks with Clinton and Israel, but there is suspicion that it was all for show.
In 1974 he appeared before the UN saying, "bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter's gun". He asked them, "Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand."
For a look at the history of the conflict: Israeli Palestinian Conflict History
Don't eat "ORGANIC" spinach. I know this is off the topic but it needs to be said. Don't eat Organiccccccccccc anything. The Left has been pushing this Organic crap on the USA for a while now.. Organic is made from "Manure". Minus a couple of Western States notice that the Breakouts of E-COLI is a map of Liberal Blue States from the Organic Spinach. Take your pick of Death, Cancer from Pesticide produced Foods or E-coli from Organic crap. Organic was popular 100 years ago but people died at 35 years of age or less. At least people are living longer with pesticide foods. Also notice The Liberal Lamestream Media won't use the Word "ORGANIC" when it comes to this current Breakout of E-coli, except for Foxnews.
Ps Don't eat Free Range chicken Eggs also.
Interesting editorial by Bret Stephens in today's Wall Street Journal. He wonders why the left can't accept the gravity of the threat from radical Islam, when the things it despises most - homosexuality, women's rights, free expression - are the crown jewels of American liberalism.
In that light, I wonder if Rosie sees the accidental wisdom in her statement: both groups oppose many things she stands for, but only one is actively seeking her destruction with guns and bombs. The other group, paradoxically, composes many of the very US troops who are fighting to protect her right to be an idiot in public.
As Stephens' essay puts it, describing a New York liberal who had an epiphany on September 11, "Maybe she understood that those F-16s overhead--likely manned by pilots who went to church on Sunday and voted the straight GOP ticket--were being flown above all for her defense, at the outer cultural perimeter of everything that America's political order permits."
Pretty lengthy, but well written essay by the late Oriana Fallaci written after 9/11.
Rage & Pride
Rosie ran her mouth long before her brain was in gear. She will not apologize to the fundamentalist Christians, because, first because she probably thinks she is right, second because apology is not in her nature nor her vocabulary, and third, because she really isn't smart enough to realize what she said was just plain stupid.
There is a huge difference between fundamentalist Christians and the radical Islamo-fascists.
1. You can insult the fundamentalist Christians and they will "turn the other cheek" and offer to "pray for you".
2. You can say anything the Islamo-fascists think is an insult and they will kill you.
The Pope quoted something that was written some 500 years ago that was said against Mohammed. Now the "Religion of Peace" is rioting and has killed at least one person and are threatening to kill the Pope. Apparently the word "peace" has a much different definition to the Islamo-fascists than it does to just about everyone else in the civilized world.
Does anyone think that Rosie knows that? I didn't think so.
I agree with Rosie,
The idea that she and her lover cannot marry each other (but can still live together and raise children - NOT allowed by Isalm) is just as dangerous as beheading infidels.
The fact that her opinions are heard, but not always agreed with, is just as dangerous as women being treated as chattel (or beheaded as infidels).
Teaching children to love their G-d and embrace their religion as well as other's and to be accepting, well, that is just as dangerous as strapping bombs on them and blowing up - the infidels.
Note to Rosie:
You had better be thankful that this country provides you with a forum to express these ridiculous, unthinking notions. As a matter of fact, as an Army vet, you can be thankful to me.
hadas
you lost me on this one!
other than your note to rosie say what?
TNR:
It is Extreme (or if you prefer - radical) Sarcasm.
Post a Comment