Rosie O'Donnell: "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam..."

[wentworth]

Re: Rosie O'Donnell: "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam...

If the radical right-wing christians, who are Bush's biggest backers, had their way, we would have been sent to the gas chambers by now. I wouldn't call that "christian" love. This country was established on the principle of separation of church and state. Yes, the radical right-wing christians would like to establish a theocracy, "a christian nation". Just like the radical muslims created their theocracies.

That's hilarious! You must be on Mars.

 

[wentworth]

Re: Rosie O'Donnell: "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam...

I agree with Rosie on the Radical Christianity.. Has anyone ever heard of The Reverend Fred Phelps.

Yes. He has killed noone. Try that in Yemen, see what it's like to be gay.

 

[wentworth]

Oh and of course, GWB doesn't have an equally big mouth and equally extremist views?

I worry just a little bit more when the POTUS expresses all kinds of extreme views and he actually has a rather large fan club that would cheer him enthusiastically even if he stood up there and insulted them for a couple of hours.

Rosie is just a morning talkshow host. She doesn't have her finger on the nuke button. Have you listened to one of Bush's speeches lately? The man has completely lost it!

No he doesn't. Geore Bush isn't half as extreme as Rosie.

 

[NickCole]

No he doesn't. Geore Bush isn't half as extreme as Rosie.

George Bush started an unnecessary war that's responsible for killing tens of thousands of people and costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, to say nothing of now trying to make torture a Congressionally-approved activity on the part of the United States.

That's slightly more extreme than expressing an opinion on a morning talk show.

 

[NickCole]

I say good for Rosie O'Donnell for speaking her mind.

Radical, fundamentalist, interpretation of Christianity is, indeed, just as threatening as radical fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

Radical fundamentalist Christians have been terrorizing gays and women who seek abortions (and the professionals who provide them) for years. Just because they haven't flown planes into buildings doesn't make their terrorism any less threatening. When you're a doctor who works at a clinic performing abortions, it doesn't matter if you are harmed by a fundamentalist Christian with a gun or a fundamentalist Muslim with a plane. Dead is dead no matter how the religious fundamentalist accomplished it.

 

[wentworth]

I say good for Rosie O'Donnell for speaking her mind.

Radical, fundamentalist, interpretation of Christianity is, indeed, just as threatening as radical fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

Radical fundamentalist Christians have been terrorizing gays and women who seek abortions (and the professionals who provide them) for years. Just because they haven't flown planes into buildings doesn't make their terrorism any less threatening. When you're a doctor who works at a clinic performing abortions, it doesn't matter if you are harmed by a fundamentalist Christian with a gun or a fundamentalist Muslim with a plane. Dead is dead no matter how the religious fundamentalist accomplished it.

It's not the act of expressing her opinon that's extreme--it's the opinion itself.

Sure, abortion clinic radicalism is "rampant". Hahah...
Let me tell you something:

Hold Gay Pride in Jeddah and see what will happen to you.

Go have an abortion, and you're lucky if you meet some grandmothers saying the rosary (although considering your warped attitude toward Christianity, you probably are as terrified of the rosary as you are of a beheading. That is not normal by the way).

Alfs, boy!
As for Fred Phelps, he is an easy bogeyman for people with an agenda. He hates America (something you may possibly know just a little about; haaha...j/k) and is a Democrat to boot (as far as I know, to this day).
So get off your high horse, you don't get any points for mentioning Phelps--sorry! He's a whackjob.

 

[NickCole]

It's not the act of expressing her opinon that's extreme--it's the opinion itself.

The opinion that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry and that out-of-the closet gays shouldn't be allowed to join the military is an extreme opinion because there's proof that allowing both those things is not harmful to society or a military. That's extreme opinion.

Noting that radical Christians can be as threatening as radical Muslims is barely a blip on the extreme meter. O'Donnell specifically qualified her comment with "radical." Anybody who uses religion to justify hatred, which religious fundamentalists do, is a potential threat.

... you probably are as terrified of the rosary as you are of a beheading. That is not normal by the way).

Making up something, totally without foundation in anything I've said, that you claim terrifies me and then announcing that it's not normal is a typical BushRepublican smear device. Dishonest and nasty; what an achievement.

