Did Johnny post this on DU?

[fossten]

Posted by Philosoraptor on Democrat Underground: (Closely resembling posts by Johnny on this thread)

"Are you as sick of religious fundamentalism as I am?

These people are disgusting, and they've been shoving that :q:q:q:q down my throat for too f*cking long now and I am flat out f*cking tired of it.

I have these people in my family, thank god they are the rare kind, born again Democrats who hate bush, but my bro and his wife are dead on zombie Jesus bush voting zombies.

These fanatics endanger us all, literally, I've been saying it for 30 years now, that's how long my family members have been converted to the cult, and it is a cult, as are all religions.

Are we to allow a cult to conquer America right before our eyes? Are we to just roll our eyes and be polite when these f*ckers shove this :q:q:q:q right down our throats like Spanish inquisitors?

They are too dumb to chew gum, but they can get out and vote for nazis by the millions, and this makes them intolerable to a free America.

They are scared to death of crazy Islamists, and so am I, but they are the exact same thing, they participate in the exact same madness, and they perpetuate the exact same ancient hatreds and slights and they threaten the United States in the exact same way as the Taliban crazies, they worship the exact same god, and they think the exact same way.

And they are trying to take over our nation, and when you say that to the average guy on the street they don't believe you, its too fantastic, too sci fi, too implausible.

I'm f*cking sick of them, and my parents and my brother and sis in law know better than to talk that religio-political bull:q:q:q:q to my face, cause they'll get a red hot rant right up their asses every time.

I'm tired of being polite to them on the street, I'm tired of kissing their ass and giving them breaks because they are good Christian people, f*ck them and the cross they rode in on. "

And a concurring reply:

F?ck them cowardly, sheepish, dumb, bastids and bastidettes!

I am sick and tired of their claiming that only they have a truth, partly based on 1500 yr old faerie tails, and partly based on great old fictional literature that was stolen, borrowed, begs, copied and mistranslated from the earliers societies and sects, hitite, egyptian, canaan and others.

it will be interesting to see what happens to them as the millenium progresses and there is no rapture and jesus doesn't come back. and by way of clarification -- i am christian.

If I were ever going to go back to christianity, I would go UU as they support pagans and polys, of which I am both. I've known a UU minister who presided over a (non-legal) marriage of four. Not my quad nor my current group. We went to my pagan priest for the first one (it was a kickass ceremony but the marriage not so much)and we're all living in sin in the second one. Even if the government would allow either one of us to marry and they will not, we would probably decline this time around. I'm not much of a ring wearer and none of us can agree on a necklace. I suppose we could do some kind of bracelet. I will have to bring that one up in the next family meeting. Of course, we need to finish our trial period of a year and a day first, anyway.

i'm drawing more pan-theism into my personal faith. i've always had a streak of the old religion in my thinking /spirituality.

I was raised Southern Baptist but too much of it didn't make sense. My grandfather (my grandparents raised me) always said I thought too much for my own good and I guess I did think a lot but not too much for my own good. I've been out of the cult for nearly 25 years now. I'm not an athiest though, I do believe in a higher power just not the jealous God of my youth. Yahweh does not play well with others so he isn't allowed in my metaphysical sandbox.

Yes, and that's why I've decided to...persecute Christians.
At every opportunity. All of them, even the nice ones. Oh, I'll do it nicely to the nice ones, but I'll be nasty to the nasty ones.

Believe whatever you like fundies, just stay the hell away from my civil liberties. Sorry, touchy subject this week thanks to my fundie relatives...who still insist I'm no legitimate minister despite an advanced degree in divinity studies and an ordination. Apparently I'm not fit to bless the bounty at the Thanksgiving table. Whatever.

