Rosie O’Donnell: ‘Radical Christianity is Just as Threatening as Radical Islam’

[Jumbo]

Overstatement? Bach, Beethoven, the Sistine Chapel, the Haggia Sophia, the Pantheon, John Tesch... these are all brilliant...

P.S. There was a definite Western European pre-1800's Classicist bent to my statement. This is what arises when one takes yearly trips to Europe with a wife who is a European history buff (especially Rome and Tudor England).

Oh, don't be so predictable. Yes , overstatement. Now, as punishment, make a list of ones you can think that don't support the contention and don't forget Yanni is agnostic.

[chomerics]

Who founded several Colleges and Univ in the US some of which are the best schools in the World (ie Harvard)? Those blasted Christians did with their stifling of knowledge and all!!!

Yea, Harvard is a Christian school founded by the church :doh:

Just because a minister founded Harvard does not mean Harvard is here because of religion Johnny. . .

During its early years, the College offered a classic academic course based on the English university model but consistent with the prevailing Puritan philosophy of the first colonists. Although many of its early graduates became ministers in Puritan congregations throughout New England, the College was never formally affiliated with a specific religious denomination. An early brochure, published in 1643, justified the College's existence: "To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches."

http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/intro/index.html

Read that last sentance again. . .

"To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches."

:laugh:

[Zguy28]

But do you NEED a religion to have moral or ethical boundaries? I personally think you do not need religion to tell the difference between right or wrong. In fact, I think that sometimes religion blurrs the definition of moral boundaries.

Absolutely right Chomerics! God's law is written upon your heart, thats why you have a conscience. Thanks for proving my "faith." There is a difference between the two (faith and religion).

Is hate a morally good or a morally bad emotion to possess? Now, look at who professes hate the loudest, it is usually your whacked out extreme religions, or your extreme fanatics. Look at where the hate towards homosexuals comes from, or the hate of Muslims. It is often the extreme religious zealots who are the ones that hate the most, while the non religious obide to their own moral standards. I personally don't need a book to tell me it is not nice to kill someone, maybe someone else is different, but it isn;t as if you can ONLY be moral if you are religious.

Sadly the "hyper-religious" are usually what you are stating.

As I mentioned before, I think the advancement of sociological and ethical boundaries is hampered often by religion, and I believe as a whole, over its entirety, religion has done more disservice to humanity then a millennium of charity could ever bring.

I also believe it is often hampering to society, such as when the RCC believed the earth was flat and persecuted those who said it was round, even though a round earth is in the Bible.

[Johnny Punani]

Yea, Harvard is a Christian school founded by the church :doh:

Just because a minister founded Harvard does not mean Harvard is here because of religion Johnny. . .

http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/intro/index.html

Read that last sentance again. . .

"To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches."

:laugh:

Just because a minister founded Harvard does not mean Harvard is here because of religion Johnny. . .

lol what did you just say?

Just because the school wasn't associated with a specific denomination doesn't mean it wasn't founded by Christians. Besides, the point is that you implyed that religion (Christianity) has been a hinderance to knowledge and learning.

I give you the example of Harvard Univ which was founded by a Christian and prob the most well known Univ in the World and you split hairs.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Neither is comparing someone who might put a cross in public view and hurt someone's wittle feewings to someone who would fly a plane into a building.

Her comment, and mine too, were assinine. The difference is, I was joking and she's a nutbag.

Not really. She's stating her opinion, which has a certain degree of validity no matter how you look at it, and you're flat our overreacting and misconstruing the statement itself to apply to all Christians.

:2cents:

[Predicto]

lol what did you just say?

Just because the school wasn't associated with a specific denomination doesn't mean it wasn't founded by Christians. Besides, the point is that you implyed that religion (Christianity) has been a hinderance to knowledge and learning.

I give you the example of Harvard Univ which was founded by a Christian and prob the most well known Univ in the World and you split hairs.

Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

Christianity gets credit for all the good things ever done by Christians throughout history, but Christianity has no correlation to any of the bad things ever done by Christians throughout history?

[Johnny Punani]

Aren't you trying to have it both ways?

Christianity gets credit for all the good things ever done by Christians throughout history, but Christianity has no correlation to any of the bad things ever done by Christians throughout history?

No, you're just assuming I am.

[techboy]

Oh, don't be so predictable. Yes , overstatement. Now, as punishment, make a list of ones you can think that don't support the contention and don't forget Yanni is agnostic.