 

[springboksfan]

Re: Rosie O'Donnell: "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam...

Gentlemen, I will remind you all once to keep this thread on-topic and keep clear of personal insults. This is a conversation worth having. Let's have it without resorting to poor manners.

 

[NickCole]

Re: Rosie O'Donnell: "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam...

Gentlemen, I will remind you all once to keep this thread on-topic and keep clear of personal insults. This is a conversation worth having. Let's have it without resorting to poor manners.

I love you my friend but censorship really irks me.

And while civility is always something admirable to strive for, good manners are for the dinner table, not political discussion. Never more apt than in this thread because, much as I agree with Rosie O'Donnell's comment, it sure was insulting and, to many, seemed very poor manners!

That's my opinion.

 

[springboksfan]

Nick, there has been no censorship in this thread as yet. And I resent the implication that doing my job is censoring anyone. The rules are clearly stated. If someone breaks them, they are the bad guy, not Snapcat or me. My post was in reference to earlier personal attack-laden posts in this thread--still intact, by the way. You're welcome to search them out. Occasionally, we need to be reminded to show respect to each other. That was the point of my above post.

 

[jkirk3000]

I can't believe some of what I've read here. We even have a moderator chipping in with: "Go Rosie! Go Rosie!

What she said is absolutely correct, like it or not."

She is absolutely incorrect. Where do you see Priests preaching from their pulpit to kill all the "fill in the blanks"? Where do you see a radicalized movement arming soldiers and carrying out terrorist acts against civilians world wide? Has Christianity in any form declared war on anybody?

From time to time, we have a lunatic individual of the Christian faith commit some heinous crime such as attacking an abortion clinic. We also saw this with a Muslim individual attacking a Jewish Federation in Seattle. While both these types of acts are reprehensible and represent a certain amount of terrorism, they are not part of a world movement of either radical Christianity nor Radical Islam.

Here's one of those inconvenient facts that Rosie either chooses to ignore or refuses to believe. There is a radical segment in Islam that is bent on the destruction of Israel, the US and the West as we know it. While they represent the minority in their faith, they are hellbent on imposing there will upon the world using whatever means is necessary, including violence.

The "radical Christians" preach about abortion, gay rights, etc by using their rights of free speech. They do not have armed militias, and do not advocate overthrowing or enslaving anyone. We can choose to ignore their words and democratically avoid the choices they wish to impose upon us. The same can not be said for radical extremists killing in the name of Islam. Since they wish to kill us or change our way of life, and consider that is their calling in life, the only way to overcome them is to defeat them on the battlefront and with our ideas.

I don't know what Rosie's problem is, but drawing a moral equivalency between those that would kill innocent men, women and children to those that preach about abortion & gay rights from a pulpit clearly shows to me that she has no credibility, and should stop smoking whatever she's got in that pipe.

 

[prudyprudestein]

Rosie is right to speak out. Elizabeth certainly spouts her views. The view is about presenting viewpoints from different individuals. Yes she is a loud mouth and at times offensive. Then again the United States is supposed to have free speech.

Any extremist group is dangerous regardless of affliation. Fundamentalist Christians have expoused their views for too long a time with out others speaking out against them strongly. Fundies do not represent most christians. Neither do the Islamic findamentalist represent the views of most muslims.

I am a christian and an american but this current regime does not represent what I believe as a christian not as a american. We didn't get the man responsible for the 9/11 attacks who is hiding out in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The President decided to settle for going after Sadam. Didn't his dad have chanceto do that years ago? Seems like it might be his personal vendetta.

Rosie and others need to speak out against the radical elements. We need to return the government back to a more moderate one.

 

[NickCole]

Nick, there has been no censorship in this thread as yet. And I resent the implication that doing my job is censoring anyone.

I'm sorry that what I said bothered you; last thing I'd want to do is anything you'd resent -- you know I adore you and, more than that, respect you.

I just think everybody ought to be able to express him/herself the way they want, even if that includes some insulting remarks. That's my opinion but you're the moderator, not I, and you know I'll follow the guidelines however they're interpreted by the mods.

 

[springboksfan]

Re: Rosie O'Donnell: "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam...