Finally a moderator steps in:

I'm going to lock this. With regard to religion (or the lack thereof), Democratic Underground is a diverse community which includes Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, and others. All are welcome here. For this reason, we expect members to make an extra effort to be sensitive to different religious beliefs, and to show respect to members who hold different religious beliefs. Members are welcome to discuss whether they agree or disagree with particular religious beliefs, but they are expected to do so in a relatively sensitive and respectful manner. As a general rule, discussions about ideas are usually permitted, but broad-brush bigoted statements about groups of people — either religious or non-religious — are not.


best,
wakemeupwhenitsover
DU Moderator


SO MUCH FOR THE TOLERANT, UNDERSTANDING, ENLYGHTENED LEFT. Maybe Bryan should learn from the moderator's example on that forum and take notice when Johnny bashes Christians, calling them islamofascists and claiming that they behead people.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

SO MUCH FOR THE TOLERANT, UNDERSTANDING, ENLYGHTENED LEFT. Maybe Bryan should learn from the moderator's example on that forum and take notice when Johnny bashes Christians, calling them islamofascists and claiming that they behead people.

LIAR. I never called christians "islamofacists" (where's your PROOF?), nor did I claim they "beheaded people" (again, where's your PROOF?). That was a strawman built up by your buddy Calabrio.

It must really suck to let your infantile insecurities manifest themselves in a personal attack in a thread title on a web site. How desperate you must be to resort to these tactics. How many keyboards and pairs of shoes does that make this week? 4, 5?

"Keep on honking, I'm reloading"

 

[MonsterMark]

Maybe Bryan should learn from the moderator's example on that forum

Yes, um, no.

 

[fossten]

Exactly WHO's (out of the thousands of "religions" in practice on this planet) GOD are we supposed to get our morals from? They don't ALL agree on the same set of morals, OBVIOUSLY given all the religious wars that have been going on for thousands of years. Are you saying YOUR "god" is the ONE ALMIGHTY??? ROTFLMAO Put down the kool-aid. You are no better than the islamofacists.

And when Calabrio chastises him for it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calabrio
I guess I missed the thread where Fossten posted pictures of him beheading "unbelievers". Or the one where he supported the "honor killings" of rape victims.

He's just never been caught on film........ yet. But given his anti-social behavior here and outright hate for liberals and democrats, he most certainly would in a NY minute.

...

TRANSLATION: Bible-beating Christian zealots who disrespect other religions and refuse to recognize that the US is a FREE country where it's people are FREE to believe in ANY religion / GOD without persecution or prejudice are no less anti-AMERICAN than those radical muslims who think the same way. Our founding fathers had enough forethought to ensure that the foundation of this country allowed freedom of religious practice, and the ONLY way to preserve this freedom was to dis-assiciate the laws from any particular GOD or religion.

*owned*

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Thank you for saving me the effort of dis-proving your "evidence" of your accusations:

My comments were directed at YOU, not Christians in general. Even if I WAS referring to Christians in general, I did not "call them islamofacists". This was clarified in my other post. And your "evidence" clearly proves the "beheading" claim was in fact a strawman built by Calabrio. Additionally, your outbursts directed at me, Dems and Liberals only goes to support my assertion that, if given a chance to "behead" one of us, you'd jump at it.

 

[Calabrio]

LIAR. I never called christians "islamofacists" (where's your PROOF?), nor did I claim they "beheaded people" (again, where's your PROOF?). That was a strawman built up by your buddy Calabrio.

That wasn't a strawman I built, it was clearly what you implied. You can back pedal from the comment now, but you made it, intentionally or not.

And now, in the above post, you AGAIN reaffirm that position you're trying to deny making.

 

[fossten]

Thank you for saving me the effort of dis-proving your "evidence" of your accusations:

My comments were directed at YOU, not Christians in general. [Bible-beating Christian zealots who disrespect other religions and refuse to recognize that the US is a FREE country where it's people are FREE to believe in ANY religion / GOD without persecution or prejudice are no less anti-AMERICAN than those radical muslims who think the same way.]