Um, okay... The Colosseum, Versailles, the Great Wall of China, Yanni, Vanilla Ice. These are all brilliant too.

[techboy]

Christianity gets credit for all the good things ever done by Christians throughout history, but Christianity has no correlation to any of the bad things ever done by Christians throughout history?

Now you get it!

[Seabee1973]

Radical Islam is a physical threat to the world, not just America.

She can lick whatever she wants talk about whatever she wants or eat whatever she wants in this country and no one is going to saw off her head for it.

till the radical islams take over

[Jumbo]

Um, okay... The Colosseum, Versailles, the Great Wall of China, Yanni, Vanilla Ice. These are all brilliant too.

Alright young man, no tickets to the Anita Bryant Retrospective for you. Word to your Madonna.

[chomerics]

Alright young man, no tickets to the Anita Bryant Retrospective for you. Word to your Madonna.

Me thinks Jumbo and Techboy have some sort of weird mental masturbation going on in this thread :paranoid:

[diesel22]

Refuse to go through this entire post (Rosie in general makes me queasy on so many levels) but I was just wondering if anyone actually came to her defense.....

[chomerics]

lol what did you just say?

Just because the school wasn't associated with a specific denomination doesn't mean it wasn't founded by Christians. Besides, the point is that you implyed that religion (Christianity) has been a hinderance to knowledge and learning.

I give you the example of Harvard Univ which was founded by a Christian and prob the most well known Univ in the World and you split hairs.

Johnny, our country was founded by christians, everything in this country was made by christians, but that does not mean that the religion itself was the REASON for founding the school, or country for that matter. In fact, I gave you a quote from the school which contradicts just what you are saying!!!

You do not get to say if a man was a christian, and he did something good, than religion was the guiding principal behind it, then on the other hand say man was the reason anything bad happened, not religion, even in religious wars. It is completely dishonest to the core, and I don't think Jesus would approve

[Goaldeje]

Johnny, our country was founded by christians, everything in this country was made by christians, but that does not mean that the religion itself was the REASON for founding the school, or country for that matter. In fact, I gave you a quote from the school which contradicts just what you are saying!!!

You do not get to say if a man was a christian, and he did something good, than religion was the guiding principal behind it, then on the other hand say man was the reason anything bad happened, not religion, even in religious wars. It is completely dishonest to the core, and I don't think Jesus would approve

Works both ways, Chom. I was always taught in college that the Crusades were about money first and foremost. "Let's go get the savages' gold!" Hmm, wait, that doesn't sound so good. How about if we instead blame it on their religion, and go in the name of Christianity. Sounds much better. If memory serves from other threads, that's pretty much the exact same thing you continually blast GWB for doing with Iraq. Why is it so hard to understand the same thing might have happened elsewhere?

Religion is a terrible thing, capable of both extreme societal advancement as well as extreme retardation. People have done strange things in the name of Christianity, I'll grant you that. Do you really Christ is heaven looks down and smiles when he sees the Crusades, abortion clinic bombings, homosexual persecuation and so on by the hands of those who profess to be Christians? I don't. You can credit "Christian" men with many horrible things throughout history. You can also credit "Christian" men with incredible advancements and heroic acts. Or you can only focus on the negative and make sweeping pronouncements, which unfortunately, seems to be what Ms. O'Donnell has done. :doh:

[Burgold]

I do think that it's important to keep in mind the adjective. I would say that it's unfair to attribute the actions of radical Christianity to Christianity in general, wouldn't you? Stereotyping a group, based on its worst members will not give an accurate snapshot. I think that's what has gone astray in this thread. Radical Christians, the guys who tie homosexuals to the back of pick-up trucks and drag them to death, the ones who blow up abortion centers or shoot doctors, the ones who lynch are a danger to the American people. Christianity itself was not called on the mat by her statement. These radical Christians listed above are also terrorists. They try to intimidate people to change their behaviors and use extreme violence. Thankfully, their numbers are really small. Still, a few people can do a lot of damage.

