Originally Posted by Rockcat
Well, I do see Rosie's point. A cult is a cult is a cult whether they bill themselves as Christian, Muslim, or whatever. They are all dangerous.
That said, I have to admit that I, personally, feel much more threatened by Muslim cults than any other. Being attacked in such volume on our own soil is very hard to take. Attackers who intend to die have nothing to fear. IMO that makes them more dangerous.
Which is exactly what I was inferring. Any christian that thinks someone should die is not a Christian IMO. Period. Radical Christians can be considered many things....not to mention that not all people that are against abortion are necessarily Christian. Many religious faiths are against abortion.
But we also have another view on this as well....you might liken to say that Radical Christians have 'said' that abortion doctors should die and have carried it out....but....
Not in the sheer volume or lack of respect for human rights as radical Muslims, though I might add also that the Koran does speak that if you do not believe in Allah you are an infidel and should die (there is nothing in the bible that says that).
I don't know of any 'Radical Christians' that have flown planes into buildings or suicide bombed train/metro systems, ect. Point being...
If Rosie O'Donnell is right, I want to see the proof that they are the same in 'dangerousness'. AS far as I can see, there is a stark difference (even if you are going to use the 'abortion doctor' thing as an excuse, that's a singular event and those people are not willing to die for what they believe in).
Again I state she has a personal problem with all Christians. And that's where her comment is based from, it has nothing to do with radical anything, it has to do with her personal bias. And for that, she is, was out of line.
I used to respect Rosie O'Donnell as a celebrity until I found out that just about everything that she said on her original talk show was fake (ie: Her 'love' for Tom Cruise.....when the whole time she was covering her lesbianism). I don't have a problem with homosexuality, but I do have a problem with people that can't be straight and honest.
But that was another tangent in itself but it presents a valid point. Rosie O'Donnell is not the best person to base anything off of, she talks out of her mouth without thinking. Including the comment made on the View.
So here we have this based off of everyone's replies:
Radical Islam: Believes that all 'Infadels' should die and will go to any length to make that happen. Also believes that if they die in the process of destroying the infadel that they will go to heaven and be met with 7 virgins.
Radical Christianity: First off, misnomer, those people aren't Christians if you really understand that faith as it stands today (forget the Dark Ages before the Age of Enlightenment). Those so called Christians that attack abortion doctors, are doing so perhaps but are not doing so with the promise of a wonderful benefit. And are singular events, not mass groupings. Not to mention I have not heard of any huge mass bombings of abortion clinics (since that seems to be the 'focus' of what makes it equal to radical islam).
Conclusion: Radical Islam/Muslims are far more dangerous than Radical Christians because they have no regard for human life outside of their own belief. They have and will continue to attack those that do not believe in Allah as the true God with whatever means necessary, even if it means suicide bombing. They were responsible not only for the thousands of deaths on 9/11, but also in London, Turkey, ect. Which in my book, makes them far more dangerous than Radical Christians.
Thereby making Rosie O'Donnell's claim invalid and out of line.