Even if I WAS referring to Christians in general, I did not "call them islamofacists". [radical muslims who think the same way.] This was clarified in my other post. And your "evidence" clearly proves the "beheading" claim was in fact a strawman built by Calabrio. Additionally, your outbursts directed at me, Dems and Liberals only goes to support my assertion that, if given a chance to "behead" one of us, you'd jump at it.

LOL Hey, Bryan, is there a size bigger than 7? Johnny can't read the largest font you have here.

Look at Johnny backpedaling. You've been caught red handed spewing hate speech. Your denials are pathetic and contradicted by your very words. Nothing more needs to be said since you've said it all yourself.

By the way, since you're intent on defaming me personally, you lowlife, show me ONE POST where I've advocated violence toward one of you lib wackos.

Back up your assertions or go pound sand.

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

:bowrofl: :biggrin: :bowrofl:

Bryan, I think fossten would like to have a sound-capture/post option added to this board so we can listen to all of his whiney rants.

David, we're not laughing with you, we're laughing AT you. Keep up the good work at burrying any last reminants of credibility, logic, rational thought or socially acceptable behavior you might still have.

I don't hate ANYBODY, except for intolerant haters. So since the shoe fits... WEAR IT.

 

[fossten]

:bowrofl: :biggrin: :bowrofl:

Bryan, I think fossten would like to have a sound-capture/post option added to this board so we can listen to all of his whiney rants.

David, we're not laughing with you, we're laughing AT you. Keep up the good work at burrying any last reminants of credibility, logic, rational thought or socially acceptable behavior you might still have.

I don't hate ANYBODY, except for intolerant haters. So since the shoe fits... WEAR IT.

Stomp those little red feet, Johnny. Stomp away.

So much for you proving that I'm a liar.

It must really suck to be exposed in the cold air like that. I bet you wish you were back in your cave.

 

[TheDude]

I'm thinking Fossten posted that himself on DU (why are you visiting that site anyways Fossten?) as an attempt to make Democrats/Liberals look bad.

 

[Vitas]

And when Calabrio chastises him for it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calabrio
I guess I missed the thread where Fossten posted pictures of him beheading "unbelievers". Or the one where he supported the "honor killings" of rape victims.
*owned*

Do you miss me?

Do you really think that you "own" anyone?

Let's have some fun.

 

[Calabrio]

I'm thinking Fossten posted that himself on DU (why are you visiting that site anyways Fossten?) as an attempt to make Democrats/Liberals look bad.

Democrat Underground can be interesting reading. Take a look around there for yourself, you'll quickly discover that threre is nothing Fossten could post there in order to make Democrats looks worse.

 

[Vitas]

Democrat Underground can be interesting reading. Take a look around there for yourself, you'll quickly discover that threre is nothing Fossten could post there in order to make Democrats looks worse.

Whatsis?

 

[fossten]

I'm thinking Fossten posted that himself on DU (why are you visiting that site anyways Fossten?) as an attempt to make Democrats/Liberals look bad.

Always accusing. I guess you didn't read Johnny's posts and see the similarities. Oh well, some people have their heads in the sand. Defend the religion hater if you must.

I didn't go to the site. The thread was linked from newsbusters.

 

[fossten]

Whatsis?

(flipping through Vitas-to-English Dictionary) Translation: HUH?

Wow. What earth-shaking brilliance. What stunning, staggering intellectual profundity. I can't wait to see what Vitas says next. I've got my Vitas-to-English Dictionary all ready.

 

[Calabrio]

Perhaps you could use the pocket translator:

 

[TheDude]

Always accusing. I guess you didn't read Johnny's posts and see the similarities. Oh well, some people have their heads in the sand. Defend the religion hater if you must.

I didn't go to the site. The thread was linked from newsbusters.

Baloney, I only accuse you about 78% of the time. I did read Johnny's post but didn't see that many similarities. I guess if I wanted to do some stretching I could have, but then it would subjective.