[Goaldeje]

I do think that it's important to keep in mind the adjective. I would say that it's unfair to attribute the actions of radical Christianity to Christianity in general, wouldn't you? Stereotyping a group, based on its worst members will not give an accurate snapshot. I think that's what has gone astray in this thread. Radical Christians, the guys who tie homosexuals to the back of pick-up trucks and drag them to death, the ones who blow up abortion centers or shoot doctors, the ones who lynch are a danger to the American people. Christianity itself was not called on the mat by her statement. These radical Christians listed above are also terrorists. They try to intimidate people to change their behaviors and use extreme violence. Thankfully, their numbers are really small. Still, a few people can do a lot of damage.

I would whole-heartedly agree with this statement.

Which is one of the reasons I think Ms. O'Donnell's statement was ignorance personified. Equating the few in number radical Christians with the radical Muslims is silly. The threat level is no where near equal.

[chomerics]

Works both ways, Chom. I was always taught in college that the Crusades were about money first and foremost. "Let's go get the savages' gold!" Hmm, wait, that doesn't sound so good. How about if we instead blame it on their religion, and go in the name of Christianity. Sounds much better. If memory serves from other threads, that's pretty much the exact same thing you continually blast GWB for doing with Iraq. Why is it so hard to understand the same thing might have happened elsewhere?

Sorry, but no it is nowhere near the same thing. GWB was a REASON Iraq happened, Christianity was a REASON the inquisition happened. Neither would have been possible without direct involvement! Saying a man created a school, and that is a reason Christianity is good is preposterous. Saying we went into Iraq because it is what GWB wanted is not preposterous.

Do you see the difference? Do you see where one is directly responsible for the action, and another was not? Do I give credit to atheism if an atheist did something great? Do I give credit to god for discovering Relativity because Einstein was a christian? Can you see the difference between the ACTIONS of man, and the ACTIONS of man done in the NAME of religion? There is a distinct difference, Johnny was attempting to say they are the same thing, they are not. Otherwise religion would be held for every thing that was bad in the world. Was religion to blame for Dahlmer because he was a christian? No, that would be ludicrous, just as saying religion is the reason Harvard was founded is ludicrous.

Religion is a terrible thing, capable of both extreme societal advancement as well as extreme retardation. People have done strange things in the name of Christianity, I'll grant you that. Do you really Christ is heaven looks down and smiles when he sees the Crusades, abortion clinic bombings, homosexual persecuation and so on by the hands of those who profess to be Christians? I don't. You can credit "Christian" men with many horrible things throughout history. You can also credit "Christian" men with incredible advancements and heroic acts. Or you can only focus on the negative and make sweeping pronouncements, which unfortunately, seems to be what Ms. O'Donnell has done. :doh:

I have given credit where credit is due, and I have even stated in this thread that some great things have been done in the name of religion, but IMO, the horrors outnumber the good deeds. Whether it was the inquisition, the crusades, or the modern perversion of Islam, religion is to blame for a vast majority of wars throughout the history of civilization. As I mentioned before, the net on society is a negative, and although they have had advancements, they have also stifled science over time. How about things like the Bonfire of the Vanities? If you want to say Religion was a reason for the advancement of culture, such as in Florence in the late 1400's, simple because the church hired these artists to paint, you must also recognize the church destroying many works and destroying most likely over a billion dollars worth of art, culture and science in the Bonfire of the Vanities.

You see, for every small step, or area where they supposedly helped culture and science along, there is a stepping stone, or a roadblock which stifled science. It wasn't until our country finally realized that religion and state must be separate that things really started to take off.

As I mentioned before, I believe the net to society is a negative, not a positive. Just look at the wars in the ME right now for evidence. It is not just Christianity, but ALL religions (well maybe Buddhism can be excluded) that cause harm, we usually end up talking about Christianity because of our history and where we came from.

[Goaldeje]

Chom, I don't want to delve deeply into your psyche here, but you have issues, my man. All I'm gonna say is that you just finished posting out of both sides of your mouth, no matter how you want to use semantics to justify it. You can't blame religion, or any social institution for all evils created or furthered in its name, and completely disregard all good advanced in its name in the same breath.

To me, that shows that you have some deep-seeded issues with religion. Can't have it both ways, Chom.

[chomerics]

Chom, I don't want to delve deeply into your psyche here, but you have issues, my man. All I'm gonna say is that you just finished posting out of both sides of your mouth, no matter how you want to use semantics to justify it. You can't blame religion, or any social institution for all evils created or furthered in its name, and completely disregard all good advanced in its name in the same breath.

To me, that shows that you have some deep-seeded issues with religion. Can't have it both ways, Chom.