I can't believe some of what I've read here. We even have a moderator chipping in with: "Go Rosie! Go Rosie!

What she said is absolutely correct, like it or not."

First, don't give my opinion any more weight than anyone else's simply because of the bold blue title under my name.

Second, Rosie said that radical Christianity is as much of a thread in America as radical Islam. She is absolutely correct. Any and all fundamentalist religions that show no tolerance for differing views is dangerous. Witness Katherine Harris and her conviction that only Christians--her view of what comprises a Christian, mind you--should be elected to Congress. Witness George W Bush and his "crusade" against the "axis of evil." Witness Fred Phelps and his crusade against faggotry. Witness the "Christian soldier" who shoots and kills abortion providers because it is "God's will." Witness Andrea Yates. Witness any bigoted person who believes himself superior simply because he considers himself a "Christian," one of the "chosen ones," the "true believers" and acts accordingly.

Third, Rosie is once again correct in that the United States has invaded two sovereign nations in an un-winnable "war on terror." Meanwhile, the Bush Administration is routinely using terror-inducing techniques to squelch any resistance to their agenda and message. How many times did that little colour-coded warning thing change colors before the 2004 elections? How many since? (And does anyone even pay attention to it anymore? Why haven't blue or green ever been used?) Bush and his minions harp constantly on how much we're all still at risk for another terror strike on our soil--yet, no real evidence has been presented to confirm those talking points (can't count the recent British airline debacle--that would have occurred over the Atlantic, thus not on American soil).

Fourth, Rosie is--must I repeat myself again? apparently, yes--correct again in that the American invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Is that payback enough for our own 3000 dead? Oh, of course killing all those civilians wasn't intentional. They're "expendable losses and collateral damage" sustained in a war. They're to be expected but not mourned over. Interesting. It would appear the Osama bin-Laden would consider himself at war with the United States. Therefore, our 3000 dead are nothing more than "expendable losses and collateral damage."

You see, for every argument and action, there are three sides. Your perspective, that of the other person, and the objective truth. Unfortunately, this is one of those situations where the objective truth is ignored by everyone.

She is absolutely incorrect. Where do you see Priests preaching from their pulpit to kill all the "fill in the blanks"? Where do you see a radicalized movement arming soldiers and carrying out terrorist acts against civilians world wide? Has Christianity in any form declared war on anybody?

Current Christian doctrine is much more subtle than "kill all the infidels." Yet, it wasn't so long ago that the Requiremento of the Spanish Conquistadors was given full support by the Pope. How long ago were witches, adulterers, etc., burned at the stake? As for the Church declaring "war on anybody" need I remind you of the Crusades? That was actual warfare, but are many other examples of "warfare" by the Church. However, I think my point is made already.

There is a radical segment in Islam that is bent on the destruction of Israel, the US and the West as we know it. While they represent the minority in their faith, they are hellbent on imposing there will upon the world using whatever means is necessary, including violence.

Can you honestly say there is not a mirror segment in the West that desires the destruction of Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and all things Muslim, etc? "Christian soldiers" are simply more subtle, eg. "Missions" instead of "Crusades."

Since they wish to kill us or change our way of life, and consider that is their calling in life, the only way to overcome them is to defeat them on the battlefront and with our ideas.

A little paranoid, don't you think? I know many more peace-loving Muslims than radical ones, just as I know many more peace-loving Christians than radical ones. You're buying into the propaganda Bush has been catapulting. Open your eyes. Learn on your own. Research. Read your history. Expand your mind.

I don't know what Rosie's problem is, but drawing a moral equivalency between those that would kill innocent men, women and children to those that preach about abortion & gay rights from a pulpit clearly shows to me that she has no credibility, and should stop smoking whatever she's got in that pipe.

Clearly, you're still taking only the best of what you believe and juxtaposing it against the worst of what you fear. Try a little intellectual honesty instead of repeating the Republican talking points. Take an anthropology and/or history class.

Now, ahem, as I said before, "Go Rosie!"

 

[snapcat]

I can't believe some of what I've read here. We even have a moderator chipping in with: "Go Rosie! Go Rosie!

One does not give up the right to an opinion nor the chance to debate when one becomes a moderator. I think that should be very clear.

