Newsbusters and Mary Katharine Ham have the story of Rosie O’Donell’s incredible statements on The View yesterday. She not only does not see much difference between the threats posed by radical Christianity and radical Islam, but also does not realize that those in Afghanistan and Iraq have threatened the U.S. in the past
I did not see the show, but am not surprised. That program should always have been called “The Liberal View.” They added Elisabeth Hasselbeck a while back as the token conservative, but she rarely shows any evidence that she follows the political issues they discuss well enough to make any kind of convincing argument. Occasionally she does argue a pro-life position well, but the few times I have seen the show over the past few years, she has been vastly outnumbered and overpowered. Here is an excerpt from Newsbusters’ account of Rosie’s comments. Follow the links above for the rest, along with video.
O’Donnell saved her harshest comments for the war on terror. After Hasselbeck had the temerity to mention the threat of extreme Islam, Rosie responded with her slap at Christianity:
O’Donnell: “And just one second, radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America.”
This proved too much for even Behar. She replied, in a somewhat bewildered manner:
Behar: “But, but Christians are not threatening to kill us. There’s that difference. This group is threatening to kill us.”
Hasselbeck also appeared surprised by O’Donnell’s comment. She maintained, “We are not bombing ourselves here in the country.” The comedienne had a clever retort for this:
O’Donnell: “No, but we are bombing innocent people in other countries. True or false?”I wonder if ABC has gotten much reaction from viewers.
![Looks like duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck [Updated]](https://www.wizbangblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/colorado-shooting-suspect-1024x679-1-211x150.jpg "Looks like duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck [Updated]")
To shwade: Obviously that person is beyond repair. Now that is a fine example of radical Christianity.
To Synova: Whether or not a violent act is practiced in the Middle East has nothing to do with Islam really. Those people are OBVIOUSLY corrupt. They live in war torn areas that feed the hungry lies instead of food. Do you actually think all Muslims are like that? If so, that’s a complete shame.
Islam doesn’t preach any of these violent and/or unfair acts. Much of this is based entirely on cultural traditions and, again, has NOTHING to do with Islam.
A “mainstream” Islam does exist. The only reason why you haven’t noticed it is because it’s not radical. Simple as that.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
The John F. Kerry award for flip-flopping goes to…
Drumroll, please…
Doug!
Congratulations, Doug! I knew you had it in you. You managed to NEGATE YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!
How did you do that? Let me explain.
Doug Argument #1: “Please give us THE SPECIFICS of how this Administration has taken away all of these rights.”
The argument being that threats to our country shouldn’t be a concern until they have actually materialized. It should not be our concern that people like Cheney want to expand the government’s powers to spy on people to include domestic phone calls and emails, because they haven’t done it yet.
Doug Argument #2: “There are thousands of terrorists who are ready and willing…” and “If they are successful, our Constitution will be as valuable…” (emphasis mine)
The argument being that threats to our country should be a concern NOW, before they materialize.
So, to summarize, we should be concerned about threats, but not be concerned about them because nothing’s been done yet, but it could be and then it’s too late, but wait until it happens and stop complaining.
I’ll tell you what, Doug, why don’t you fix a nice glass of warm milk and sit in your den for a while thinking about which side of the argument you want to be on. Get back to me with your decision.
Thanks.
Synova,
Exactly which rights are you willing to give up in order to be “safer”?
Seriously, Freedom of Speech? Speaking out could aid the enemy. Freedom of Religion? You might be a crazy Muslim. Right to Bear Arms? You could shoot someone. Fourth Amendment? Fifth?
Which parts of The Constitution are superfluous? How about the right for women to vote? Do we really need that?
Which parts of our country are you willing to flush town the toilet just to assuage your own fears?
One more question, for the general populace:
My argument here has been that there is a threat to our country (specifically, our liberties) posed by the Christians in power. I even gave a few examples of how those people are (in my opinion) a real threat, more real than radical Islam.