Where am I ignoring the advancements made by religion? Point out my post and show me exactly where I am "talking out of both sides of my mouth".

This entire tangent started when Johnny stated that religion was the reason Harvard was founded. I called him on it, and gave a direct quote which contradicted what he stated.

I am NOT, I repeat am NOT trying to have it both ways. That would be Johnny who is trying to say religion was the reason Harvard was founded, when of course it was not. in fact, one of their earliest statements slaps a hand at the church, and states that people go to Harvard to learn, not to stay illeterate as in the church.

I have stated MORE than once in here religion has done good. I have also stated that religion does not get credit for any time man does something good, but man is to blame any time something bad happens.

I have no idea why you can;t grasp this concept, but I can guarentee you it has nothing to do with my psyche, it has to do with your perconceived bias about myself, my posts and my thoughts. Maybe if you go back through this thread, re-read everything, you will see the point I am getting at.

You are completely ignoring everything I stated in the argument, and have instead sided with a point of view which represents nothing I have stated in this thread, and nothing which represents my POV.

And one FINAL time, I have never said they get no credit for the good things they have done. I have stated that I RECOGNIZE the good things they have done, and what they continue to do!!! I am not saying religion is all bad, and in fact do recognize they bring a lot of good to the world. But in the same breath, I can ALSO recognize where they stiffled culture, science and society. IMO, which I have now stated like 5 times, religion is a net negative on society because the bad OUTNUMBERS the good. Is it that hard of a concept to grasp? Serisousy???

[Goaldeje]

Chom, I'm gonna quote a couple of your old posts here:

Yea, Harvard is a Christian school founded by the church :doh:

Just because a minister founded Harvard does not mean Harvard is here because of religion Johnny. . .

http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/intro/index.html

Read that last sentance again. . .

"To advance Learning and perpetuate it to Posterity; dreading to leave an illiterate Ministry to the Churches."

And to you, this proves that Harvard was founded DESPITE Christianity, not because of it?!?! To me, this says simply that Harvard was founded in order to educate ministers. They didn't want minsters who were uneducated misguiding their flocks. That actually reaffirms Johnny's point.

Johnny, our country was founded by christians, everything in this country was made by christians, but that does not mean that the religion itself was the REASON for founding the school, or country for that matter. In fact, I gave you a quote from the school which contradicts just what you are saying!!!

You do not get to say if a man was a christian, and he did something good, than religion was the guiding principal behind it, then on the other hand say man was the reason anything bad happened, not religion, even in religious wars. It is completely dishonest to the core, and I don't think Jesus would approve

I find it ironic, first of all, that you think you have a clue what Jesus thinks.

Here is the problem. Based on the last paragraph above, you are saying that actions done by Christian men should not neccessarily be credited for Christianity. Yet you also say that bad things done in the name of Christianity must be credited against Christianity.

Care to explain how that works?

For the record, I would tend to agree that too often, people who are Christians and so something good for society, tend to be credited with some great advancement of Christianity. Take Jonny's post about Harvard. Harvard was founded as a Christian college. It has since evolved into a decidedly non-Christian college, and is a center for learning in the world. Now, can we really credit where Harvard is now to its Christian beginnings? I would argue, no. Which is the tact I was surprised to see you did not take.

I am also happy to see you credit Christianity for the Renaissance. There are plenty of examples in the Arts. But I think you will find Newton and Pasteur, just to name 2, were Christians and provided advancement through science as well. To lump all Christians in together and assert that all are decided to retard scientific advancement is silly. Christians have been key in many, many societal advancements through the ages. And they have been key in many horrific events as well.

[chomerics]

Chom, I'm gonna quote a couple of your old posts here:

And to you, this proves that Harvard was founded DESPITE Christianity, not because of it?!?! To me, this says simply that Harvard was founded in order to educate ministers. They didn't want minsters who were uneducated misguiding their flocks. That actually reaffirms Johnny's point.

I NEVER said that Harvard was founded DESPITE Christianity, I never even implied it. Johnny said religion was the REASON Harvard was founded, and I told him it was not. Just because the man who founded it was a Puritan does not mean the school was founded BECAUE of religion. In fact, in the schools charter, is specifically states that there is NO religious denomination for the school. It was NOT founded because of religion, as he implied in his earlier post, and my reply showed that.