As for those of you that have tried to steer this discussion off-topic, be aware that our patience on matters such as this has been stretched a might thin. Either post your own thread on your own topic or please address your comments to the topic of this thread.

I don't care what your opinion is as long as it's germaine to this subject. And some of you need to reread post #1 and familiarize yourself with the topic of this thread.

Now, should anyone feel the compulsion to post off-topic in this thread after this point, don't be suprised to find your comments split off into a new thread or deleted. We've got room for as many threads on as many subjects as you guys want. There's no need to steer discussions off topic in this thread.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I don't understand what the fuss is about. Honestly.

We're talking about comments made on The View! Hellooooo?

The show is apparently doing so poorly that they had to invite Rosie O'Donnell on as a host to help boost the ratings?

I remember a time where there wasn't comment ONE that anyone here in CE&P would address concerning The View. Star Jones anyone?

As for Rosie being a "big ole dyke," I don't recall...as a gay man....out, active, and not ashamed by the way....of ever electing Rosie to speak for the whole of the Gay Community.

Okay, so some of you think what she said about "radical Christians" is extreme. At least someone is there buttressing some of the stupid assanine "go along to get along" shit that the other hosts on The View spit out everyday.

Frankly, it's not where I go to get the latest on politics.

Really, shouldn't this thread be moved to "entertainment?" Because it's sure been entertaining reading how much weight people are giving a host of The View!



Poor Rosie, look how far she's fallen. From having her own show, and magazine, to snipeing with dimwits on a morning show that only people without jobs, or who can't afford to pay for daycare can watch.

 

[Just_Believe18]

No she doesn't.

Only you.

Wrong.

http://www.afa.net/Petitions/Issuedetail.asp?id=214
This is from the American Family Assocation.

Before this thread was even posted, they've been on the rampage. Now they are organizing another boycott/apology demand on ABC. The point of this is to show that Rosie O'Donnel is inflamming and polarizing sides here. News stories have released information stating the average American is becoming more tolerant and accepting of homosexuals again.

But what happens, when you have organizations like these (who are constantly bashing homosexuals) finding justification through a public homosexual icon belching there is nothing different between "Radical Christians" and "Radical Muslims?" I'll tell you what happens. This is one more reason for anti-gay organizations like the American "Family" Assocation, to keep other Americans scared, threatened, and angry at homosexuals. In essence, we lose ground with legislators and voters. Its another setback for us all.

 

[OtterJoq]

Are you putting stock into something the AFA says?

Wow.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Wrong.

http://www.afa.net/Petitions/Issuedetail.asp?id=214
This is from the American Family Assocation.

Before this thread was even posted, they've been on the rampage. Now they are organizing another boycott/apology demand on ABC. The point of this is to show that Rosie O'Donnel is inflamming and polarizing sides here. News stories have released information stating the average American is becoming more tolerant and accepting of homosexuals again.

But what happens, when you have organizations like these (who are constantly bashing homosexuals) finding justification through a public homosexual icon belching there is nothing different between "Radical Christians" and "Radical Muslims?" I'll tell you what happens. This is one more reason for anti-gay organizations like the American "Family" Assocation, to keep other Americans scared, threatened, and angry at homosexuals. In essence, we lose ground with legislators and voters. Its another setback for us all.

Well hell, using that logic, as Gay Men and Lesbians, we should join the AFA.

But take it a step further and demand that Rosie be fired from The View.

Because it's obvious that whenever an openly gay celebrity makes a comment that's supports a point of view other than what the AFA believes in, they'll be attacked for their comments.

Maybe all of us should just stfu and go back into the closet!

The AFA is one of the leading "hate-groups" in America, and my experience with that group that we're damned of we do, and damned if we don't.

If losing ground with legislators and voters is a concern, then we need to bettter educate the voters that we don't all share the same views, and start electing legislators who give little if any credance to groups like the AFA.

 

[NickCole]

In essence, we lose ground with legislators and voters. Its another setback for us all.

I understand your point.

However.

The alternative is for gays to keep our mouths shut in fear that what we'll say could be used against us.

I don't believe that keeping silent about things we care about is the answer to anything -- but it's exactly what organizations like the American Family Assocation want.