Slow day at newsbusters eh?

 

[fossten]

Slow day at newsbusters eh?

"...he said, brightly illustrating his sheer colossal ignorance of the newsbusters site."

 

[fossten]

The attack on Christians continues...

Former NY Times Bureau Chief Attacks "Fascist" Christian Right
Posted by Clay Waters on October 19, 2006 - 13:07.

Remember Chris Hedges, the former Times reporter and Middle East bureau chief for the paper who got unplugged for his anti-war ranting at a Rockford College graduation ceremony in 2003?

Here was his stirring opener to the assembled graduates:

“Thank you very much. I want to speak to you today about war and empire. The killing, or at least the worst of it, is over in Iraq, although blood will continue to spill, theirs and ours; be prepared for this. For we are embarking on an occupation that if history is any guide will be as damaging to our souls as it will be to our prestige and power and security. But this will come later, our empire expands and in all this we become pariahs, tyrants to others weaker than ourselves."

Well you ain't seen nothing yet. Hedges is now a senior fellow at The Nation Institute, the foundation of the far-left magazine, and in January he'll publish a book, "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America."

Earlier this month, when questioned by the Chicago Tribune about the incendiary title of his upcoming book, he responded: "This is a potent and a ruthless mass movement that would like to dismantle American democracy."

An article written in November 2004, while Hedges was still a reporter for the Times (his last byline appears under a "Public Lives" profile dated March 3, 2005) is topped by this explanatory header: "This is an article by Chris Hedges that no major publication would print."

For once, TimesWatch thinks the liberal media may have a point.

Hedges' 2004 article may have contained the seed of his upcoming book, given it has a similar title: "The Christian Right And The Rise of American Fascism."

After comparing Christian conservative opposition to gay marriage with "the state suppression of opponents" by the Nazis, he really unveils his paranoia:

"All debates with the Christian Right are useless. We cannot reach this movement. It does not want a dialogue. It cares nothing for rational thought and discussion. It is not mollified because John Kerry prays or Jimmy Carter teaches Sunday School. These naive attempts to reach out to a movement bent on our destruction, to prove to them that we too have 'values,' would be humorous if the stakes were not so deadly. They hate us. They hate the liberal, enlightened world formed by the Constitution. Our opinions do not count. This movement will not stop until we are ruled by Biblical Law, an authoritarian church intrudes in every aspect of our life, women stay at home and rear children, gays agree to be cured, abortion is considered murder, the press and the schools promote 'positive' Christian values, the federal government is gutted, war becomes our primary form of communication with the rest of the world and recalcitrant non-believers see their flesh eviscerated at the sound of the Messiah's voice."

Despite his hard-left, apocalyptic worldview, Hedges isn't exactly persona non grata at the Times: He was a featured author last Sunday at the New York Times annual book festival held in Bryant Park.

For more New York Times bias, visit TimesWatch.

 

[Marcus]

Although this Hedges character is definitely over-generalising and exaggerating the threat, there are indeed some very far right "Christian" leaders who have enough of a following to cause concern.

Keep in mind this article is eight years old. And Reason is a libertarian publication, hardly a bastion of liberal thought.

http://reason.com/9811/col.olson.shtml

Invitation to a Stoning
Getting cozy with theocrats

By Walter Olson



For connoisseurs of surrealism on the American right, it's hard to beat an exchange that appeared about a decade ago in the Heritage Foundation magazine Policy Review. It started when two associates of the Rev. Jerry Falwell wrote an article which criticized Christian Reconstructionism, the influential movement led by theologian Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, for advocating positions that even they as committed fundamentalists found "scary." Among Reconstructionism's highlights, the article cited support for laws "mandating the death penalty for homosexuals and drunkards." The Rev. Rushdoony fired off a letter to the editor complaining that the article had got his followers' views all wrong: They didn't intend to put drunkards to death.