Again, just because the man is a christian does not mean religion is the reason behind the actions. The school was not founded FOR religion, or in the name of religion, but instead to teach people. That was the reason for the formation of the university. Johnny claimed different, and he was wrong, just as you are wrong for surmising that I said it was founded DESPITE religion.

Again, if it was founded FOR religion, it would be a religious school, which it is not, and never was. It had nothing to do with educating "ministers", but instead to educate PEOPLE!!! It was a school, not a theological institution. Just because ministers went there does not mean it was founded FOR religion, ESPECIALLY since they have never been affiliated with a religion.

I find it ironic, first of all, that you think you have a clue what Jesus thinks.

And you do? I have read the bible, I have been confirmed and I lived a religious life for the fist half of it, before I started to think for myself. You don't get dibbs on what Jesus thinks just because you believe in him, I can have my opinion as well. And BTW, tell me please why Jesus would approve of being dishonest? That doesn't seem to resemble any of his teachings I was taught. . .

Here is the problem. Based on the last paragraph above, you are saying that actions done by Christian men should not necessarily be credited for Christianity. Yet you also say that bad things done in the name of Christianity must be credited against Christianity.

Yes, that is what I am contending. Just as I stated bad things done by Christians (not in the name of religion) should not be attributed to the religion either.

Care to explain how that works?

Just because a man is christian does not give him (or a religion for that matter) to take claim to anything good that the man does, yet can absolve them from anything bad they do. If you want to look at it a different way, try this.

If everything a christian man did in his life was attributed to the religion, then everything a christian man did which is good OR bad can be said to have religion as the reason for it. There is no way Christianity takes credit for Jeffry Dahlmer and Einstein. It does not work like that.

For the record, I would tend to agree that too often, people who are Christians and so something good for society, tend to be credited with some great advancement of Christianity. Take Jonny's post about Harvard. Harvard was founded as a Christian college. It has since evolved into a decidedly non-Christian college, and is a center for learning in the world. Now, can we really credit where Harvard is now to its Christian beginnings? I would argue, no. Which is the tact I was surprised to see you did not take.

Sorry, but right there is where you are wrong, Harvard was NOT founded AS a Christian college! Maybe that is where the hang up is, he was wrong, and I posted the link which stated why he was wrong. It was NEVER a "Christian college"

Although many of its early graduates became ministers in Puritan congregations throughout New England, the College was never formally affiliated with a specific religious denomination.

From my link!!!

http://www.news.harvard.edu/guide/intro/index.html

I think that is where the hangup was, I was not giving credit to religion for Harvard, because Harvard was NEVER a religious university, and was never affiliated with a religion. Just because a religious man started it, does not mean religion was the REASON is was put into existence.

Do you follow me now?

[Goaldeje]

Sorry, but right there is where you are wrong, Harvard was NOT founded AS a Christian college! Maybe that is where the hang up is, he was wrong, and I posted the link which stated why he was wrong. It was NEVER a "Christian college"

I think that is where the hangup was, I was not giving credit to religion for Harvard, because Harvard was NEVER a religious university, and was never affiliated with a religion. Just because a religious man started it, does nto mean religion was the REASON is was put into existance.

Do you follow me now?

And you infer that simply because their was no demoniational affiliation when the school was founded, that it was not Christian? Do you have any understanding of Puritans at all? Puritans fled from England because of religious persecution, as they did not adhere to the overly Catholic tenants of the High English Church (Anglican, what we now know as Episcopalian). "Puritans" are not a demonination, simply a group of people trying to escape persecution. So why in the name of God would they want to start a college and immediately affiliate said college with any denomination?

Why not simply start a college denomination-free, as a way to educate ministers (from your quote, not mine)?

[Trippster]

Radical secularism like Rosie's is the most dangerous, because the judgments of God fall on a hedonistic nation, like Sodom and Gomorrah. This nation is coming to that, my friends.

[Cdowwe]

I NEVER said that Harvard was founded DESPITE christianity, I never even implied it. Johnny said religion was the REASON Harvard was founded, and I told him it was not. Just because the man who countded it was a Puritan does not mean the school was founded BECAUE of religion. In fact, in the schools charter, is specifically states that there is NO religious denomination for the school. It was NOT founded because of religion, as he implied in his earlier post, and my reply showed that.

Wasnt the main reason Harvard was founded for the training of 'homegrown' clergy so the Puritans wouldnt have to rely on English clergy members?