Posted on 09/27/2006 9:38:30 AM PDT by 2banana
Sweet Rosie O'Donnell
September 25, 2006
By Glen McAdoo
It would appear that TV personality Rosie O'Donnell has created quite a storm with her remarks comparing radical Christianity with radical Islam. To quote her exactly, she said, "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country where we have separation of church and state."
One could defend Rosie if she had stopped there. She has plenty of supporters when it comes to defending this country against radical, and I stress radical, Christianity that would turn this democratic republic into a theocracy. But when she said the war in Afghanistan was a violent act against innocent people, she lost me. There was nothing innocent about the Taliban. They were up to their eyeballs in protecting and training those that were responsible for 9/11. She had a point about Iraq when she said we invaded a country that had nothing to do with the attack on us, and started a war that has killed many innocent people. I can't argue with her there.
Are radical Christians as violent as radical Muslims? Based on the sheer numbers there is no comparison. For every Eric Robert Rudolph, who bombed the Atlanta Olympics, there are thousands upon thousands of radical Muslims who believe violence is the only response to any situation. No wonder, since it is blessed by so many of their religious leaders. They think blowing themselves up, along with a bunch of "infidels," including women and children, is their free ticket to the great beyond. Boy, are they in for a shock.
What did they do when the pope called Islam a violent religion? They took to the streets and murdered innocent people. I guess they thought they would show us they're not violent by shooting a nun to death. It's total insanity. Absolutely crazy. Even the most radical Christians will not kill you for what you might say. At least I hope not. But, then again, there is Pat Robertson, who suggested we kill Chavez for speaking his mind, such as it is.
When it comes to violent behavior, if Rosie really believes Christians of today are as violent and aggressive as radical Muslims, she's off base. That's not to say a few radical Christians of today aren't as violent. I will refrain from naming the few I am aware of. If Rosie is comparing Christianity during the days of the crusades and inquisitions she has a point. History is not all that kind to Christians. Perhaps I should say self-proclaimed Christians.
I was listening the other day when some modern day philosophers on TV were talking about the civil war that has broken out in Iraq. They were talking about the violent nature of the war. Well, duh. We must understand something. The civil war in Iraq is not a war about religious doctrine. It is a political war, a struggle for power to control the country. We would never act that way for we are a Christian nation. Well, would we? Yes, we would.
We must not forget all the "Christians" that died at Shiloh or Gettysburg - Christians killing Christians, if you believed what each side was saying. About 220,000 died on the battlefields during that war and I'll bet nearly every darn one of them thought they were headed straight to the pearly gates. There were more than half a million casualties during our Civil War. Darn few, if any, were Muslims. What's that they say about those that forget the past are sure to repeat it? If you look at it from an historical view, Rosie is not far off.
There is a quote that has been attributed to a former president on the Web site "Tribe." I don't vouch for its veracity and I use it here only to demonstrate what I think is an opinion held by many radical Christians in this country. It goes like this: "I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
Scary? You bet. I think it is these kind of folks that Rosie and I believe are a threat to this democratic republic.
I could make a case that all Christians should be pacifists, because the Bible, as well as the Koran, is open to interpretation. Many Christians are pacifists. Are Christians or Muslims that kill others to promote their faith radicals? Of course they are. You don't convert people by killing them.
As for me, I am just an old sinner saved by grace and I won't go down without swinging, defending this country from radicals, whether they be Christians or Muslims, whether they be toting a gun or trying to change our Constitution to reflect their religious doctrine.
Comments that lead to discussion are healthy in a democracy such as ours, and many people make provocative statements. Thank God we are still free to do so. Rosie wasn't totally wrong, nor are her detractors.
Glen McAdoo can be reached at glynn@phonewave.net
I 'm off to the work , hve a fine day, stay safe.
That's because your a left-wing whore, Glen.
Wasting time responding to a mentally-deranged deviant is beneath your dignity.
Never happened ...
"First, for the record, I can't stand Rosie. Period. She makes me ill. That said, we still need to pray for our enemies. I consider her one of those enemies. On the other hand. She said "Radical Christians" not conservative christians or fundamentalist christians or devote christians. She compared Radicals to Radicals. I pose this thought by taking Rosie out of the equation: Don't RADICAL Christians blow up abortion clinics? Isn't that a lot like what the RADICAL Muslims are doing?"