Ah, yes, accuracy does count. In a world run by Rushdoony followers, sots would escape capital punishment--which would make them happy exceptions indeed. Those who would face execution include not only gays but a very long list of others: blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of "unchastity before marriage," "incorrigible" juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics. And that's to say nothing of murderers and those guilty of raping married women or "betrothed virgins." Adulterers, among others, might meet their doom by being publicly stoned--a rather abrupt way for the Clinton presidency to end.

Mainstream outlets like the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post are finally starting to take note of the influence Rushdoony and his followers have exerted for years in American conservative circles. But a second part of the story, of particular interest to readers of this magazine, is the degree to which Reconstructionists have gained prominence in libertarian causes, ranging from hard-money economics to the defense of home schooling. "Christian economist" Gary North, Rushdoony's son-in-law and star polemicist of the Reconstructionist movement, is widely cited as a spokesman for free markets, if not exactly free minds; he even served for a brief time on the House staff of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 1988, when Paul was a member of Congress in the '70s. For his part, Rushdoony has blandly described himself to the press as a critic of "statism" and even as a "Christian libertarian." Say what?

An outgrowth of Calvinism, modern Reconstructionism can be traced to Rushdoony's 1973 magnum opus, Institutes of Biblical Law. (Many leading Reconstructionists emerged from conservative Presbyterianism, but as with so much of today's religious ferment, the movement cuts across denominational lines.) Not one to pursue a high public profile, Rushdoony has set up his Chalcedon Institute in off-the-beaten-path Vallecito, California, while North runs his Institute for Christian Economics out of Tyler, Texas.

As a "post-millennialist" school of thought, Reconstructionism holds that believers should work toward achieving God's kingdom on earth in the here and now, rather than expect its advent only after a second coming of Christ. Some are in a bit of a hurry about it, too. "World conquest," proclaims George Grant, in what by Reconstructionist standards is not an especially breathless formulation. "It is dominion we are after. Not just a voice... not just influence...not just equal time. It is dominion we are after."

Well, OK, it's easy to laugh. Yet grandiosity does sometimes get results, especially when combined with an all-out conviction that one is historically predestined to win (the Communist Party in the '30s comes to mind). Reconstructionism has a record of turning out hugely prolific writers, tireless organizers who stay at meetings until the last chair is folded up, and driven activists willing to undergo arrest (Reconstructionist Randall Terry founded Operation Rescue, the lawbreaking anti-abortion campaign) to make their point.

Politically, Reconstructionists have been active both in the GOP and in the splinter U.S. Taxpayers Party; but their greater influence, as they themselves would doubtless agree, has been felt in the sphere of ideas, in helping change the terms of discourse on the traditionalist right. One of their effects has been to allow everyone else to feel moderate. To wit: Almost any anti-abortion stance seems nuanced when compared with Gary North's advocacy of public execution not just for women who undergo abortions but for those who advised them to do so. And with the Rushdoony faction proposing the actual judicial murder of gays, fewer blink at the position of a Gary Bauer or a Janet Folger, who support laws exposing them to mere imprisonment.

Among other ideas Reconstructionists have helped popularize is that state neutrality on the subject of religion is meaningless. Any legal order is bound to "establish" one religious order or another, the argument runs, and the only question is whose. Put the question that way, and watch your polemical troubles disappear. If we're getting a religious establishment anyway, why not mine?

"The Christian goal for the world," Recon theologian David Chilton has explained, is "the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics." Scripturally based law would be enforced by the state with a stern rod in these republics. And not just any scriptural law, either, but a hardline-originalist version of Old Testament law--the point at which even most fundamentalists agree things start to get "scary." American evangelicals have tended to hold that the bloodthirsty pre-Talmudic Mosaic code, with its quick resort to capital punishment, its flogging and stoning and countenancing of slavery, was mostly if not entirely superseded by the milder precepts of the New Testament (the "dispensationalist" view, as it's called). Not so, say the Reconstructionists. They reckon only a relative few dietary and ritualistic observances were overthrown.