So to all those who are pissing on themselves over the imminent demise of Western Civilization at the hands of Islamofascists, I ask this: How, exactly, would they destroy our country? Can anyone here, especially the few that seem to think I’m a fanatical Lib’rul wack-job, give a scenario in which Radical Islam would be able to destroy the US, and make “our Constitution … as valuable as piece of used Kleenex”? (Doug’s words)
Well…they could start having more children than we are, and converting more minorities in the prison systems. Not to mention the race mixing, and influencing of our younger children. -some of those Middle Eastern chicks are hot- and before you know it; we have muslim elected officials, because they just have the numbers to out vote us! And what do you think will come next? I will tell you what; BAM! No more constitution as we know it. It will be just a bunch of muslim men who probably owend slaves somewhere….wait, we had that already. But you know what I mean nihilistic, it would be just bad for every body.
I just can’t imagine a country where I can’t drink a Red Stripe now and then, drive a nice gas guzzler and chase big booty women. If radical Islam allows me to do those things, well then bring em on!!
ND said:
So to all those who are pissing on themselves over the imminent demise of Western Civilization at the hands of Islamofascists, I ask this: How, exactly, would they destroy our country? Can anyone here, especially the few that seem to think I’m a fanatical Lib’rul wack-job, give a scenario in which Radical Islam would be able to destroy the US, and make “our Constitution … as valuable as piece of used Kleenex”? (Doug’s words)
Me: Have you read Bruce Bawer’s While Europe Slept? Check out brucebawer.com and get back to me. He seems to think that Europe is in deep doo-doo already.
What? Don’t believe him? Wait a minute…. He’s not one of us (right-wing wack job)–he’s [gasp] a liberal! And… [double gasp] he’s actually lived in and reported from Europe! And… [oh no] he’s gay!!
[mega-sarcasm off]
So if you won’t listen to what he has to say, ND, then I guess you’re right–there’s nothing (and no one) to worry about (except–in your eyes–our current President and his evil minions).
PS: I’ll respond to your earlier post once I’ve returned from the RDF that that post generated….
Brian said:
A “mainstream” Islam does exist. The only reason why you haven’t noticed it is because it’s not radical. Simple as that.
Hi Brian! I thought I might find you over here! (I left another post at that other topic–you know where.)
Anyway: I’d like you to give me your thoughts on the above: Is the “mainstream” of Islam the majority? (I assume so.) Do you think they approve or disapprove of the violence/jihad of the radicals? If they disapprove, why don’t we hear from them?
(I think there are many in the West who fear that most Muslims silently agree with the radicals–and that’s why they remain silent.)
Anyway, as I said, I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Doug,
I’m going to check out that guy’s book. The reviews at Amazon make it sound like Europe has some problems.
If your main argument is that we are threatened by the same thing as Europe from the Muslims, then what I’m hearing is that the real threat is not from Islamofascists blowing up buildings or trains, but from “mainstream” Muslims gaining enough numbers to affect the outcome of our elections, to put Muslims into office and from there to impose their religious law over the laws of the US, thus making our Constitution worthless.
Is that right? Do I get what you’re saying? Because if that’s what your argument is, then we (and by we, I mean the right and the left) should be fighting the same fight. We should be working together to make sure that our system of government and the Constitution that guides it are as rock-solid as possible, so they can withstand an onslought from ANY religious group.
Today, I am concerned about Christian radicals destroying our liberties and imposing their warped views on our laws. In ten or twenty years, maybe that concern will shift itself to Muslims. It doesn’t make a difference. IT”S THE SAME FIGHT. The separation of church and state is paramount to our system of government. We, as a nation, need to be absolutely 100% sure that there is no way that a religious group can take power and then erode our rights and liberties in the name of their god.
That’s why I’m against the Bush administration. I don’t give two sh*ts about GW as a person, all I care about is that he and his cronies are trying to wreck our country. Period. They’re using fear to push their radical agenda. Who’s to say that in ten or twenty years, some group of Muslims won’t do the same thing?
Fighting the current enemy of our country (Radical Christians) will strengthen us against future enemies (Muslims? Hillary?)
Join me in the fight, won’t you, Doug?
Hi ND:
Thanks for your most recent post. Man, I didn’t think I’d end up saying this, but I agree with at least 75% of what you wrote! Maybe there’s hope for us after all. 🙂 (And I mean that sincerely, for both the left and the right.)
