Rosie compares Christians to radical Islam
Again, I hate to give extra exposure to another Hollywood idiot, but Rosie O'Donnel has gone too far. Rarely does she actually contribute anything to a conversation that could be considered enlightening and constructive. She seems to feel that Christianity is just as big a threat a radical Islam.
Either she just doesn't know her current events, or she just hates Christianity.
If she paid attention to the world, she'd know that radical Islam beheads people who don't join their religion. She'd know that they would slit her throat for saying something like this about their religion. She'd know that, as a woman, she'd be oppressed and forced to submit to the will of men. She'd know that they would kill her simply because she was a lesbian.
But, honestly, I think she does know these things. I think this statement is nothing more than an expression of her hatred of Christianity. Rosie is one of these ultra-progressive ultra-liberal freedom gluttons who hates those that would impose any kind of restriction on her extreme freedom, and Christians fit that mold with our 'rules' about obeying God's law. That's all this is.
My advice to Rosie: Live in a Muslim country for one week, then come home and complain about us.
By the way, the critics are calling Sean Penn's movie a bomb. Maybe he could get a job on The View.
5 comments:
Re:
"Rosie compares Christians to radical Islam."
I don't know much about Rosie and this is not a defense of her in general, but what she clearly said at the GOP (there's a clue right there) site you reference is:
"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam"
She also said, according to your source, two factual statements. We ARE bombing innocent people in another country and we HAVE killed innocent people.
It doesn't help our case when we change the words and meanings of what those we disagree with said. Again, I don't know Rosie (I don't watch TV much and don't follow the Hollywood crowd), but I am so VERY tired of my fellow citizens - and especially other people of faith - misrepresenting statements.
If you want to disagree with what Rosie or I or anyone else says, fine. But don't twist their words and argue against some strawman. It is beneath us as adults and especially as people of faith.
Twist their words? Dan, your comment is a perfect example of how we've failed as a culture to protect our culture. What Rosie said was indefensible, and yet instead of commenting on her outrageous words you decide to attack me for attacking her. Why? Because she shares your political opinion? Because she's gay?
I did NOT misrepresent a damn thing about her. She DID compare Christianity to Islam, and just because I didn't use the word "radical" doesn't mean I misrepresented her. I didn't use that word because it doesn't matter, even radical Christians wouldn't CUT HER HEAD OFF for disagreeing with their religion.
So instead of attacking me, how about saying something about the topic at hand? How about commenting on what Rosie said? Either you agree with her or you disagree, but she DID say it and I did NOT misrepresent her.
No. She compared "radical Christianity" to radical Islam. While I consider myself a radical Christian, I'm fairly confident that what she meant by that was not my type of radical christians but the more dangerous type. The ones who want to impose their views on others. The ones who believe in deadly violence-as-solution.
And I, too, think there are comparisons between that sort of "christian" and the terrorist sort of "muslims."
There is a big difference between saying she the two terms "radical Christian" and "Christian." I'd disagree with one and am sympathetic to the other. As I think a large number of people around the world.
I wasn't attacking you, merely expressing my desire to see folk not set up strawmen. It happens all the time - left, right and in between - and does great harm to communication. I'm just trying to get folk to realize it and be more accurate when they're talking.
And I did say that I agreed with her about her two factual statements about the killing we're doing. Bush's method of fighting terrorism is having the opposite effect, the majority of us around the world and in the US believe, and we think other methods would be wiser.
And, as I've just outlined here, I suspect that Rosie isn't attacking my sort of radical christian, but the dangerous sort. This, I agree with.
I do watch The View a few days a week when I don't have early classes, and I did happen to see this episode. In the context of the argument and in the context of the rest of her statement, I believe that her statement didn't mean that Christians cut people's heads off, but rather that our country may face it's downfall because radical Christians are trying to impose their views in government and legislation, which clearly violates the constitution. Islam is obviously threatening in a much more physical and violent way, but in the context of the conversation I don't believe that she meant they were comparable on that level--just by what their affect may be on the structure of the United States.
I understand that she's an easy target. I have always been a fan of her for several reasons but I suppose that because she IS gay and because she IS a woman speaking her opinion and because her opinions happen to be more liberal than that of your own, she's an easy target. The fact of the matter is that liberals on talk shows aren't killing anyone or at war with anyone. I don't know of any celebrities who are radical terrorists, but maybe I missed something. If you're going to be angry at anyone or badmouth anyone, it would make more sense to save it for those who actually make decisions that matter or those who actually do the killing. I'd say they are much more at fault for the state of our world than Rosie O'Donnell.
Allison,
I respect your opinion and understand what you are saying, but you are way off. First, I recommend you read the Constitution. No where does it say that we shouldn't allow our Christian foundation to have a role in how we govern. "Separation of Church and State" is a fabrication of what the Constitution actually says about religion in government.
It was radical Christians who founded America, wrote the Constitution, fought for and won her independence. It's radical Christians who follow the example of Mother Teresa in missionary work, providing medical care, food, humanitarian aid and basic life necessities to those in need. It's radical Christians that are fighting hard to protect America and the Christian heritage on which she was founded, and which had kept her strong in her first 150 years of existence.
Only in the past 50 years, a time period in which the radical Christians have been demonized by the likes of you and Rosie and others, has America grown weaker...mainly because America has strayed from the principles on which she was founded. Radical Christians aren't a THREAT to America, madam. No, they are America's only hope.
But even if you don't agree with that, neither you nor Rosie have ANY basis to compare Christians, radical or otherwise, to the radical Islam sect that dominates the headlines every day. It's unfair and deceitful.
You may advocate disassociating Christian principle from our government, but to do so effectively ignores our history and threatens to establish a government free of moral fiber. Is that the government you want? No, Christianity is not the only religion with moral fiber, but you argue for NO religion in government. If you take away religion, do you not risk losing morality?
Be careful what you wish for.
Post a Comment