So when Exodus 21:15-17 prescribes that cursing or striking a parent is to be punished by execution, that's fine with Gary North. "When people curse their parents, it unquestionably is a capital crime," he writes. "The integrity of the family must be maintained by the threat of death." Likewise with blasphemy, dealt with summarily in Leviticus 24:16: "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him."

Reconstructionists provide the most enthusiastic constituency for stoning since the Taliban seized Kabul. "Why stoning?" asks North. "There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Thrift and ubiquity aside, "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." You might even say that like square dances or quilting bees, they represent the kind of hands-on neighborliness so often missed in this impersonal era. "That modern Christians never consider the possibility of the reintroduction of stoning for capital crimes," North continues, "indicates how thoroughly humanistic concepts of punishment have influenced the thinking of Christians." And he may be right about that last point, you know.


The Recons are keenly aware of the P.R. difficulties such views pose as they become more widely known. Brian Abshire writes in the January Chalcedon Report, the official magazine of Rushdoony's institute, that the "judicial sanctions" are "at the root" of the antipathy most evangelicals still show towards Reconstruction. Indeed, as the press spotlight has intensified, prominent religious conservatives have edged away. For a while the Coalition on Revival (COR), an umbrella group set up to "bring America back to its biblical foundations" by identifying common ground among Christian right activists of differing theological backgrounds, allowed leading Reconstructionists to chum around with such figures as televangelist D. James Kennedy (whose Coral Ridge Ministries also employed militant Reconstructionist George Grant as a vice president) and National Association of Evangelicals lobbyist Robert Dugan.

In recent years, however, the COR has lost many of its best-known members; former Virginia lieutenant governor candidate Mike Farris, for example, told The Washington Post that he left the group because "it started heading to a theocracy...and I don't believe in a theocracy." John Whitehead, a Rushdoony protégé who, with Chalcedon assistance, launched the Rutherford Institute to pursue religious litigation, has moved with some vigor to disavow his old mentor's views.

Prominent California philanthropist Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., who has given Rushdoony's operations more than $700,000 over the years, may also be loosening his ties. According to the June 30, 1996, Orange County Register, Ahmanson has departed the Chalcedon board and says he "does not embrace all of Rushdoony's teachings." An heir of the Home Savings bank fortune, Ahmanson has also been an important donor to numerous
other groups, including the Claremont Institute, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and--just to show how complicated life gets--the Reason Foundation, the publisher of this magazine (for projects not associated with its publication).


The continuing, extensive Reconstructionist presence in fields like the home schooling movement poses for libertarians an obvious question: How serious do differences have to become before it becomes inappropriate to overlook them in an otherwise good cause? The printed program of last year's Separation of School & State Alliance convention constituted an odd ideological mix in which certified good guys such as Sheldon Richman, Jim Bovard, and Don Boudreaux alternated with Chalcedon stalwarts like Samuel Blumenfeld, Howard Phillips, and Rushdoony himself.

Lest such relations become unduly frictionless, here's a clip-and-save sampler of Reconstructionist quotes to keep on hand:

On the link between reason and liberty: "Reason itself is not an objective `given' but is itself a divinely created instrument employed by the unregenerate to further their attack on God." The "appeal to reason as final arbiter" must be rejected; "if man is permitted autonomy in one sphere he will soon claim autonomy in all spheres....We therefore deny every expression of human autonomy--liberal, conservative or libertarian." Thus affirmed Andrew Sandlin, in the January Chalcedon Report.

Intellectual liberty (other religions department): Hindus, Muslims, and the like would still be free to practice their rites "in the privacy of your own home....But you would not be allowed to proselytize and undermine the order of the state....every civil order protects its foundations," wrote the late Recon theologian Greg Bahnsen. Bahnsen added that the interdiction applies to "someone [who] comes and proselytizes for another god or another final authority (and by the way, that god may be man)."