If I could, I’d like to reply to a couple of things you’ve said:
If your main argument is that we are threatened by the same thing as Europe from the Muslims, then what I’m hearing is that the real threat is not from Islamofascists blowing up buildings or trains, but from “mainstream” Muslims gaining enough numbers to affect the outcome of our elections, to put Muslims into office and from there to impose their religious law over the laws of the US, thus making our Constitution worthless.
Is that right? Do I get what you’re saying? Because if that’s what your argument is, then we (and by we, I mean the right and the left) should be fighting the same fight. We should be working together to make sure that our system of government and the Constitution that guides it are as rock-solid as possible, so they can withstand an onslought from ANY religious group.
Me: I think the threat from Muslims is two-fold. 1. The threat that Europe faces (largely non-violent, though not entirely [see London’s subway bombings, bombings in Madrid, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh, etc.]) through cultural non-assimilation. As you said, this will affect elections, laws, and public perceptions. It’s a gradual takeover through sheer numbers. (BTW, I can’t remember who wrote about it, but someone recently published European population stats which indicated that the Muslim birthrate is several times higher in almost every European nation than the white birthrate.)
2. The threat that the US faces (by and large) is the more aggressive one–violence and terrorism. For whatever reasons (being the lone superpower, our support of Israel, or JUST BEING INFIDELS) we are definitely the big target, and I don’t think that these guys are going to give up their plans anytime soon.
So, to paint with a very broad brush, I think the threats look like this:
Europe: the danger is “passive”–mass immigration and non-assimilation of Muslims into these countries, with occasional terrorist acts thrown into the mix.
US: the danger is “active”–attacks on our people and institutions, both abroad and now here at home. (This may not be entirely germaine to the discussion, but I also believe that Political Correctness at times provides an unintentional but additional threat. For example: we can’t profile people in airports. Why the hell not? We can be almost certain that young blacks, pregnant Hispanics, and old Jewish grandmothers are not terrorists planning to blow up airplanes. If people are offended by being profiled, so be it. We can’t go through life expecting to never be offended by what others say and do.)
Well, enough on this (at least for now).
You also said:
Today, I am concerned about Christian radicals destroying our liberties and imposing their warped views on our laws. In ten or twenty years, maybe that concern will shift itself to Muslims. It doesn’t make a difference. IT’S THE SAME FIGHT.
With all due respect, ND, I must strongly disagree here. Christian radicals and Muslim radicals are not the same. (Hey! We’re back on the topic of this thread! Imagine that! LOL. No sarcasm intended here.)
Even if I agreed with your premise (Christian radicals are stomping out our liberties, imposing their religious views on everyone else)–which I don’t, not to the extent you do, anyway–there is a huge difference between the two groups. As has been mentioned in several other posts in this thread, Christians aren’t going to kill us if we don’t convert! When was the last time we’ve seen Christians behead someone who they viewed as an infidel/pagan? (We might have to go back to the Crusades, I think.)
Again, you said:
IT’S THE SAME FIGHT.
Again, I would say: No, it’s not. The threat emphasis from Christians (according to you) = loss of rights and liberties. The threat emphasis from Muslims = loss of life.
So for Rosie (or for you, if I’m reading you correctly) to proclaim a moral equivalence between radical Christians and radical Muslims is, I think, overstating the threat from Christians and understating the threat from Muslims. But on this point we’ll probably continue to disagree–hopefully in a more civil way than has been the case lately.
Finally:
Is that right? Do I get what you’re saying? Because if that’s what your argument is, then we (and by we, I mean the right and the left) should be fighting the same fight. We should be working together to make sure that our system of government and the Constitution that guides it are as rock-solid as possible, so they can withstand an onslought from ANY religious group.
Me one more time: Amen to that (no irony/sarcasm meant here at all). Preach it, brother!
The question is: can we begin to find that common ground? Or is it going to take something worse happening before we get there?
I look forward to reading your next post.
Drat! I didn’t check the formatting closely enough!
The 4th paragraph in the above post should be in italics–it’s still a part of your quote.
Doug,
After reading your response a few posts back, I thought that maybe we aren’t as far apart on this issue as I originally thought. Damn, I guess I’ll have to take you off my Mortal Enemies List, at least for the time being.