I would view the abortionists as the radicals killing the innocents, which is what muslims do too--you seem a bit confused here in your comparison. Look at the numbers; millions killed by abortionists for profit versus two abortion clinics bombed--there seems to be a slight imbalance here. Abortionists are not innocent bystanders. I don't think you have to be a Christian to oppose killing innocent people.
Only to the ill informed, she does. The Crusades were called to stop the onslaught of islamic aggression and conquest of Christian lands, with the first goal being to drive into Jerusalem to retake the Holy Land, PERIOD.
The Spanish Inquistion was called after the Spanish finally threw off the yoke of 800 years of Moslem oppression, to flush out muslims who falsely converted to Christianity for the purpose of sedition, spying and causing internal unrest. Many, but not all, Jews were expelled because of their military alliance with Moslems in North Africa, where they fought together against Spanish troops. Even so, most the expelled Jews sailed to Rome and were welcomed by the Pope. It is now known by historians that only about 880 persons were actually exectuted by the Spanish Inquistion between 1540 and 1700; hardly the "millions of executions" we read about by the lying anti-Catholic revisionists.
The Turks in 1480 attacked the south Italian city of Otranto. 12,000 people were killed, the rest made slaves. The Turks killed every cleric in the city and sawed the archbishop in two. So Queen Isabel sent a fleet to Italy. In September of 1480, when it was clear the Turks might do the same to any coastal city, King Ferdinand V and Queen Isabella established the Inquisition. It dealt with the special problem of those who pretended to become Christians, but were not really converted, and might open the gates of the city to the Turks.
During this period the West was in danger of following the fate of Constantinople and falling under the sword of Islam. Indeed Protestant and Catholic princes joined forces against the threat and at one point the Turkish armies were at the gates of Vienna.
Otherwise, the modern nations of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia, 16 miles away from Spain, formed part of a vast imperial system established by the Muslim Turks, a system as powerful and menacing to western Europe as the Soviet bloc was conceived to be in our day.
It was under this threat that the Pope Sixtus IV authorized the Spanish Inquisition in 1478 if it should be needed. The kings of Spain, Isabella and Ferdinand, instituted it two years later. The specific threat that the Inquisition faced was the "conversos." Spain had been freed form Islamic control for only a few generations, after 800 years of oppression... and not completely, because Islam still ruled in Granada up to 1492.
The Spanish Inquisition was independent of the Medieval Inquisition. It was established by Ferdinand and Isabella with the reluctant approval of Sixtus IV. It was entirely controlled by the Spanish kings, and the pope's only hold over it was in naming the inquisitor general chosen by the kings. The popes were never reconciled to the institution, which they regarded as usurping a church prerogative.
Anyone that doesn't think Christians can be radical and dangerous should
check out the postings of the lunatic I've been debating who thinks we should execute all pot smokers. Just click on my user name below and then (in forum)
Here Here!!
Incredible post!
As the Bible says, "there is a season and a time for everything", (including war and tearing down). These are those times when Christians getting "radical and dangerous" is necessary for our survival. Christianity doesn't suppress the instinct to survive or make weaklings out of men; in fact St. Paul said: "we have no timid spirit".
The Christians of 1,000 years ago knew that going into islam to do battle with the Moslems in their own turf was going to be a huge uphill fight, but they did it with courage and conviction. All we need today is one half of the courage and conviction of our fore-runners, and islam will cease to exist as a danger to the world.
Rosie O'Donnel is a child who has never grown out of her lesbian need to trash moral values.
Ops4
Thank you for your service. President Karzai mentioned many of these things in response to some reporter's dumb question yesterday at the White House. Something like "Is Afghanistan better off now than it was before 9/11?" or something similarily stupid.
Amen -
Yeah, I should have posted a few more of the links debunking the story ... there were pages of them
Bogus Quote Link1
Bogus Quote Link2
Bogus Quote Link3
Bogus Quote Link4
This last one is interesting ... the original source of the printed report uses some pretty lame justifications for standing by the story.
Bogus Quote Link5
Excellent comments and thank you for your service.
Yes, I've found some that were well done with good opposing evidence, but others that were wordy with no evidence at all.
I think it's a mistake to trust the site without carefully reading the material. People tend to see that scopes link and assume that the topic has been debunked without checking it out.
As far as the Reno quote goes, I don't think she would have said it outright on national television, but other statements made when she was holding office in Florida and some while holding the office of US attorney general, which were definitely hers, I can quite believe she could have said something very close, or written such a thing in a memo or report.
The woman is sick, spiritually and mentally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.