Intellectual liberty (where secularists fit in department): "All sides of the humanistic spectrum are now, in principle, demonic; communists and conservatives, anarchists and socialists, fascists and republicans," explains Rushdoony. "When someone tries to undermine the commitment to Jehovah which is fundamental to the civil order of a godly state--then that person needs to be restrained by the magistrate...those who will not acknowledge Jehovah as the ultimate authority behind the civil law code which the magistrate is enforcing would be punished and repressed," wrote Bahnsen.

On ultimate goals: "So let us be blunt about it," says Gary North. "We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."


Contributing Editor Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and author of The Excuse Factory: How Employment Law Is Paralyzing the American Workplace (The Free Press).

 

[fossten]

Well, that's a long article that says nothing. Reconstructionists do not represent anywhere near a substantial fraction of the whole of evangelical thought. I've never even heard of them before, and I find their views so questionable as to cause me to think that the writer just made them up.

Rushdoony sounds like a Heaven's Gate or Jim Jones type. A total wacko. He certainly disagrees with God, who allows us free will. Certainly a fringe element waaaaaaaay out there on a limb. They certainly don't think anything remotely resembling what I think. But I guess you guys wouldn't know that, since you've never asked what I think.

 

[TheDude]

"...he said, brightly illustrating his sheer colossal ignorance of the newsbusters site."

You're absolutely right that I am ignorant to newsbusters since I have never visited it. But if some random guys rant qualifies as valid and important news for a site labeled "News Busters", well, let's just say it is indicative of how pathetic that site must be.

 

[Marcus]

I'll start taking Newsbusters seriously the minute you start taking Media Matters for America seriously. LOL

 

[MAC1]

I'll start taking Newsbusters seriously the minute you start taking Media Matters for America seriously. LOL

I glanced at the homepage of the Media Matters for America Web site. It's simply a partisan pro-liberal site that has it's own spin on the issues.

From what I read about Rosie O'Donnell's comments about the Catholic Church is that she apparently has some resentment issues stemming from her memories of Catholic mass. Her criticisms of the way the Catholic church, including Pop Benedict handled allegations of sexual assaults by pedophile priests, however, merely mirror the outrage shared by many Catholics.

But her assertion that "radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America" is ridiculous. I suspect her anger is a result of Americans lack of support for same sex marriage and unwillingness to accept homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle. In other words, she is venting her frustrations over the lack of support for gay marriage and laws such as the Defense of Marriage Act. Obviously, however, the lack of acceptance for same sex marriage transcends religious beliefs. Many states have implemented laws or constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. On November 2, 2004, 11 states banned same sex marriage. Recently, the Supreme Court of the State of Washing upheld the state’s ban on gay marriage.

Clearly, it’s not just Christians that oppose gay marriage, as obviously it would be unlikely for Christians (radical or not) to garner enough votes to pass constitutional amendments, etc. banning gay marriage by themselves. Moreover, there are also many Christians that support either gay marriage or domestic partnerships.

There are many Rosie O’Donnell’s out there that look for a scapegoat to blame for society’s problems, as they perceive them to be. Like Hitler, who blamed the Jews for all of Germany’s problems, there are the Rosie O’Donnell’s who have the same mentality. If Rosie had her way I suspect that she would line up every so-called radical Christian and have them shot—She might even pull the trigger herself.

The individual who wrote the post which is subject of this thread, is just another Rosie O'Donnell-like complainer.

 

[Marcus]

There are many Rosie O’Donnell’s out there that look for a scapegoat to blame for society’s problems, as they perceive them to be. Like Hitler, who blamed the Jews for all of Germany’s problems, there are the Rosie O’Donnell’s who have the same mentality. If Rosie had her way I suspect that she would line up every so-called radical Christian and have them shot—She might even pull the trigger herself.

Hmm, that's an almost identical argument to what you accuse her of making. How ironic.