You say that the threat from Muslims is two-fold, active and passive. Europe is facing the passive threat, the US is facing the active. I haven’t read the background material on Europe’s problem yet, so I’ll concede that point for now.
You then say that Christian radicals and Muslim radicals are not the same, because Christian radicals don’t murder people who refuse to convert, whereas Muslims do.
Okay, so here’s my thing: Americans today are threatened by radical muslim terrorists. They want to blow up our stuff and kill our people. Sure, I get that. However, my point is that no matter how much of our stuff gets blown up, no matter how many of our people they can kill, our country will not break. Maybe I’m a little naive, but IMHO, if the terrorists are trying to topple this country by flying planes into buildings or strapping C-4 to their vest, they are wasting their time.
To sum up: the “active” threat from muslim terrorists is to Americans, not to America.
The “passive” threat from Muslims: again, I haven’t read the materials on this, but I can see how it could be a problem.
–slight relevant digression–
One of the things that really bugs me about the current Conservative movement is its striking lack of foresight. Picture, if you will, Tom Delay. Not too long ago he was gloating about the “permanent Republican majority,” certain to ride the gravy train until his retirement. Where is he now? Out of a job and awaiting trial. Plus, his inaction screwed the Republicans out of the seat in his district.
But enough about Tom Delay. Let’s look at the voting machines. (One of the main reasons for Delay’s arrogance about a permanent majority.) The machines use proprietary, closed software that is easily hacked and leaves (in most instances) no paper trail. This is not a concern to conservatives because their people run the companies that run the machines, so their candidates always win. Okay, but let’s say that a group of hackers organizes themselves in the minimmal amount that would be required to hack the machines. On election day 2008 or 2010, once-safe Republican districts suddenly start sending Green Party candidates to Congress. Just enough for the Democrats to take over the House. Then what? There’s no paper trail, so a recount is a click on the screen and surprise, surprise, the recount is exactly the same number as the original count.
This sort of scenario doesn’t seem to occur to conservatives.
The Bush administration has been actively (and openly) working to expand the powers of the Executive branch, while reducing the power of the other two branches. The “Unitary Executive,” I think it’s called. Conservatives don’t mind because they trust Bush to do what they want him to. He’s their boy, right? Who cares if we’re supposed to have three separate but equal branches, providing checks and balances? Their guy is in charge.
But what happens if by some miracle/curse Hillary wins in 2008? Then what? Would you want Hillary to be in charge of the White House with the expanded powers? The other branches too weak to reign her in? How about the expanded domestic surveilance that Cheney wants? Would you want the Democrat-run Justice Department to have that power? Would you trust them to not use it to spy on and harrass their political enemies? I sure wouldn’t.
Conservatives don’t seem to think about things like that.
–Back to my original point–
The “passive” threat to our country, right now, today, is not from Muslims. It is from Christians. One such example is the Faith-Based initiative. We are now giving tax dollars to religious groups who are allowed to discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs. I’m sure you’re thinking, Christians don’t care what faith you are, but these organizations are allowed to not hire people who don’t belong to their faith. And we’re giving them tax dollars.
The wall between church and state is there for a reason. You and others are concerned about the threat of Muslims flooding our country and taking over enough elected offices to essentially create a theocracy. I’m concerned about the same thing. Today. From Christians. Whether that threat is real or not, weakening the wall between church and state now weakens it later as well. Of course, conservatives aren’t worrying because the radical Christians are Christians, after all, just like them. And maybe it’s OK to have a little more God in our government.
But if you make room for a little more God now, it only serves to weaken the resistance to a little more Allah further down the road.
Conservatives don’t think about things like that.
To sum up my argument: Muslims cannot destroy our country by bombing us. Christians can destroy it by weakining the division between church and state. (not to mention torching our other Constitutional rights). Muslims cannot do this because they are not in power. Christians are. That is why I say that Christians are the greater threat to our country.
If the choice is between A) having radical Christians destroy America and force me to live in a police state, or B) having radical Muslims destroy America and force me to live in a police state as a Muslim or die, I would say that is not a choice at all. They are both the same.
Live free or die.
You’re all wrong- All religion is plain and simple
Witchcraft and Sorcery; in other word Make Believe!
I suppose Rosy forgets about all the innocent people that were killed in our country.