Aaron Hanscom over at Pajamas Media makes an observation regarding Rosie O’Donnell’s comments that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Notably:

Rosie O€™Donnell might do well to remember – before declaring radical Christianity as threatening as radical Islam – that homosexuality is punishable by death under Islamic law.

Now, the problem I have is Hanscom generalizing the word “radical”. Now, what Rosie actually said was:

“Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state.”

The key words here being”where we have separation of church and state”. What I’m getting to here is Hanscom generalizes Rosie’s comments as being an overall “radical” element whereas what Rosie is saying that it is an individual threat here. In the US ( come on Rosie, “America” is not a country ), the threat is from individuals because the government basically does not involve itself in individual religious rights. However, that doesn’t protect anyone. What it does is punish those who trespass against others after the fact. So, Rosie’s wrong in her general summation that she’s any safer here than there. In a country like “America”, the “radicals” are just as free to kill her because she’s gay as they are in Iraq. In Iraq, they don’t really prosecute or punish people for killing gays. In “America”, the killer is more likely to spend some time in prison and possibly walk free than they are to be given equal justice. So, what’s terribly different in regards to the victim? One person is dead, the killer is not. Googling “hate crime” will get you all kinds of examples of violence against gays. Most of them in “America”. So, Rosie’s assumption that Christianity is as much a threat in America as radical Muslim is correct until we truly take the measures it takes to prove otherwise. ( That would be enacting the death penalty without exceptions when the evidence is overwhelming on a federal level. )

However, it’s a 100% strawman point. It’s based on the assumption that radical Christians are basically the only threat. Here, we’ve got a myriad of radical organizations. Not all of them are based on religion. The Arians for example, are based purely on a political philosophy. I’m not sure that they single out gays, but whether you’re gay or not, they can be a threat. One of the most violent has been an environmental advocacy group. If they kill you, and you’re gay, it wasn’t because you were gay. And, it wasn’t because they are radical Christians. The only difference I’m getting at is getting killed by a radical Islamist in “America” is possible. However, you’re more likely to get killed by one of the myriad of other violent groups protesting about anything you can dream up. So, what Rosie is concluding is the government makes all things equal for a terrorist. It does, but that proves nothing. It only proves you’re as likely to be threatened by a tree-hugger as a radical Islam. That’s not much of a point to make.

Now, I’m just as lost by Hanscom’s rebuttal that homosexuality is punishable by death in most Islam societies. What’s the point of that? Rosie is careful to point out the seperation of church and state, Hanscom rebuts with the example of no separation. We’re not comparing apples here. Rosie I think was trashing Christianity by pointing out it has its radical elements as well. Hanscom pointing out Islam has its radical elements as well proves nothing in regards to what Rosie was comparing. Now, what I think Rosie was getting at is that the US government doesn’t endorse any religion, which leaves them all on the same playing field, even if that playing field condones violence. What Hanscom is trying to point out is that Islam in its nature does not allow a level playing field. As screwed up as I think I am getting this entire scenario, the bottom line I think it paints is that both of these people seem to indicate, when taken together, that religion in general breeds the radicals that we have to fear.

I don’t believe that. Radicals are radicals. I fear the tree-spikers as much as I do the abortion clinic bombers as I do the jihadist as I do the Nazi. They are all terrorists with no respect for life in general. I have always felt that a terrorist is just looking for a cause to promote the instincts they already have. Someone born and living the life of a saint is not going to suddenly become a terrorist because they convert to Islam or Greenpeace. The assumption Rosie is making and Hanscom ( and others ) is rebutting is therefore moot and rather than making it a very selective us versus them, should be including all radicals. Just because you fear radical Christians doesn’t make you safe from radical Muslims or radical environmentalists. They kill indiscriminately. They kill because you are human. They kill no matter where you are. They kill because they kill. It’s just that simple.

So, Rosie, quit being so narrow and shallow that you feel compelled to put radical Christians on a level by comparing them to radical Islam. And Hanscom, quit running with the assumption Islam in general is dangerous. It dilutes all the other terrorists that probably are feeling left out right now. The last thing we need to be doing is motivating all the non-Christian and non-Muslim terrorists. Dontcha think?

Tags: Aaron-Hanscom, America, Christian, Conspiracy Theories, Islam, Media, radical, Rosie-ODonell, Supporting the Death Penalty, terrorist